Why I'm Not Giving a Sermon about Iran on the High Holidays

I’ve never quite understood the expectation that rabbis talk about current issues in the news during their Shabbat and High Holiday sermons. There are occasions when the need to do this is obvious; for example, on the Rosh Hashanah after Hurricane Katrina I gave a sermon exploring the age-old question of why bad things happen to good people and the Jewish response to tragedy. But I can’t recall a single time when I have either endorsed or opposed a specific piece of legislation from the pulpit, let alone urged congregants to contact their representatives to vote a certain way. I certainly think Judaism gives us guidance as to how we should approach the burning issues of our lives; I couldn’t be a rabbi if I didn’t believe that. But that’s a far cry from rabbis having special insights into the details of legislation greater than that of any other educated person.

But I’m beginning to think that my perspective on this question is an idiosyncratic one. I regularly  receive emails from organizations on both sides of the argument about the nuclear agreement with Iran. Some urge me to speak against the deal, others urge me to speak for it; some simply assume that I’m going to be speaking about it and therefore offer me resources to help me in writing my sermons.

I’ve never felt the need before to explain to my congregation why I’m not going to speak about a certain subject but that is exactly what the purpose of this message is -- to explain to you why I’m not going to give a sermon about the Iran nuclear agreement.

First of all, I’m not sure that I have anything to say about it that you don’t already know. We have members who know much more than I about the ins and outs of negotiating international agreements. We have congregants who understand the science better than I and congregants who understand the political dynamics better than I. While I do have a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service degree, I was hired to be your teacher in matters of Jewish thought, law and lore, not political science, international relations, or nuclear physics.

But even if I thought that I had some special insight that only I could give you, I suspect I would still not talk about Iran on the High Holidays. And the reason is simple: the debate over this issue has become so acrimonious that I fear bringing it into our sanctuary will simply be an occasion for sinat hinam (hatred) and lashon hara (evil speech) to infect the atmosphere of our holy place.

To be certain, neither side of this debate is solely responsible for the incredibly poisonous atmosphere that has been created. The liberal website Daily Kos ran a cartoon of Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, one of only two Democratic Senators who has so far said they will vote against the agreement, which called him a “traitor” and gradually changed the American flag in his office to an Israeli one. On the other side, a website lets you know whether your Senator is “standing up for America” (by opposing the deal), “standing up for Iran” (by supporting the deal), or is “on the fence.” Somehow, supporting the policy of the President is “standing up for Iran” while opposing it is “standing up for America.”

The sad irony here is that there is across-the-board agreement that Iran must never under any circumstances be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. The argument is over the best way to make sure that doesn’t happen, and I submit that neither side can say with absolute certainty whether the agreement will in fact make it harder or easier for Iran to go nuclear. Either course of action carries with it risks both known and unknown.

Additionally, despite the millions of dollars being poured into lobbying and advertisements, despite the fact that a significant number of Jewish Federations and Jewish Community Relations Councils have taken positions against the deal, it is almost certainly going to go into effect. According to the rather bizarre “Corker-Cardin Compromise” which governs the vote on this agreement, the agreement goes into effect unless two thirds of both the Senate and the House vote to disapprove. While it’s quite likely that a resolution of disapproval will get a majority in both houses, it is almost certainly not going to garner the 67 votes it needs in the Senate to override President Obama’s inevitable veto. Whether this is good or bad, whether you or I or AIPAC or anyone else agree or disagree with it is irrelevant, it’s what’s going to happen.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago in a discussion of Masada vs. Yavneh, there comes a time when we need to make peace with the inevitable and salvage what we can from a difficult situation. Instead of continuing to fight with each other about the Iran agreement, we ought to concentrate on what truly unites us. That is what I think High Holiday sermons should be about, and that is what I hope to do in a few weeks.

L’shalom,

Rabbi Charles L. Arian

Masada or Yavneh?

