One thing organized religion has going for it--something disorganized spirituality will never have--is the issuing of edicts.
Recently the highest office in the Conservative Jewish faith (that is, neither Reform, nor Orthodox, in case you're taking notes) approved the ordaination of gay rabbis, and the practice of gay "commitment ceremonies." I'm not sure if that phrasing is just from the New York Times, or if it's going to be the accepted parlance in the future. There are two things I find pretty interesting about this, but first, I want to think about edicts for a moment.
"This is not like a papal edict," says Jonathan Sarna in the NY Times article, referring to the fact that individual synagogues will be allowed to make their own decisions as to whether they incorporate these changes into their daily practice. But isn't it? This is a powerful statement from a highly-respected body, giving their interpretation of the religion's most sacred documents. It's not something to be taken lightly. This has no less power to cause divisive rifts between members of the community than does the statement of a official with an ancient title.
I'm not an expert on the internal politics of the Jewish faith anymore than I am learned in their documents, history or canonical law, but one has to imagine that this is an important restructuring, and an event that will cause no small amount of change down the line. Sarna states that the change "has been widely expected," but that just means that there has been foresight, discussion and probably the religious equivalent of lobbying. The Reform movement has allowed both of these things for years. This is a change. This is a group agreeing to alter they way they see the world and changing their social contact. Essentially, this is politics.
Leaving that lie for one moment, the thing that most interests me about this is its effect on Politics. (Capital "P," Beltway politics and national elections.) Does this change the national debate on marriage? Isn't the major argument against homosexual marriage a religious one? Well, now we have a significant portion of one of America's major faiths saying that this isn't a bad thing; that their holy scriptures, in fact, do not forbid it. They will allow it in their temples. How is it any of our right to invade the sanctity of religion and refuse to recognize their collective action? They've changed their faith, and the government would pretend the power to refuse this change.
So how is a religious edict--particularly the infallible, far reaching papal kind--different from a new law, or (an even better comparison) a Supreme Court decision? This is meant to compare these two distinct social contracts; religion and government. Religion, many of us are born into. We do not leave the contract unless we are dissatisfied, and we do not tend to enter into a new religion without some strong compulsion (usually marraige). The government controls all within its sphere of influence by matter of geography more than birth, though citizenship is conferred upon all who are born within this influence.
When a religion or a political body changes a rule, or interprets an old one in a new way, all in the membership of that body must decide whether to follow along with this edict. We all have an inalenable right of disobedience, even more fundamental to our nature than any of the rights "protected" by constitutions around the world. Disobedience is curbed by incentives, but can never be completely eliminated. In a religious community, social pressures and learned guilt exert tremendous force over the faithful. Expected punishments in the afterlife may also be considered a negative incentive. Governments, through the power of a monarch, elected representatives or the collective will of the people, are empowered to locate and punish those who would choose not to heed an edict.
We are all disobedient on some level. Sinners sin. I can count the number of hours since I last broke the law on one hand. We all make calculations, weighing the negative consequences of our actions against the real or perceived benefits. When I listen to music which I "stole" from a record company, I understand that the likelihood of my being caught and punished is slim. Having a variety of music to listen to without paying what I perceive to be ridiculous costs outweighs that chance of punishment.
So, what will the costs be for ignoring this edict from the leaders of the Hebrew community? Probably very little, so long as the choice remains a local one. It may cause some hurt feelings or community scuffles, but it seems unlikely to have world-shaking implications. Although... perhaps these issues of deeply held conviction are stronger than I would guess: a collection of Canadian rabbis has already threatened a break with the Conservative movement as a result of this announcement (Again, according to the NY Times). These are the things schisms are made of.
(Though, in my interpretation, the Jewish faith has proven a great deal of solidarity in the face of schism in the past. Though their interpretations of scripture and law may differ, Reform and Orthodox Jews do seem to find much more common ground than, say, Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or Catholics and Protestants.)
But, perhaps, even if this does prove divisive--as it surely will not endear Conservative to Orthodox--perhaps American politics can use this as a uniting experience. Perhaps the liberal left can find "conservative," religious allies. The red-state party line is "small government," and a lack of interference. It holds God in high esteem. To continue to forbid unions between homosexuals in the face of a religious ceremony which cements it in the eyes of a church is ridiculous.
Labels: Homosexuality, News, Religion
