The Refusal to Disappear

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Luke Ford

The valet line at Factor’s runs long on a weekday afternoon. Rabbi Nolan Lebovitz (b. 1980) stands in it, a man ten years into writing and directing suspense and horror, a man with a certain amount of success behind him, and he looks at the other men waiting for their cars and puts a question to himself that ends one life and opens another. What am I doing with my life, if this is what I do with my days.

A man asks that question when a hero system has failed him. Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gave us the term and the argument that runs under it. Every culture is a hero system, a stage that hands a man a part and tells him the part counts, that playing it well raises him above the dust and the worms and buys him a place in something that does not die. The horror picture is a hero system. It offers the young director a thin permanence, his name on the print, his fear made into the fear of strangers in the dark. In the valet line the offer comes apart in his hands. The terror it was built to hold off comes through anyway.

Becker named two terrors. The first is death, the animal fact that the body fails and rots. The second cuts deeper. It is the terror that the life meant nothing, that a man can die and leave no scratch on the order of things, that he was an accident and his vanishing changes none of it. Hero systems answer both at once. They tell a man his death feeds a cause that outlasts him and his ordinary days carry cosmic weight. Lebovitz walks off the Hollywood lot and goes looking for an older system, one with deeper foundations than the box office, and he finds it where his family had kept it the whole time.

He is the grandson of four survivors of the Shoah. He says this the way other men give their hometown. It places a third terror beside the first two, and the third one organizes his life. For Lebovitz the dread is not only that he will die and that his death might mean nothing. The dread is that the people will be erased, that the long chain his grandparents carried through the camps will break, and break not in his hands but in the hands of children and grandchildren who let it slip without noticing the weight of what they set down. Murder is the terror his grandparents survived. Dissolution is the terror he watches for now. A Jew can vanish without anyone laying a hand on him. He marries out, forgets the calendar, raises sons who know nothing, and the line goes dark with no villain to blame. Lebovitz built a vocation against that quiet kind of ending.

His sacred word is loyalty. His first book carries it on the cover, The Case for Dual Loyalty, published by Wicked Son in January 2025, and the argument runs that proud declaration of Jewish loyalty opens a path forward, loyalty to the Jewish people held as a first principle, no smaller than loyalty to America. Inside his hero system the word does a great deal of work. Loyalty binds the mortal man to the deathless people. It takes his small life and makes it a chapter in a story that started before him and runs on after him. The individual death stays terrible, but the people do not die, and a man who pours himself into the people borrows their length of years. Loyalty is the gate through which a man trades his solitude for a share in something that outlives him.

Set the word loyalty down in front of other men and it changes shape in their mouths, because each man stands inside a different hero system and the word opens a different door.

The Marine hears loyalty and thinks of the unit. He leaves no man behind. He will die for the man on his left and the man on his right, and the flag folds into a triangle and the corps remembers his name, and that is the permanence he was promised. Loyalty for him runs to the brothers and the nation that armed them.

The made man hears loyalty and thinks of silence. Omertà. Blood does not speak to the law. The family is the cosmos, the only court whose verdict reaches past death, and loyalty is the refusal to inform, kept to the grave and honored at the grave.

The founder in a glass building off the 101 hears loyalty and thinks of the cap table. Loyalty runs to the mission and to the men who believed early. Betrayal is the engineer who walks across the street to the rival with the roadmap in his head. He offers his people a stake in a future that the market will validate, and that validation is his immortality, the company that outlasts the man.

The man who calls himself a citizen of the world hears loyalty and flinches. To him loyalty to a tribe is a smallness, a thing a man should grow out of. His hero rises above the village and the flag and the bloodline and answers to mankind. For him the open second loyalty Lebovitz prescribes is not a virtue at all. It is a confession that the man never finished growing up.

The monk in his cell hears loyalty and gives it to God alone, capital and undivided. He left his mother and his brother at the gate to take the vow. To love the people of one’s birth above Him is the idolatry the cell was built to cure.

So the same word feeds five different defenses against the same two terrors, and no two of them point the same way. That spread is the deep reason the charge of dual loyalty has teeth. Most hero systems demand a single master. They want to be the only stage, the only source of significance, and they treat a divided allegiance as a kind of treason against the cosmos. The oldest slander against the Jew rides on that demand. The Jew is the man whose true loyalty lies elsewhere, the alien who eats at the table and serves another king. Lebovitz takes the slander and wears it as a crown. He argues that a man can stand in two cosmic stories at once, can give full loyalty to the people and full loyalty to America, and that the taboo against saying so is the wound, not the cure.