One of my favorite texts in all of rabbinic literature is Avot D’Rabbi Natan 4:21, the tale of a discussion between Rabbi Joshua and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai after the destruction of the Temple -- through which they both had lived. Rabbi Joshua is grieved at the sight of the Temple ruins; Rabban Yochanan comforts him, saying that we have another means of atonement which is no less efficacious -- acts of lovingkindness (gemilut chasadim.)

Rabban Yochanan is a fascinating figure. He was the head of the Sanhedrin (that is what the title Rabban means) during the revolt against the Romans from 65 to 73 C.E. Shortly before the Temple was destroyed, he had himself smuggled out of Jerusalem and struck a deal with the Roman army, allowing him to relocate the Sanhedrin from Jerusalem to Yavneh on the Mediterranean coast. It was Rabban Yochanan’s pragmatism in realizing that there was no point in fighting the world’s only superpower that allowed Judaism to continue. The Zealots continued to fight, resulting in the destruction of the Temple. Some of those who survived retreated to Masada where they continued to hold out for another three years, eventually committing mass suicide in 73 C.E.

There is something paradoxical in that Masada has become a place of pilgrimage but few American Jews have ever been to Yavneh or know the name of Yochanan ben Zakkai. The Zealots of Masada were certainly brave but their course of action lead to a dead end -- the destruction of Jerusalem, hundreds of thousands of Jews slain or enslaved, and ultimately mass suicide (certainly a violation of Torah law). Rabban Yochanan was denounced by the Zealots as a traitor and a sellout but the establishment of the Academy at Yavneh lead to the creation of the Mishnah and the transformation of Judaism from a system of sacrificial worship focused on one geographical location to the “portable homeland” of Torah study, prayer, and acts of lovingkindness. 

We may for whatever reason admire the Zealots of Masada but we are here today because of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and his followers.

אוֹי-נָא לָנוּ כִּי חָטָאנוּ -- Woe unto us, for we have sinned (Lamentations 5:16)

I went to sleep last night distressed because an Israeli man who wears the garb of a pious Jew stabbed six participants in the Jerusalem Gay Pride parade yesterday. I woke up this morning to learn that overnight, Jewish terrorists who also wear the garb of pious Jews set fire to a Palestinian home in the West Bank, burning alive an 18 month old baby and severely injuring several other members of the same family.  On the walls of the house the attackers spray painted Hebrew graffiti, one saying “Revenge” and the other saying “Long Live King Mashiach.”

The attack on the Gay Pride parade is almost unfathomable in that the exact same assailant had done the exact same thing ten years earlier. He was convicted, sentenced to 12 years in prison, and was released three months ago, early, for good behavior (as is the norm in Israeli prisons.) I do not understand how the Israeli Police, knowing of his past behavior, that he was unrepentant, and knowing of the Gay Pride parade and its route, let this person within 100 yards of the parade. It’s simply shocking.

The arson attack unfortunately came as no surprise. It is part of a series of “Price Tag” attacks which an extremist fringe of radical settlers conduct every time a government or court decision goes against them when they seek to build on privately-owned Arab land and so on. While the fact that Israel remains a country of laws and that therefore court decisions often do go against the settlers is cause for pride, nevertheless the quiet toleration and looking the other way when these kinds of attacks occur is simply not acceptable.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has forcefully condemned both of these attacks, and I absolutely believe his condemnations are sincere. Nevertheless, there are parties and Knesset members within his coalition that tolerate if not actively encourage this type of violence. For example, earlier this week Motti Yogev, a Knesset Member from the “Jewish Home” party which is part of the governing coalition, called for the Supreme Court building to be bulldozed after it ruled against the expansion of the Bet El settlement. Although his words were condemned, no further action has been taken nor is any contemplated.

