Nu, did Rabbi Norman Lamm say kaddish too soon?

An impromptu post to address a fresh-brewed storm in a teacup.

(Full disclosure: theologically and socio-politically, I align most closely—but far from fully—with Conservative/Masorti Judaism.)

In Saying Kaddish Too Soon?, an op-ed for The Jewish Daily Forward, Professor Jonathan D. Sarna takes umbrage at this admittedly clumsy Rabbi Norman Lamm claim in a Jerusalem Post interview: progressive American Judaisms are in permanent decline. (A claim which, by the way, is unfortunately supported by some major studies.) Sarna largely avoids defending Conservative or Reform, and instead suggests the Yeshiva University chancellor might best tend to the challenges threatening his own American Orthodoxy, including a:

• Loss of members
  
• Lack of indigenous leadership
  
• Exodus to Israel of its best and brightest
  
• Pending right-left schism
  
• Funding crisis

In his Jerusalem Post blog, Masorti Matters, Israel’s Conservative leader Rabbi Andrew Sacks reacts to Lamm in a tone more shrill than Sarna's—reflecting, perhaps, undue pressures on Israel's progressive Judaisms. Like Sarna, he demurs from defending Conservative and Reform based on facts. But whereas Sarna counter attacks under the cover of an elegant straw person, Sacks swings a clumsy ad hominem club, bludgeoning Lamm’s "archaic language."

Contra Sarna's rhetorical mischaracterization, there is not now, and there never has been, a monolithic American Jewish Orthodoxy, and the many orthodoxies are more vibrant and prepared for future challenges precisely because of their independence. Yes, they've been hit hard by financial crises, but so have all American Judaisms. Yes, they're struggling to find inspirational leaders, but progressive Judaisms aren't exactly producing legions of gedolim, or great ones. And yes, they are losing some members, but Reform's dry minhag, or tradition, hardly presents a come-hither alternative.

And contra Sacks misreading, I'm guardedly encouraged when Lamm suggests an inter-denominational dialog that avoids both "watering down" Orthodox positions and "demonizing" progressive ones. Further, I'm guardedly encouraged that he reaches out to the liberal-most periphery of modern Orthodoxy by admitting his opposition to women Orthodox rabbis is "social, not religious" and suggesting change will come. And furthermore, I'm encouraged by his stated—and, for Orthodoxy, quite radical—desire to welcome and make "comfortable" homosexuals who keep their orientation private.

Don’t expect me to endorse Lamm's positions. There is no good reason women and homosexuals should not be rabbis, just as there is no good reason homosexuals should remain closeted. But I do endorse the apparent leftward trajectory of his thinking and I insist that Sarna and Sacks’ overreactions to his claim do nothing to improve the tone of debate. In fact, they are juvenile and I expect better.

Sarna, for whom I have the greatest respect, misses the opportunity to enter a dialog that might help insure all Jewish denominations against the five shared and very real threats he identifies. And Sacks—who seems, by the way, to miss Lamm’s focus on American Judaisms—bites the hand Lamm extends both to progressive Judaisms and, perhaps more importantly, to key Orthodox liberals—such as the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale's Rabbi Avi Weiss—as they seek to extend the boundaries of halakhic Orthodoxy to include women rabbis and open homosexuals.

Perhaps I'm enjoying one of my rare cup-half-full days, but my take on all this is simple: when someone holds out a hand in friendship, grasp first, ask questions later. Because ours is not an age of miraculous signs and wonders, and because some days it’s difficult to see a future for Jews qua Jews, recognized leaders like Sarna and Sacks must take every chance to reach across communal lines rather than self-indulge in ill-advised polemics.