The taboo is the subtraction. American Jewish life made a bargain across the twentieth century. To be safe, to be welcomed, the Jew would privatize his Jewishness, mute the talk of peoplehood, keep the other loyalty out of sight so that no one could level the ancient charge. What got subtracted was the open avowal of belonging to a people with a destiny of its own. The Jews policed the line themselves. Do not be too loud, too tribal, too plainly bound to Israel, do not hand them the proof they are waiting for. Lebovitz looks at that bargain and calls it a slow surrender to the third terror. He wants to add back what the bargain took out. He wants the avowal restored to daylight.

Run his other sacred words through the same test and they bend the same way. Survival sits at the center of his story, four grandparents who survived and prevailed, the people who must not be erased. The Shia mourner at Karbala hears survival and answers with the cup of martyrdom, where death in witness is the victory and survival at the cost of the witness is the defeat. The Buddhist hears survival and names the clinging to it as the root of all suffering, the very knot the hero learns to untie. The Spartan mother hears survival and sends her son out with the shield or on it, because a life kept without honor shames the house. For Lebovitz survival is the commandment, because the alternative his grandparents faced was the oven, and a man whose family came that close to the end does not treat continuation as a small thing.

Memory works the same. He serves as rabbi in residence for Café Europa, the Los Angeles community of Shoah survivors, and the words over that work are never forget. The combat veteran in the trauma clinic hears never forget and recoils, because the labor of his recovery is to loosen the grip of the past, to keep the worst day from owning every day after. For him memory held too tight is the wound that will not close. For Lebovitz memory held tight is the binding cord of the people, the rope that ties the living to the dead and the unborn, and to let it slacken is to let the line go dark.

What raises his work above the ordinary defense is that he knows he is telling a story. He spent ten years building hero systems on screen, handing screen characters a quest and a death to face and a meaning to win, and he carried the craft into the pulpit. He calls his two documentaries roadmaps, “Roadmap Genesis” from 2015 and “Roadmap Jerusalem” from 2018. He teaches Torah through film, the movie references stacked three deep. He thinks in scenes and next chapters and the turn of the third act. Becker called culture a vital lie, the story a man tells himself so the terror stays bearable, and the rare man knows it is a story and tells it anyway, because the silence on the far side of the story is worse. Lebovitz is that rare man. The crisis in the valet line, the documented turn from one vocation to another, the comfort he shows holding two things in tension at once, the Bears fan and the Cubs fan and the rabbi in the same breath, all of it points to a craftsman of meaning who has seen the machinery from the inside and still chooses to run it. His awareness of the trade he is making runs high.

He inherited the pulpit of Harold Schulweis (1925-2014) and Ed Feinstein (b. 1954) at one of the largest Conservative congregations in the country, fifteen hundred families on Ventura Boulevard in Encino, the American and Israeli flags in the lot and the security perimeter guarded like an embassy. He sits on the executive board of the Zionist Rabbinic Coalition, contributes to The Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Journal, took a fellowship at the Z3 Institute, all of it placing him with the assertive post-October-7 wing that means to end the long crouch. He has chosen his stage and named his cause and he plays the part with his eyes open.

Three coordinates locate the man. The shape of his hero is the loyal son, the survivor’s grandson who takes the inherited dread of erasure and turns it into a public office, who offers his congregants the people as the vehicle that swallows the private death and gives the small life a long story to sit inside. The rival he fights without naming is not the antisemite, who proves his point and gives him energy. The rival is the cosmopolitan Jew, the grandchild who has decided the tribe is a cage and is glad to be free of it, the man who agrees with the citizen of the world that loyalty to a people is a lower form of life. That is the man Lebovitz means to win back, and that is the man hardest to reach with a sermon about pride.

