Sheffield Cathedral has recently been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, having taken the shocking decision to disband its entire choir in order to replace it with a more inclusive music team that will supposedly better reflect "the mixed urban community in which we live and work".
Not surprisingly, thousands have expressed their opposition to this plan by signing a petition asking the cathedral dean to reconsider. This petition has been started by a campaign group that is considering legal action against the cathedral. A different contributor to this website has written against that idea, arguing that it is un-Christian to do so based on the teachings of Paul. Rabbi Tarfon also gets a mention too, specifically his comments on the secular courts: "In any place where you find heathen law courts, even though their law is the same as the Israelite law, you must not resort to them."
Although this is a dispute relating to a Christian cathedral, I think readers of this website might be interested in a Jewish perspective, particularly where it relates to legal action in secular courts, as my take is quite different from the other writer's.
Starting with Rabbi Tarfon, he was a much-loved rabbi who lived slightly after Jesus and is famed for his contribution to the Mishna portion, Pirkei Avot . It is important to understand the reasoning behind his comments on the use or non-use of secular courts in legal cases pertaining to Jewish law, because it does not mean that Jews can never resort to non-religious law courts in diaspora.
There are certain instances where Jews are to follow halacha (Jewish religious laws) before the law of the land. This is the case where Jewish law would be broken if the law of the land were to be followed. The exception to this is where those laws of the land carry the death penalty. In such instances, a Jew would be permitted to break the halacha in order to save their own life. However, this principle too has some exceptions - those being laws carrying the death penalty but which pertain to murder, idolatry and sexual immorality.
Taking a dispute like the one between Sheffield Cathedral and its choir, if something similar were to arise among Jews, then they could resort to the Beth Din (rabbinical court). However, if this has been consulted and still failed to solve the dispute, then the two parties may revert to the law of the land - and therewith its criminal courts.
In diaspora, the Jewish Beth Din is used for matters of personal status, for example marriage, divorce, conversion and kashrut matters (i.e. kosher food issues). But very importantly, Jewish marriage and divorce also have to go through the law of the state as well.
The Beth Din is absolutely not like sharia law, which does not recognize the law of the land - and erroneous comparisons have been made, to the detriment of Judaism, which has always accepted 'secular' authority with the exceptions I've already noted. Only in cases of murder, idolatry and sexual immorality therefore are we enjoined to die rather than carry out the laws of the country.
In the case of Sheffield Cathedral choir, it appears to me that the powers-that-be are using politics for their own ends i.e. basing their actions on the very secular idea that the choir has to be more representative of the community in which the Church serves, which certainly wasn't the Church of a few years ago, let alone, the Church of my childhood.
I myself have signed the petition to keep the choir as it is, because it seems to be far more musically able than the choir at our local cathedral (here in Manchester) for starters. Secondly, even if the people in charge are in favour of a more 'diverse' character to the make-up of the choir, they seem to have summarily sacked everyone and got rid of some people's livelihoods in order to obtain some nebulous result in the future – which may never 'take off'.
Writing from a Jewish perspective as I am, this course of action is definitely against Jewish law, and could well be against the law of the land if the court sides with the campaigners in the event of any legal action.
Sticking for now with my area of expertise - the Jewish law - it is forbidden in Jewish law to bring in a potentially 'better' situation by summarily dismissing what has gone before. A very good example is the case of conversion. You simply cannot avoid converting a genuine person if you think that three years down the line they may 'go off the beaten track and revert'.
The here and now is sacrosanct in Judaism, and how you treat people is one's main mission in life. For instance, when Moses is told by G-d in the Burning Bush (Exodus 3) to save his people, he goes first to consult with his father-in-law who isn't even Jewish. He knows that 'two brains are better than one'.
Summarily firing people for a possible 'greater good' that is not yet inevitable goes against Jewish law, which interprets 'love your neighbour' to cover this situation surrounding employment. Therefore, if a Church court cannot solve this conundrum, I cannot see any reason, in any legal situation, why it would be wrong of the dismissed choristers to take the Church authorities to the court of the land to protect their livelihoods and their musical tradition.
Judaism is often represented in Christian circles as cold and legalistic - a sort of 'Judaism bad, Christianity good' dichotomy. It is a perspective that is not only a misrepresentation of the Jewish faith but one which has the potential to incite racism against Jews today. Christians may be surprised to hear that as a Jew, I often find Christianity cold and legalistic, the actions of Sheffield Cathedral in this instance serving to reinforce that sense for me.
What Judaism actually promotes is love and friendship, over and over again. Those in charge at Sheffield Cathedral could be well-versed in the language of love and friendship, but when the actions don't follow, what do our words matter?
Dr Irene Lancaster is a Jewish academic, author and translator who has established university courses on Jewish history, Jewish studies and the Hebrew Bible. She trained as a teacher in modern Languages and Religious Education.
Views and opinions published in Christian Today are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the website.
