I love our congregation. I love it for our supportive congregants who daily make a difference, lift up the lives of those in need, and even lift me up when I am feeling burdened by the pain and loss of our members. I love our congregants for the challenges they pose to me and for the diversity of opinions to which I must respond. In recent weeks, two people have approached me with polar opposite views on Amendment One and our role as a congregation and my role as a rabbi.
It was at our March Congregational brunch that a congregant challenged me with passion: “Rabbi, why is our congregation not taking a stand on Amendment One? What happened to the political activism of our past? Just look at the role of religious leaders during the Civil Rights movement. Where would we be without them?” Another congregant made it to my office this past Friday with an urgent matter, “Rabbi, I have always appreciated your unifying voice. Why would you speak out on Amendment One and risk being divisive, especially in this time when you want to ensure the financial stability of our congregation?”
I care deeply about civil rights and human rights. I care deeply about the line between politics and religion and do not want to overstep that place that would be unethical or would alienate. I care deeply about the financial stability of our congregation. Leaving our Beth El children a building that is paid off and a sufficient endowment that enables our congregation to always be sustainable and never a burden on the next generation is one of my goals. It will allow Judaism in Charlotte to always survive and thrive.
It is for all of the above reasons that I search my soul and reflect deeply on the voice I have and the voice I use. I do not accept the multiple requests that come my way weekly for taking stands on pressing social justice issues and weigh each request carefully. So how do I choose, and why did I choose to stand last week with thirty other clergy in speaking out against Amendment One?
Let me start with the choices of Temple Beth El. How does our congregation choose which issues to become involved with? There are some issues on which our congregation has passed resolutions – Preventing Domestic Abuse and Supporting Affordable Housing. Dozens, if not hundreds, of congregants, had spent time and resources through Beth El volunteering to help victims of domestic abuse and working to shelter the homeless. Hence, congregants went through the process of writing congregational resolutions, creating forums for congregational input, and bringing the given resolutions to the Board, which affirmed congregants’ rights to work on the issue as a congregation.
To answer the question of the first congregant, “Rabbi, why is our congregation not taking a stand on Amendment One?” the simple answer is no one drafted a resolution, created forums for congregational input, and brought it the Board for debate so that they could decide the best path forward. Dozens of congregations in Charlotte and many of the synagogues in the Raleigh/Durham area have done this and are working fervently on this issue. They are distributing “Vote Against Amendment One” yard signs at their Onegs and even their Youth Groups are educating their communities.
Had the Board been posed with this issue, they would have likely asked several questions. First, can we legally work on this issue? They would have learned that in order to keep our not-for-profit 501(c)(3) status, we cannot spend more than five percent of our resources on this. On one hand, Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center shared that no congregation has ever had their not-for-profit status revoked for this reason. On the other, our legal advisors to our Board feel that working on Amendment One is entering a legal gray area with which they do not feel comfortable. Had the Board been brought this issue they would have additionally asked, “Is this work in agreement with our Reform Jewish tradition and does this issue matter deeply to our congregational community?” They would have looked to the social justice center of our Reform Judaism (the Religious Action Center) and found that the movement has taken a stand for decades on GLBT equality and in particular, over the past sixteen years, on marriage equality. Lastly, they would have asked, “For our congregation, is this issue divisive and controversial?” That one is harder to evaluate though the forums would have helped.
While this issue was not brought to the Congregational Board and hence, we are not working on Amendment One, the Keshet Committee, which has a primary goal of GLBT education and advocacy, has provided several forums for education on this legislative issue that impacts them directly and confronts them so painfully.
Our Beth El clergy, then, are left with the choice of acting on their own. We can choose to take a stand on a political issue all the while recognizing the risks of creating discomfort, or worse, alienation of those congregants who hold different views, or we can choose to remain silent or support an issue in the background rather than out front.
There are many important legislative issues out there about which we have religious feelings – healthcare, birth control, immigration, so I can hear some of our congregants asking “So how do you choose Rabbi Schindler? Why would you step on the line of religion and politics on Amendment One?”
This one touched a chord. Amendment One discriminates and alienates. If you do not believe in the right of those who are gay and lesbian to marry, there are already laws on North Carolina’s books prohibiting same-sex marriage. This proposed amendment was put forth to further embed prejudice against those who are gay and lesbian into our North Carolina foundational document. It takes away the legal protections of so many of our own congregants in domestic partnerships.
As I said to my kids in the car, “I speak out on this issue because this law echoes in my mind the Nuremburg Laws which prevented Jews from marrying Germans. It also barred Jews from being professors in colleges and Jewish children from going to public schools. Your grandfather had private tutors for this precise reason.”
My father, their grandfather, was born in Munich and lost his childhood of normalcy and much of his family tree through the Holocaust. Not speaking out against this amendment to our North Carolina Constitution that similarly discriminates was not possible for me. In recognition of the congregants who are uncomfortable with my taking such stands, I choose to speak out on issues only after deep reflection and dialogue with our congregants and leadership. As I speak cautiously, and I pray, most often wisely in public, I hear your voices in mine and I work to honor the diversity of feelings that exist in our Beth El midst.
My door is open. My email always gets read. Your voice impacts mine. Your opinions and dialogue help me grow, and us to grow, always.
Rabbi Judy Schindler
7 Responses
Rabbi Judy, thank you for sharing your thought process. While I am strongly opposed to Amendment 1, I respect your decision as an individual rabbi to speak out against it. Thanks for all that you, our other clergy, and all Beth El volunteers do for Temple Beth El!