The cost his ledger cannot price is the chance that for some Jews the melting was a rescue and not a death. For the grandchild who felt the weight of the people as a burden and set it down with relief, the assimilation Lebovitz mourns reads as a door opened, not a line broken. Lebovitz can call that man lost. He has a harder time granting that the man might be found, found in the American story rather than the Jewish one, at home in the very dissolution that organizes Lebovitz’s dread. And the demand he makes, the open second loyalty restored to daylight, might cost that wavering grandchild the one belonging he could still feel, by asking him to perform a fidelity he does not carry and cannot fake. The man who cannot say the words out loud might still have stayed in the room. Asked to declare or leave, he leaves. That is the price the case for dual loyalty does not enter on its books.

Posted in Conservative Judaism | Comments Off on The Refusal to Disappear

The Steve Hilton Hero System

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Luke Ford

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) held that a man lives against two terrors. The first is death, the animal knowledge that the body fails and the self goes dark. The second runs quieter. It is the dread of counting for nothing while the heart still beats, of passing through a world that sorts him without seeing him, of shrinking into a file, a queue, a line on a ledger held by someone who will never learn his name. A hero system answers both at once.

Steve Hilton (b. 1969) learned the second terror early. His parents fled Hungary after 1956 and reached Britain as refugees. They carried the name Hircsák, set it down at the border, and picked up Hilton instead, a word the clerks could spell. His father had guarded the net for the Hungarian national hockey side and arrived to work catering at Heathrow. The marriage broke when the boy was five. His mother sold shoes and drew benefits, and the two of them lived in a cold basement flat with damp on the walls. A child in that flat learns what it is to depend on a large and distant office for warmth, to wait in a line, to be a case number in a system that decides his family’s month without meeting his family.

The boy rose. He read philosophy, politics, and economics at New College, Oxford. He became the strategist at David Cameron’s (b. 1966) elbow, the man of blue-sky schemes, the author of the Big Society, famous for padding around Downing Street in his socks. He grew sick of Whitehall and crossed to California, to Stanford and a Silicon Valley start-up, then to a Friday night show on Fox News, and now to a run for governor of the largest state in the union with Donald Trump’s (b. 1946) endorsement in hand. The jobs change. The wardrobe changes, from the wonk in socks at Number Ten to the candidate on a stage in Huntington Beach. One word holds across all of it. Human.

His books carry the word like a standard. Good Business comes in 2002. More Human: Designing a World Where People Come First arrives in 2015, and its thesis runs one line long. The world has grown too big. Government, the corporation, the farm, the hospital, the school, all of them have swollen past the scale a man can feel, and in the swelling they have stopped seeing him. Positive Populism follows in 2018 with the cure. Pull power down. Bring the decision close to the kitchen table. Restore the human scale. The campaign for governor sings the same note in a plainer key. A good job. A home of your own. A safe street. A school where your child counts. Make California golden again.

Read against Becker, the program is the boy’s answer to the basement flat. The hero Hilton means to be is the man who restores scale, who walks into the cold and distant office and turns the machine back toward the face it forgot. He means to make you visible. He offers the refugee’s son a name that counts and a home he owns and a place in a street that knows him. The terror was erasure by a distant power. The hero undoes erasure. He puts the people first because once he stood among the people and a system did not trouble to see him.

Every hero system tells a story of loss, a fuller world now thinned. Hilton’s runs like this. There was a time when a man knew his butcher and his alderman, when the farm sat down the road, when the school answered to the parents and the firm answered to the town. Then bigness came. The chains swallowed the butcher. The bureaucracy swallowed the alderman. The factory farm swallowed the field, the bank swallowed the savings, the distant elite swallowed the say-so of the ordinary man, and one-party rule in Sacramento swallowed the rest. The human got subtracted from the world and left a residue of forms and queues and metrics. Golden California is the world before the subtraction. The campaign is a promise to run the subtraction backward.

Here the trouble starts, and it is the trouble Becker saw in every hero system. The word at the center of a man’s faith feels to him like a fact about the world. It is a fact about his hero system. Human rings in Hilton’s ear as something solid and shared, a scale any man feels once the elites stop burying it. Carry the word across a few other hero systems and it comes apart in the hand.

A founder forty miles up the peninsula builds machines to read the aging of cells. To him the human is the part he means to leave behind. The body is legacy hardware. Human scale, he says over cold brew, is the scale that dies, and he is trying to get us off it. When he hears people come first he hears a man pleading to keep the bug. More human, to this ear, is a vote for the grave.