Today is Tu b’Av, the (very minor) Jewish holiday which celebrates love. Tomorrow morning we will read Parshat VaEtchanan which contains the following words:

וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ

While we normally read this as “v’ahavta,” “you shall love the Lord your God,” the Hebrew text as we find it in the Torah scroll has no vowels. Therefore it can also be read as “v’eyhavta,” “you shall cause the Lord your God to be loved.” How do we cause God to be loved? By loving others, gay or straight, Arab or Jew, black or white, native or immigrant, Latino or Anglo, able-bodied or disabled. Unless we love our neighbor we do not love God, no matter what garb we wear.

Mexico and the Iranian Nuclear Agreement

Keleigh, Berkeleigh and I returned late Tuesday night from a week’s vacation in Mexico. Our trip was planned well before my recent illness and surgery. We had considered cancelling -- I always buy trip insurance -- but my surgeon said there was no reason to cancel and in fact, swimming in the Caribbean would be good for my recovery and for the healing of the surgical incision.

I do lots of research before travelling to any destination and I spent a good deal of time on the Tripadvisor.com discussion boards for the Yucatan Peninsula, the area of Mexico to which we travelled. The amount of fear and misinformation floating around is just extraordinary. People are told that travel to anywhere in Mexico is extremely dangerous; or that it’s OK to go there as long as you don’t leave your resort (the resorts are gated and have their own security). People are advised not to rent a car because the roads are terrible, the police will stop you and demand bribes, and the rental car companies will cheat you.

While there is a lot of violence in Mexico, most of it is fighting between rival drug-smuggling gangs and takes place in areas near the US-Mexico border, over 2000 miles away from where we were. Advising someone to avoid all of Mexico because of violence in Juarez is like advising someone to avoid all of the United States because of violence in Chicago. Playa del Carmen and the rest of the Riviera Maya is incredibly safe, certainly much safer than most US urban areas. We rented a car and explored up and down the Caribbean coast, went shopping in Mexican department stores like Chedraui and Soriana, and even had dinner at the home of a worker at our resort whom we befriended. All of this was aided by the fact that I still remember much of my high school and college Spanish, but I am sure we would have had just as much fun and just as enlightening experience even if I didn’t.

The point of all this is to say that one is generally better off making decisions from a basis of actual knowledge rather than fear or misinformation. Over the next 60 days the US Congress will be called upon to affirm or reject the recent agreement between Iran and the six major world powers. It doesn’t surprise me, but it does disappoint me, that so many organizations had reached a position either for or against the agreement even before the ink was dry.

There is really no reason for you to look to your rabbi for advice about a nuclear weapons treaty, as I have no particular expertise in this area (it was not covered in the rabbinical school curriculum in the early 1980s when I was in school). I will tell you that at first glance the fact that the Iranians will receive notice before inspectors visit their facilities raises some serious concerns -- as one CNN commentator put it, “how many violations would the Health Department find if they had to give restaurants advance notice of inspections?” But other articles I’ve read point out that nuclear facilities are not like restaurant kitchens and if something is happening which isn’t supposed to happen, the evidence can’t be just hidden in a few hours or days.

Most of the smartest commentary from folks like Jeffrey Goldberg, Aaron David Miller, and Robert Satloff has been ambivalent. Is the deal a disaster? No. Is it perfect? No. Will failure to ratify it lead inevitably to war? No. Is it better than no deal at all? Maybe.

My plea and my prayer as you consider your own position, and as you consider your communications with Sens. Cardin and Mikulski and Rep. Delaney, is that you read as much as you can from knowledgeable and reputable sources. And that we all keep our eye on the prize -- no one on either side of the debate wants to see Iran get a nuclear weapon. Those with whom you disagree want the same thing as you, they just differ with you on the best way to achieve it. Let’s keep the discussion civil in the days and weeks ahead.

Passover Thoughts -- Indiana and Elsewhere

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said that “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” As Jews, we can take pride in the fact that it is our story of our liberation from Egypt which has, more than any other, inspired the human quest to make the world a more just place.

