November 14, 2024|י"ג חשון ה' אלפים תשפ"ה Priest or Prophet: How Rabbis Weigh Political Involvement By Rabbi Jonathan Muskat

As we approached the recent elections, the question of whether rabbis should publicly advocate for one political candidate over another sparked much debate. This issue is particularly complex for rabbis who serve congregational communities, where political views may span the entire spectrum. Should rabbis endorse political candidates, or should they keep their focus on spiritual guidance and fostering communal unity? In our increasingly polarized society, this challenge has become even more pronounced, as maintaining harmony within diverse communities grows more difficult.

This question of rabbinic political involvement raises important contradictions. For example, when Portland recently voted to divest from Israel-related entities, many Orthodox rabbis publicly condemned the decision. Their joint statement was not an endorsement of a particular political candidate but rather a response to what they saw as an antisemitic policy. They felt it was their duty to use their platform to speak out against actions that they perceived as harmful to Jews and Jewish values. Similarly, endorsements for AIPAC-sponsored candidates are often seen within our Orthodox community. While these endorsements may stem from a desire to support values like Israel’s security—values central to the Jewish community—they can still be viewed as a political endorsement. Even when rabbis intend to express support for specific issues, their involvement can be interpreted as choosing political sides, especially in a climate of intense political polarization.

It’s interesting to consider that these actions—publicly denouncing an antisemitic policy or endorsing a candidate aligned with Jewish values—seem more acceptable, even if they might still be seen as political acts. But why is this the case? If rabbis getting involved in these matters is acceptable, where do we draw the line? Is it simply about the issue at hand, or do these activities still represent the rabbis stepping into the political arena, which many traditionally avoid?

One rabbi recently weighed in on this topic, questioning lists like “Orthodox Rabbis for Kamala” and “Orthodox Rabbis for Trump.” He asked, “Since when is this a role of an Orthodox rabbi—to share who they are voting for and encourage others to do the same? Not sure why it should be anyone’s business or interest.” This rabbi pointed out that most signatories on these lists were not congregational rabbis and expressed pride in representing those who keep their personal political leanings private, focusing instead on spiritual leadership.

This approach reflects the view of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, who cautioned against mixing religion and politics. Rabbi Sacks famously warned, “Don’t mix religion and politics. You mix religion and politics, you get terrible politics and even worse religion.” He believed that a rabbi’s moral authority stems from ethical guidance rooted in religious values that transcend party lines. However, Rabbi Sacks didn’t shy away from criticizing political figures who, in his view, posed a direct threat to Jewish values. For example, he openly condemned former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, branding him a dangerous antisemite.

So why is it acceptable for rabbis to condemn antisemitism or support Israel, yet controversial when they endorse political candidates directly? This brings us to an ancient dichotomy in rabbinic roles: the kohen, or priest, and the navi, or prophet. The kohen’s role is to build communal harmony, sometimes refraining from taking strong stances to avoid dividing the community. The navi, in contrast, feels a calling to speak out on critical issues even when it’s controversial. For rabbis, this distinction can influence not only their approach to politics but also to other issues, such as speaking out against intermarriage, Shabbat violations, or unethical business practices. In taking a strong stance on these matters, a rabbi may risk alienating some members of the community, weighing whether the potential division is a necessary price for speaking their truth.

In the last election, I posted that Israel and antisemitism were overriding issues that, to me, merited particular attention due to October 7^th and its aftermath. Some people interpreted my stance as an implicit endorsement of one candidate, so I clarified to those who asked that while I believe in prioritizing these values, it was not my place to endorse a specific candidate. I emphasized that it is entirely legitimate for voters of either candidate to believe that their choice would better support Israel and combat antisemitism; I may have my personal view, but as a rabbi, that was not something I felt appropriate to publicly address.

Today, many congregational rabbis choose the priestly path, focusing on uniting the community and offering moral guidance without endorsing specific political candidates. Others feel compelled to take on the prophetic mantle, seeing a duty to voice their views, even if it means endorsing certain candidates or calling out behaviors or policies they believe threaten Jews or Jewish values.

Rabbinic political involvement, then, is a choice between building harmony and community as a kohen or taking on the prophetic voice as a navi to bear witness to the values they hold dear. Both paths are valid, and each has its costs and rewards. The decision must be weighed carefully to avoid compromising the purity of religious guidance.

It is not for anyone to dictate whether a rabbi must or must not endorse a political candidate. This decision depends entirely on how a rabbi defines his role and evaluates the particular issue at hand. A rabbi may adopt the approach of a kohen on some issues, prioritizing unity and communal harmony, and take on the role of a navi on others, compelled to speak out when an issue feels critical enough to risk division. This balance allows a rabbi to weigh the importance of the issue against the potential for alienation within the community. Both paths are legitimate expressions of rabbinic leadership, each with its unique responsibilities and consequences.