A nurse works nights in a unit for newborns who weigh less than a bag of sugar. For her the human is a chest the size of a fist that rises and falls, and scale is grams and milliliters and the count of breaths in a minute. She might laugh at the phrase people come first. She lives it. It has taught her triage, the arithmetic that decides which crib the one free hand reaches first. People come first is why the choice cuts. Put people first and you must rank them.

A man works the counter at a benefits office in a gray building. He has read no manifesto. He knows the file is the thing that protects the woman at window four from the charm of the man at window five. The form treats like cases alike. The queue serves the early riser before the well connected. To him the human touch Hilton praises is the hand that reaches across the counter to do a favor, and the favor is how the strong jump the line. Impersonality is his idea of mercy. He might tell you, if you asked, that the cold office once kept a divorced mother and her boy in shoes through a hard winter, and that warmth came with a desk and a number and a clerk who never learned their names.

In a monastery the word lands in a third place. A monk rises in the dark and prays. For him the human is the creature, dust that knows it is dust, low before God. Scale to him means humility, the smallness a man owes his Maker. He hears more human and thinks of a world that has made man the measure of all things and forgotten Him who measures man. People first sounds to him like the oldest error said again. God first, he might say, and the people after.

An agronomist who feeds cities finds the phrase human scale close to an insult. He has seen what scale does. Scale puts protein on tables in countries where children grow up stunted for want of it. The small humane farm Hilton admires feeds the few who can pay for the feeling. Human scale is a rich man’s hobby, he says. I feed the hungry. Subtract the bigness and somewhere a child goes without.

Five men, one word, five worlds. None of them lies. Each speaks from inside a hero system that makes his own sense of human the obvious one. Hilton’s human is the answer to a basement flat. The engineer’s is the cage he means to break. The nurse’s is the body she counts in grams. The caseworker’s is the stranger the file protects. The monk’s is the creature before God. The agronomist’s is the mouth he has to fill. The word does not travel. It only seems to, and the seeming is what lets a candidate say human to a crowd and watch a thousand private worlds nod at a thousand different things.

The question Becker presses is whether the hero knows the cost of his own faith. Hilton is no naif. He has lived on both sides of the scale he now defends. He once stood in Downing Street and tried to remake a nation from the center. He once told the old grassroots Tories that the party needed to replace them with a more metropolitan kind. The modernizer who wanted the machine to think his way became the populist who wants the machine torn down. A man who has switched sides like that knows, somewhere, that human is a word a man chooses, not a fact he finds. The campaign does not say so. The campaign cannot. A hero system survives by feeling like the truth, and a candidate who told the crowd that his central word means six things to six men might have little left to run on.

Three coordinates fix the man. The shape of his hero is the rescuer who restores the human scale, who walks into the cold and distant office and turns it back toward the face it forgot, who hands the refugee’s son a home he owns and a name that counts. The rival he fights without naming is the administrator, the manager, the distant elite who governs by file and metric and never learns a face. Under that rival stands an older one he names still less, the father who left and the office that processed what the father left behind. And the one cost his ledger cannot price is this. The impersonal machine he means to break is also the machine that kept his mother in shoes, put him through school, and let a refugee’s son rise to run for governor. The file that erased his family also fed it. Scale is sometimes the only mercy a poor man gets. The last irony of the human scale is that to deliver it Hilton keeps climbing onto the largest stages left, Downing Street, the cable desk, the governorship of nearly forty million, the endorsement of a movement built around one man. He fights bigness with bigness. He means to shrink the world from the top of the tallest platform he can find.

Posted in California | Comments Off on The Steve Hilton Hero System

The Refusal of Erasure

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Luke Ford

She watches a slum come down in Delhi. The machines work through a morning. By afternoon more than a hundred thousand people have no home, and the next day the papers carry nothing. The thing she cannot get past is the silence after. A world ends and the city keeps no record of it.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) writes in The Denial of Death that a man builds his life against two terrors. The first is the body that rots. The second is the fear that he passes through the world and leaves no mark, that the universe does not register him at all. Every hero system answers both. It promises a man that if he does the right things, plays his assigned part, serves the right cause, he earns a place in something that outlasts the grave. He becomes, for a while, of cosmic use.

Nithya Raman (b. 1981) answers a third face of the second terror, and it organizes everything she does. Call it erasure. The unrecorded death is the worst death. A slum can hold a hundred thousand lives, and the bulldozer can take it, and the great machine of attention can decline to notice, and then it is as if those lives never happened. Her first hero act against this is arithmetic. She founds Transparent Chennai and makes maps. She counts the uncounted toilets, the uncounted taps, the uncounted people. The record is the refusal. Nothing leveled without a witness.