In the last week or so, this country has seen what I believe to be a decisive turn in the struggle for equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans. As I write this, the Indiana legislature is revising its recently passed “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” to eliminate the possibility that the law will be used to allow businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians. The Georgia legislature is holding back on a similar bill -- after a number of Conservative rabbis were among the religious leaders testifying against it. The Arkansas legislature is revising its bill after Gov. Asa Hutchinson threatened to veto it, spurred on, he said, by a request from his own son.

I recognize that within the Conservative movement, within our congregation and in our society as a whole there is a spectrum of beliefs regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. My own position on the issue in terms of halacha is that I would if asked be willing to officiate at a same-sex ceremony between two Jews, but it is not kiddushin, consecrated Jewish marriage. This position has the “virtue” of seeming too restrictive to most gays and lesbians while at the same time seeming radically permissive to those on the more traditional end of the Conservative spectrum.

It should also be noted that federal and state laws carve out a great deal of autonomy for religious organizations to handle these issues in accordance with their own beliefs. No clergy person can be forced to officiate at a marriage he/she thinks is not religiously acceptable. No congregation can be forced to accept any person as a member or even to comply with antidiscrimination laws as long as the religious body asserts that its actions are doctrinally required. For example, a religious group that feels homosexuality is a sin is free to discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring clergy, religious school teachers, and even church secretaries or janitors if it asserts that this is what their religion requires. This is unlikely to change any time soon, nor should it.

But a pizzeria, a bakery or a florist shop is not a church. As Charles M. Blow wrote Wednesday in the New York Times: “when you enter the sphere of commerce in America — regardless of your “deeply held religious beliefs” — you have entered a nondiscriminatory zone in which your personal beliefs are checked at the register, and each customer is treated equally.

This is not to say that a gay couple on the eve of commitment should want to patronize a bigoted baker for a wedding cake, but rather that the refusal to render services based on that bigotry is untenable.”

My paternal grandfather was one of six children but only five of them lived long enough to migrate from Belarus to the United States. According to family legend, one brother died when he fell ill during the week before Easter and the Christian doctor in their town, acting from his own “deeply held religious beliefs”, refused to treat Jews that week. So I am not predisposed to accept “deeply held religious beliefs” as a reason to discriminate against other people in commerce or the public square.

This Pesach, as we celebrate and give thanks to God for our freedom, let us commit once again to helping to “bend the arc” towards greater justice for all.

A Report from the AIPAC Policy Conference

   Earlier this week I was one of 16,000 attendees at the annual Policy Conference of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Policy Conference is the major gathering of what AIPAC calls the “pro-Israel community.” I want to share with you some of my thoughts and impressions from the Conference.

            The Policy Conference is always a newsworthy event with high-level representation from both Israel (often the Prime Minister) and the US (sometimes the President or Vice-President, always a Cabinet-level officer.) This year it was even more so as it coincided with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress and all of the controversy surrounding that event. Almost until the last minute there was drama surrounding the lineup of speakers. Would Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog also appear? (He didn’t, although he was invited.) Would the White House snub the conference by refusing to send anyone at all, as a way of showing their displeasure with Netanyahu? (In fact, both National Security Advisor Susan Rice and UN Ambassador Samantha Power spoke -- both considered Cabinet level positions.)

            Although I have attended other AIPAC events before, this was my first Policy Conference. It was an extremely impressive and well-managed undertaking. I registered for all of my breakout sessions online and received my delegate credentials in the mail several days before the conference. AIPAC’s information system knew not only that I am a rabbi but that I am a Conservative rabbi, a member of the Rabbinical Assembly, and automatically added three rabbinic programs and one Rabbinical Assembly program to my schedule. The AIPAC Smartphone App kept track of my program, told me what rooms my various sessions were in and even mapped my way to each room. All of this avoided the dreaded check-in line as well as endless announcements for room changes and so on.

