An Orthodox crisis of legitimacy

ON MARCH 20, I devoted this column to a consideration of shifting allegiances within the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations, and the effect these might have on other Orthodox groupings, such as the United Synagogue, the Federation of Synagogues, and the Union itself beyond its Stamford Hill redoubt. At that time I was unaware of critical developments within the United Synagogue, the long-term implications of which may be no less dramatic, perhaps more so.

In 1991, the United Synagogue invited the then head of the Dixons retail chain, Stanley Kalms, to carry out an inquiry into every aspect of the United Synagogue’s work. Kalms delivered the most comprehensive exposé of financial mismanagement in the history of British Jewry. But his report focused also upon the clientele whom the United Synagogue professed to serve.

Two-thirds of respondents classified themselves as “traditional” but not Sabbath observant, and another 23 per cent identified themselves as weak observers of Orthodox practice. Indeed, only 10 per cent of survey respondents were strictly Orthodox. Yet all were United Synagogue members. “What would happen [Kalms asked] if the United Synagogue and the Judaism it represents did not exist? Our research suggests 10 per cent of its members would join synagogues to the right of the United Synagogue. The remaining 90 per cent would either join the Masorti, Reform or Liberal movements or would not join a synagogue at all.”

These words are more ominous still in the light of the story I am going to tell. It concerns one of the largest United Synagogue constituents, a community in north-west London that advertises itself as vibrant and Modern Orthodox, with a reputation for innovation and what is termed a “non-judgmental” approach. But certain “red lines” cannot be crossed — or rather cannot be crossed if the synagogue wishes to remain within the Orthodox fold.

Earlier this year, certain matters relating to this particular synagogue were brought to the attention of the United Synagogue’s Beth Din and Chief Rabbi Mirvis. They concerned the conduct of this particular synagogue’s presiding rabbi, who it appears had agreed to play some part in the celebration of the controversial wedding of the son of one of the synagogue’s members.

Now I agree that a rabbi’s lot is not a happy one. So I have some — but not much — sympathy for the rabbi faced with such a predicament. The son of a prominent congregant had reportedly decided to marry a girl who was not halachically Jewish. There was no question of the wedding taking place in his synagogue — or indeed in any synagogue under the aegis of the chief rabbi.

But, whether to promote his own selfinterest or under congregational pressure, the rabbi decided to take part in and, therefore, give a certain Orthodox legitimacy and imprimatur to a “Jewish” wedding that it is argued had no Orthodox validity. In so doing, he has of course called into question not merely his own Orthodox credentials but those of the synagogue as well.

I am, however, less concerned with the conduct of the rabbi than with the reaction of the United Synagogue’s Beth Din when these matters were brought to its attention three months ago. What specific sanction, an angry former synagogue member wanted to know, would the Beth Din apply?

On March 18, the Beth Din’s senior Dayan, Menachem Gelley, replied that the rabbi would merely “be put on notice not to deviate from normal traditional practice in all areas without consulting with the C[hief] R[abbi] and B[eth] D[in].” And, on April 30, Ari Jesner, the chief executive of the Office of the Chief Rabbi, insisted that his boss and the Beth Din had dealt with the miscreant rabbi “in a manner they deem appropriate.”

This is not only an astonishingly meek response, but totally inappropriate. It suggests that Chief Rabbi Mirvis is fully prepared to tolerate deviations from normative Orthodoxy. If so, I am bound to ask what the reaction to this will be of the 10 per cent or so of United Synagogue members whom Stanley Kalms identified as practitioners of Orthodox Judaism.

Is the chief rabbi willing to tolerate this kind of deviation?