She carries the same act to Los Angeles. The city administrative officer hands her a report to write on what Los Angeles spends on homelessness, and she finds the spending opaque, the suffering everywhere, the accounting absent. So she counts again. She co-founds SELAH and sends volunteers out on weekly rounds with hot meals and clipboards. The clipboard is the point. Each man on the sidewalk becomes a name in a file, a person the system now has to see.

Underneath the counting runs a story about the world, and the story is hopeful. Subtract the greed, the exclusion, the enforcement, the developer’s veto, the car, the backroom map drawn in private, and what remains is the city as it should be, the place where, in her phrase, everyone can thrive. Homelessness is not fate in this story. It is policy. The man in the tent is there because the budget put him there, and a better budget takes him out. This is the planner’s faith, and Becker would name it for what it is. It denies that some loss runs deeper than any code can reach. It treats the leveled slum as an error to be corrected rather than a sign of how the world goes. She does not speak the word death. She speaks the line item.

Her hero system is the just city, and the city is her immortality project. A planner does not beat the grave as a body. She pours herself into the polis, the built thing that houses the children after her. The four percent rent cap, the first strengthening of the rent ordinance in forty years. The fight for apartments near the train, the vote against the council resolution that opposed SB 79. The unarmed responder she wants built into 911. Each is a brick in a city she will not live to see finished, set down for the twins at home in Silver Lake and for every child she will never meet. The work outlasts the worker. That is the whole consolation, and she has bet her life on it.

Now take a single sacred word and watch it break apart.

For Raman the word is home. Home is the floor under a life, the thing whose absence she has spent twenty years counting. Home is a right, distributable, a number you can raise. Carry that word across town to the hillside, to Studio City and the slopes above Los Feliz, and it turns into something she cannot use.

A man bought his house on a quiet street in 1994. He planted the jacaranda himself. His children walk the block to a school he can name. He stands at a neighborhood council meeting and looks at a drawing of a fourplex where the bungalow next door now sits, and he feels the floor tilt. For him home is not a right to be handed around. Home is the thing he made and means to hand down whole. His hero system is stewardship. His immortality is the street preserved, the character of the place carried forward by his children after him. He hears everyone can thrive and he hears the end of the only world he has built. He is not a villain in his own telling. He is a man defending his single piece of the eternal. The same word sends him the opposite order. Not build. Hold. Not open. Protect.

Move down the hill to the encampment near the school, the one Section 41.18 means to clear. The outreach worker comes with a meal and a form, and she comes in kindness, and the man in the tent reads the kindness as the soft hand of the apparatus that wants to process him. To the planner, dignity is the path to a unit, the case opened, the bed found. To him, dignity might mean the one thing the system cannot grant, which is to be left alone and unmanaged. He has his own hero project, and it is refusal. The word dignity points the two of them in contrary directions, and each thinks the other has lost it.

The fracture runs through her own coalition. The Democratic Socialists put her in office, and their sacred word is solidarity, and solidarity means the cause held without compromise. She endorses a pro-Israel Democratic group, and they censure her. To the comrade, the hero act is purity, the line never crossed. To the woman now governing, the hero act is the thing built inside the room with people she does not fully trust. Governing looks like betrayal from one chair and like maturity from the other. Solidarity, again, splits down the middle.

It splits even with the woman she now runs to replace. Karen Bass (b. 1953) and Raman both swear by compassion, and they mean different acts by it. Bass means the body in the motel bed tonight, Inside Safe, the relationship worked, the deal closed, the count of people indoors this week. Raman means the system that abolishes the need for the motel, the upstream fix that makes the emergency stop recurring. Bass says her opponent cannot build relationships with her colleagues. Raman says one of fifteen can do only so much, that you need leadership at the top pushing the departments and holding them to account. Two hero systems quarrel under one word, the organizer who wants the result you can touch by Friday and the planner who wants the cause pulled out by the root.