            In general I was extremely impressed with all of the details of running a conference. Seating in the plenary sessions was by lanyard color -- the more you donated the closer to the stage you sat, except that rabbis got lavender lanyards which allowed us to sit with the $1200 donors rather than in the general section. Multiple sections and multiple entrances meant that despite the crowd of 16,000, there wasn’t a huge line to get in to the sessions. For other special interest programs (like those for rabbis) various ribbons attached to your credentials got you into the session, saving the necessity of checking people in at the door. A massive kosher cafeteria was set up in the basement of the convention center. There was never too long of a wait to buy food, and while the food was expensive it wasn’t outrageously so and it was decent if not gourmet.

            The production values were impressive as well. Lots of video screens, some showing the action on the stage and others showing complementary photos or graphics. The sound quality was excellent. At every session there was a bottle of water and a small snack placed at every seat.  All in all, it was like a combination of a political convention, a pep rally and a rock concert.

            The main focus of the event of course was the US - Israel relationship. Whatever the justification or necessity of Prime Minister Netanyahu addressing Congress, it was clear that his plan to do so had angered the White House and put many Democratic legislators in a difficult position. It also carried with it the potential of alienating many rank-and-file Democrats and thus making AIPAC’s job tougher. Remember, AIPAC’s goal is to strengthen support for Israel in the government and the U.S. public across-the-board, a responsibility it takes quite seriously. And so there were a number of panels specifically geared towards making the case for Israel from a progressive perspective, reminding us that for all it’s flaws and problems Israel is light years ahead of its neighbors in women’s status, LGBT rights, and in so many other measures of what makes for an enlightened society. One such panel which I attended featured CNN contributor and Al Gore’s campaign manager Donna Brazile, and another featured Israeli author Ari Shavit of “My Promised Land” fame.

            I want to share a few thoughts about some of the plenary talks and the whole controversy surrounding the Prime Minister’s congressional address. I claim no greater expertise in politics or foreign policy than anyone else in our congregation, nor do I speak for anyone but myself. The purpose of my comments is to try and interpret what I saw and heard and make the disagreements we have intelligible.

            The first thing that needs to be said, in my opinion, is that speakers across the spectrum made it very clear that the goal and necessity is preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The argument is not about whether Iran should be allowed to go nuclear but rather about what is the best way to prevent Iran from going nuclear. That fact is sometimes obscured in all the rhetoric.

            The second thing to bear in mind is that for all their disagreements with Israel, the Arab states fear a nuclear Iran as much as if not more than Israel. A number of speakers pointed out that although the whole world knows Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, none of the Arab states have felt the need to react by getting their own bomb. But if Iran goes nuclear, they have made it clear, the Arab states will want nuclear weapons as well, thus destabilizing the entire region.

            I’ve made no secret of the fact that I thought Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to speak to Congress was unwise. Of course, time will tell whether this proves to be the case or not. His decision did backfire in at least one respect; Democratic senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey held up his own bill to increase sanctions against Iran until after both the Israeli elections and the March 24 deadline for the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Where it once seemed likely that Congress would pass the Kirk-Menendez bill by a veto-proof majority, it now seems that this won’t happen due to some Democrats’ dissatisfaction with the perceived insult to President Obama by the Speaker and the Prime Minister.

            Having said that, I thought the Prime Minister’s speeches at AIPAC and to Congress were both very good. (He gave essentially the same speech both days.) He made it very clear that he respects both the President and the Presidency; that he regrets his speech has been perceived as a slight to the President; and that he appreciates the support the United States continues to provide Israel politically, financially and militarily. He made the case why he thinks the proposed deal with Iran is dangerous: it would allow Iran to keep many elements of its nuclear infrastructure, it is only for ten years, and Iran has a history of violating agreements it signs.

            If this is the case -- and it certainly is -- why then is the Obama administration moving forward? National Security Advisor Susan Rice made the case in a speech studded with Hebrew phrases and references to her strong support of Israel going back to her first visit there at age 14.

