Yasher Koach . . .
. . . means in Hebrew, "Let it be strengthened," or, "Let it be increased." In my synagogue in Seattle, Temple Beth Am, we (as do most synagogues) discourage clapping. Instead, we shout out "Yasher Koach" when that thing is said or done that deserves an exclamation point. (Kinda sorta the Amen of Judaism, although we say that too.)
So let me say, loudly and with as much emphasis as I can muster in type, "Yasher Koach" to the leadership of Conservative Judaism for the historical decision to allow gay ordination and gay commitment ceremonies, a decision that the Reform Movement made back in 1991. (please read the articles from Time, PittChron, and the statement from the Reconstructionist Movement.) Without getting into the incredible complexity of how decisions are made in this body, a minority position on the vote allows that Rabbis in this, the world's 3rd largest "denomination" of Jews, can ordain and marry gays.
Yes, I know those reading this blog are of many different opinions on this, whether you are Jewish or not. I have read the polls and understand that the issue of Gay Marriage and Ordination is among the most divisive out there. Certain verses in our various holy texts give us excuses, in my humble opinion, to make decisions and express opinions that were already so firmly implanted into our psyche way before we could search holy texts for excuses. Yet in truth all of our holy texts reflect an inevitable evolution that belies literalism. The image of G-d represented in Genesis is very different than the one reflected in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, and certainly quite different than in Deuteronomy. Then we have a "voice" of G-d through the voices of the prophets that change the earlier voice from a call to obedience to a call of social justice.
Not wanting to rehash millions of pages of online arguments, let me just say that in the Hebrew Bible, the verses in Leviticus that seem to speak against homosexuality (18:22 and 20:13) sit right next to proscriptions in the same section (20:9) like "If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death" and I certainly do not see the marches in the streets and the vilification of those out there that have at one tome or another cursed out parents (which, by the way, is most of us.) Likewise in the Christian Bible, the primary verse used for virulent condemnation is Romans 1:27 which says: ". . .and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." So out come the signs and Karl Rove and "Reverend" Phelps and why does everyone ignore the part that comes right after in verses 28-32 which says: "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them." (Thanks to the NET-Bible, an excellent and honest translation that I highly recommend.)
Where are the protesters against Slanderers? How about the "God hates Gossips" signs at controversial funerals. Why have so many of us chosen the pick and choose methodology to single out homosexuality from a Jewish text and Christian text litany of many items. Why doesn't Karl Rove put out a constitutional amendment against those who would choose a "disobedient to parents" lifestyle?
I think you can all see where I am going here. Good people can agree to disagree on many issues. But those who are so offended by my words right now, let me ask, why are you truly offended? And if the honest answer, which may only come in the stillest moments of the night, is that you are just very uncomfortable about homosexuality, then ask yourself if that gives one the right to prohibit two people that love each other from designating of their own free will who the beneficiary of their will is. If your mind is already made up I probably cannot change it, but in the meantime, a huge step has been made today towards the ideal of "respecting the stranger in our midst." To those brave souls that voted for this minority decision that will help us continue to move forward on the path of ethical behavior towards all, Yasher Koach, and Amen.
B'Shalom,
Paul
So let me say, loudly and with as much emphasis as I can muster in type, "Yasher Koach" to the leadership of Conservative Judaism for the historical decision to allow gay ordination and gay commitment ceremonies, a decision that the Reform Movement made back in 1991. (please read the articles from Time, PittChron, and the statement from the Reconstructionist Movement.) Without getting into the incredible complexity of how decisions are made in this body, a minority position on the vote allows that Rabbis in this, the world's 3rd largest "denomination" of Jews, can ordain and marry gays.
Yes, I know those reading this blog are of many different opinions on this, whether you are Jewish or not. I have read the polls and understand that the issue of Gay Marriage and Ordination is among the most divisive out there. Certain verses in our various holy texts give us excuses, in my humble opinion, to make decisions and express opinions that were already so firmly implanted into our psyche way before we could search holy texts for excuses. Yet in truth all of our holy texts reflect an inevitable evolution that belies literalism. The image of G-d represented in Genesis is very different than the one reflected in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, and certainly quite different than in Deuteronomy. Then we have a "voice" of G-d through the voices of the prophets that change the earlier voice from a call to obedience to a call of social justice.
Not wanting to rehash millions of pages of online arguments, let me just say that in the Hebrew Bible, the verses in Leviticus that seem to speak against homosexuality (18:22 and 20:13) sit right next to proscriptions in the same section (20:9) like "If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death" and I certainly do not see the marches in the streets and the vilification of those out there that have at one tome or another cursed out parents (which, by the way, is most of us.) Likewise in the Christian Bible, the primary verse used for virulent condemnation is Romans 1:27 which says: ". . .and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." So out come the signs and Karl Rove and "Reverend" Phelps and why does everyone ignore the part that comes right after in verses 28-32 which says: "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them." (Thanks to the NET-Bible, an excellent and honest translation that I highly recommend.)
Where are the protesters against Slanderers? How about the "God hates Gossips" signs at controversial funerals. Why have so many of us chosen the pick and choose methodology to single out homosexuality from a Jewish text and Christian text litany of many items. Why doesn't Karl Rove put out a constitutional amendment against those who would choose a "disobedient to parents" lifestyle?
I think you can all see where I am going here. Good people can agree to disagree on many issues. But those who are so offended by my words right now, let me ask, why are you truly offended? And if the honest answer, which may only come in the stillest moments of the night, is that you are just very uncomfortable about homosexuality, then ask yourself if that gives one the right to prohibit two people that love each other from designating of their own free will who the beneficiary of their will is. If your mind is already made up I probably cannot change it, but in the meantime, a huge step has been made today towards the ideal of "respecting the stranger in our midst." To those brave souls that voted for this minority decision that will help us continue to move forward on the path of ethical behavior towards all, Yasher Koach, and Amen.
B'Shalom,
Paul
Comments