I think the most significant conclusion we can draw from R' Gordimer's post is in his seeing evidence of possible schism rather than asserting the breadth of their tent. For someone who is trying to argue that OO is outside Orthdoxy, his persistence in seeing divisions is telling -- and weakens his ability to be spokesman for his position with regard to OO.
At the root of OO is a broad understanding of Eilu v'Eilu. It is therefore very hard to apply the word schism to OO unless those in disagreement are declaring that the position with which they disagree is outside the pale of Orthodoxy or outside the pale of OO. I think that OO would actually, in the spirit of Eilu v'Eilu, even welcome such disagreement. RBH
Rabbi Hecht,You put it more positively than I would. I think the root of OO is a post-modernist confusion between welcoming other people and being accepting of their ideas. They not only have a broad notion of eilu va'eilu, but find it difficult to take a stand even when facing ideas they would have considered outside the pale had their not been a person attached.
Post a Comment