            The question hinges on multilateralism. Is it important for the attempt to prevent Iran from going nuclear to be a joint project of the US with Russia, France, China, Germany and the UK? Or is it sufficient for the US and Israel to go it alone? While it would be great if Iran could be left without even civilian nuclear components, Iran will never agree and the rest of the world will not support that demand, Ambassador Rice said. If the US ramps up its demands Iran will walk away from the table, the other countries in the negotiations will drop their sanctions and Iran will actually be closer to developing nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister thinks Iran can be forced to agree to a more onerous treaty by threat of greater sanctions; the President and the State Department think that won’t work. If the talks collapse and there is no treaty and Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, the only alternative will be military action. Given our recent experiences in Iran and Afghanistan, is that something the US public will support?

            I am grateful to the anonymous Kehilat Shalom member who paid my attendance to this Conference. It helped me to better understand what is at stake in the debate over the Iranian nuclear negotiations and where the differences in the two approaches lie. It made me feel good to be in the same room as 16,000 other Americans who are deeply committed to a strong and secure Israel, even as we might disagree over other political issues as well as what is the best way to keep Israel secure and strong. And I gained increasing respect for AIPAC in its organizational abilities and its commitment to a bipartisan approach. I’ve already signed up for AIPAC’s Rabbinic Seminar in August.

The Uneaten TV Dinner

In the last few days there has been quite a kerfuffle in the Jewish press and blogs about United Synagogue Youth's International Convention deciding to amend its policy which forbade USY board members from any relationship "which could be construed as interdating." Instead of a blanket prohibition, the new language encourages USY leaders to serve as positive examples of proper Jewish dating behavior, including the importance of dating other Jews but also dealing with how we treat those with whom we are in a relationship. Sadly, this has been portrayed as USY "abandoning its standards." But why is Conservative Judaism so fixated on rules and standards?

The author Zev Chafets served as director of the Israel government press office under the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin. He accompanied the first delegation of Israeli journalists to visit Egypt, shortly after President Anwar Sadat’s historic visit to Jerusalem in November 1977.

The delegation was travelling under the auspices of the Israeli government, and all Israeli government delegations are required to eat kosher food. So at the request of the Israeli government, the Egyptians provided kosher frozen meals in the hotel where the delegates were staying. (You can imagine that in 1977 this was not an easy thing for them to do.) But the Israeli journalists were all non-observant and preferred to enjoy the hummus, tahina and kebobs from the hotel’s regular buffet, so the pile of TV dinners sat untouched. Finally one of the Egyptian officials said to Chafets that he was starting to understand Judaism. Apparently, he said, Jewish law requires that the kosher food be present but no one actually needs to eat it.

There are times when I think that the Egyptian official was onto something. Certainly he can be forgiven for his assumptions.  Conservative Judaism in particular seems at times to be primarily about enforcing policies that no one really wants to follow. Congregations will be torn apart due to arguments over including or excluding certain prayers, yet how many of the people participating in these arguments pray on a regular basis?

When I lived in Baltimore I sometimes attended an Orthodox synagogue not far from our apartment. This synagogue always had “seu’dah sh’lishit,” the so-called “third meal” between afternoon and evening services on Saturday. But one year on the Shabbat before Passover, the synagogue kitchen had already been cleaned for Passover and thus the synagogue could not provide this required meal. Congregants were instructed simply to bring their own food for “seu’dah sh’lishit.” I was astonished. Every Conservative synagogue with which I am familiar has an elaborate kashrut policy. Some do not allow any outside food at all unless it is prepared under rabbinic supervision and comes into the synagogue sealed. Others allow congregants to prepare food at home but only if they follow certain policies and procedures and if the rabbi has approved their kitchen as sufficiently kosher. No Conservative synagogue would simply tell all of its members to bring their own food to a meal, certainly not to one actually held right there in the shul.