I look forward to the day when you, Rabbi Judy, with 2 sons, will speak out against the gender bias in our family courts. I understand where you come from on Amendment One. I too favor equality for ALL, including fathers. The majority of the children in Sterling Elementary & in our Freedom School probably come from fatherless homes. We must work together as a community & state to figure out ways to keep more fathers in our children’s lives, especially those who WANT to be there. The current “child’s best interest” standard is vague & subjective, resulting in mothers winning custody about 85% of the time & fathers becoming paying visitors. This is NOT in the child’s best interest. They need maximum time (at least 35%) with both parents to thrive academically & emotionally. At least one-third of American school-age kids live without their fathers.
I am puzzled. The blog article says that no one has brought Amendment One before the board. Yet, “On the other, our legal advisors to our Board feel that working on Amendment One is entering a legal gray area with which they do not feel comfortable.” If the legal advisors were offering advice, clearly someone in leadership did contemplate the matter at synagogue level. So it seems that the Board made its decision–or maybe others decided for the board–despite the lack of an issue to debate. Which is it?
I am also puzzled that some of our members find it laudatory that lay leadership has “permitted” clergy to speak out. Clergy need no such permission. They have freedom of the pulpit in the synagogue and personal liberty outside it. No synagogue leadership in the Reform movement has any right to constrain the voices of its rabbis and cantors.
During the holy days we read from Isaiah that the fast God prefers is to loose the fetters of wickedness. “When you see the naked,… you clothe them.” It does not say, “When you see the naked, you wait for someone to complain about it and bring a resolution before a committee.” It says, get busy. Why hasn’t our leadership gotten busy? Obviously they thought about it and rejected it for really weak reasons. I think leadership needs to correct the problem, and fast. Next week would be a good time to start. Or tomorrow. Or today.
Finally, I am troubled by what feels like a lack of moral clarity. Various people, including Rabbi Steven Wise, have been credited with the claim that religious leadership and institutions are charged with the task to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. If speaking on moral issues makes some folk feel bad, too bad. Sometimes it is our duty to make people feel bad. Today would be a good time to get busy with it.
Although I am disappointed that the Board didn’t take action on this issue, I am very appreciative that both of our rabbis stood up against the amendment and have advocated against it both within our congregation and in public. Amendment One is a divisive and discriminatory issue in our state. Those of us who are against it can take action against it by displaying yard signs and talking up our reasons for opposing the amendment with our family, friends, and neighbors.
As a board member and past president, I am all too familiar with the congregation’s passion and complexity that Rabbi Schindler describes. Amendment One is the most recent example of this dynamic.
A few congregants have been very vocal in their criticism of the board and its perceived lack of leadership for not taking an official position on the issue (one member called it “cowardice”). With all due respect, these criticisms are unfair and do not reflect the challenges and responsibilities that come with leading a large, dynamic and diverse congregation.
The board is responsible for making decisions that, to the best of our abilities, reflect the perspectives of every congregant. That means accounting for opinions of those who either support Amendment One or do not think it appropriate for the Temple to take any position on a political issue.
Before acting, the board must do all it can to hear what congregants have to say and consider appropriate ways to reflect those sentiments in our decisions. As Rabbi Judy points out, this protocol has worked well with the issues of domestic violence and affordable housing where we did take a stand. On each, a committed group of congregant/advocates organized programs and developed a resolution for the board to consider. This did not happen with Amendment One, but the board would have welcomed such input and initiative from congregants.
Also keep in mind that the board’s primary responsibility is as the Temple’s fiscal steward. There is no doubt that official advocacy on a political issue heightens the chance that we could lose our non-profit status, which would have catastrophic financial implications. No matter how remote this possibility, the board must consider it.
The board is made up of volunteers who care about Temple and take our leadership responsibilities very seriously. We expect and welcome strong opinions that are respectful and consider the complexity of what it takes to lead the congregation. Regardless of what the board decides about Amendment One, we will need to live with each other afterward.
I am working with Judy Seldin-Cohen to update Temple Beth El’s resolution regarding LGBT. I have put together a draft and a tentative calendar to move the resolution forward. Keshet is meeting on Monday, April 9th to review the resolution.
The leadership of TBE is being very responsive and supportive with both the resolution and having Keshet condemn Amendment #1 on the bema.
Please know that our leadership, clergy and members are working diligently to accomplish both of these goals.
I hope our Board of Directors affirms the actions of our clergy in opposing NC Amendment #1, and takes an active role in initiating and supporting social action and education in our TBE community, in the larger Jewish community of North Carolina and to the general community of North Carolina voters. I have been proud to be a part of a community that,
in my 15 years of membership, has always stood for social justice and equality as a moral principle. I remember well how we were barred from the Church of God venue for our HHD services (c.2000), because of our support for the CCAR resolution to encourage officiation and support of religious affirmation ceremonies for same gender couples. After reading the book, THE TEMPLE, and other histories of the 1960’s and the different attitudes and activities of Northern and Southern Jewish congregations, I have felt even more pride in our many activities supporting Tikkun Olam through social action! Let us continue to be a Temple that leads and educates all in the greatest of moral principles, the one leveler of humanity, Equality! Thank you Rabbis Jonathan and Judy in voicing your opposition to this amendment. I encourage our Board and our congregation to do so too!