How is it that this Orthodox synagogue could allow something that no Conservative synagogue would consider? Actually, it’s quite simple. The shul in question is not the type of Orthodox synagogue where almost everyone drives to shul on Shabbat but parks a block away. Everyone in that synagogue actually lives an Orthodox lifestyle and therefore the synagogue is able to assume that all its members keep kosher. There is no need for an elaborate policy designed to make sure that the members don’t bring non-kosher food to the synagogue. No one would dream of doing so.

Many of our rules and policies come into place precisely because of the conflict between what the Conservative Movement and its individual bodies stand for institutionally and the lifestyle that its members actually practice individually. At times the Conservative movement has dealt with this dissonance head-on and legitimized in theory what everyone was already doing in practice anyway. The classic example is the Rabbinical Assembly’s 1950 responsum which permitted driving to and from the synagogue on Shabbat. This was clearly a case of yielding to necessity. The post-World War II exodus to the suburbs meant that fewer and fewer congregants lived within walking distance of their synagogues. The synagogues often followed their members out to the suburbs (as for example B’nai Israel which was once in the District but now is in Rockville) but this of course often left a cadre of members who still lived near the old location. In addition, suburbs are often spread out and lack sidewalks, so that almost everyone came to believe that walking to synagogue was not really an option. The 1950 responsum took this reality into account, but specified that it was permissible only to drive to synagogue and back home -- not anywhere else. In 1950, there may well have been Conservative Jews who followed that limitation. Many Conservative rabbis and cantors -- including me -- still do, but I wonder how many Conservative lay people actually do so.

But wasn’t Orthodox Judaism impacted by the rise of suburbia too? To some extent, yes -- and thus the phenomenon I described above of driving to shul and parking a block away. Some Orthodox synagogues with large numbers of non-observant members chain their parking lots shut on Shabbat so their members don’t park there on Shabbat and make it seem as if the synagogue is condoning Shabbat desecration. One Baltimore Orthodox synagogue (not the one I described above!) actually sells its parking lot to a non-Jew every Friday afternoon and buys it back every Saturday night (I swear I am not making this up.) But the kind of Orthodox synagogue I am describing, with few members who actually live an Orthodox lifestyle, is rapidly disappearing. More and more, Orthodox synagogues consist mostly of practicing Orthodox Jews.

Such a person does not buy a house only to then discover that the synagogue is too far to walk. He or she finds out where the synagogue is located and then looks to find a house within walking distance. Houses within walking distance to an Orthodox synagogue sell for more than similar houses that are not within walking distance, because Orthodox families are willing to pay more for them.

The reason for this is really quite simple. Orthodox Jews actually believe that God wants them to walk to shul on Shabbat. They don’t believe that God said it’s “a nice idea” to do so. They don’t believe that it just makes for a nicer, more cohesive community if everyone lives near the shul and walks. They believe that driving to shul is a direct violation of an explicit divine command.

And we don’t. I have spoken and written before about our insistence on translating the word “mitzvah” as “good deed” when in fact it means “commandment.” But to believe in a “commandment” requires us to believe in a God who gives commands and means them to be obeyed.

The reasons why most Jews no longer believe in that type of God are complicated and varied. Some Jews feel that the Holocaust means God no longer has a right to demand anything from the Jewish people. Some people feel that discoveries in the fields of history and archeology debunk the traditional understanding of divine revelation. Some, perhaps many, Jews, don’t really think about their beliefs much at all. They do what feels comfortable because it furthers a way of life they find meaningful.

But “because God said so” doesn’t carry much weight with the overwhelming majority of Jews, because while they may believe in God they don’t really believe that “He said so.” And so, we fall back on rules and policies which we attempt to enforce, even though nobody but perhaps the rabbi and/or cantor actually observes them. There has got to be a better way. We need a theology that makes sense to modern Jews and instills in us a sense of obligation that does not fall back on invocation of an authority no one really accepts. If not, our Judaism may well end up like that pile of uneaten kosher TV dinners in the hotel room in Cairo.