Trace the word home back far enough and it lands in Kerala, with the Tamil Iyer grandparents who raised her while her father crossed the ocean for work. There home means lineage, the line carried, the inherited order, the family as blood and caste and the long unbroken thread. Her whole life is an exit from that hero system into a universal one, where family stops meaning the bloodline and starts meaning the city of strangers she calls everyone. The same word names the thing she came from and the thing she left it for.

And the word touches Hollywood, where her husband works, where the immortality project is the credit, the name on the show that runs in syndication for thirty years. Her campaign now courts the film tax credit, the runaway production, the seven hundred fifty million the state put up. The hero systems brush against each other at the council table, and she steps back from four of seven film votes because he is in the industry and she will not let the conflict stand unrecorded. Even her recusal is the old act. She makes the seam visible rather than let it pass in silence.

She knows some of this. She is honest about scarcity in a way that surprises people who expect a true believer. We do not have the shelter resources we need, she says, which is a hero admitting her system has not yet redeemed the suffering it set out to end. After the leaked tape exposed the backroom map of her district, she pushed independent redistricting, because the private carve-up is erasure too, the voter unmade in a room he never entered. She sees the backroom. She sees the conflict of interest. She built a career on seeing.

What her sight does not reach is the homeowner’s grief. Her frame codes his loss as privilege, as obstruction, as a fee to be raised so that obstruction carries a real cost. It has no line for the man who loses the known street and the inherited home, no entry for the dignity of continuity, which is a sacred thing too. To house the uncounted she has to name an obstacle, and the obstacle is the comfortable, the rooted, the propertied man on the hill. A hero system that needs a villain cannot grant the villain his own interior. That is the price, and she does not appear to know she is paying it.

Three coordinates hold the shape of her.

The first is the shape of her hero. She is the witness who became a builder, the woman who refuses to let a life go unrecorded and then pours herself into the city that houses the next life. She earns her place against oblivion by counting what no one counts, and against the grave by leaving the polis stronger than she found it. The clipboard and the rent cap come from the same wound.

The second is the rival she fights without naming. It is not Bass, not the homeowner, not the censuring comrade. It is contingency. It is the tragic suspicion that the slum was not a policy error but a feature of the world, that no zoning code redeems the bulldozer, that the city grinds someone no matter how she arranges it, and that some morning a hundred thousand people will lose everything again somewhere and the papers will carry nothing. She fights the possibility that suffering is permanent. Her faith requires it to be a design problem, because a design problem has a solution and a tragedy does not.

The third is the one cost her ledger cannot price. Her ledger counts units built and people housed, and these are real numbers, and they hold up under the light. What it cannot price is the grief of the man whose world her city replaces. His love of his street is a hero system as old and as serious as hers. To win, she has to read it as selfishness. She makes the invisible visible everywhere except here, where she needs the man to stay a little invisible so the project can go on.

The planner, the homeowner, the man in the tent, the comrade, the grandmother in Kerala, all of them build against the same dark, and the word home means a different rampart to each. She has chosen hers, and she defends it with maps. The dark she fights hardest is the one she will not say aloud.

Posted in Los Angeles | Comments Off on The Refusal of Erasure

The Save You Cannot Photograph

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Luke Ford

The body comes in at two in the morning. A young man, gunshot, the gurney already wet. The trauma team at County-USC works the airway and the bleed, and Karen_Bass (b. 1953) as a physician assistant in the largest trauma center in the country, holds pressure and counts. Sometimes the man lives. Often he does not. The next night another gurney comes through the same doors, another young man, the same wound, and Bass starts to understand the room she stands in. The trauma bay receives. It does not prevent. By the time the body reaches her hands the thing that killed him sits years back, in a closed factory, a school with no books, a corner where the only work pays in rock cocaine. She is downstream. She is always downstream.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) argued in The Denial of Death that a man builds his life as a hero system, a scheme of meaning that lets him feel he counts in a universe that will erase him. The hero system answers two terrors. The first is death, the animal fact that the body fails and rots. The second is insignificance, the fear that a life changes nothing and leaves no trace. Bass meets both terrors in the trauma bay, and she meets them in their cruelest form. Death arrives too late to fight. The rescue, when it works, changes nothing, because the doors open again the next night on the same wound. A hero system grows from the room a man cannot bear to stand in. Bass cannot bear the bay.

So she walks upstream. In 1990 she gathers a small circle of organizers, Black and Latino, in folding chairs in South Los Angeles, and founds the Community Coalition. The premise is a reversal of everything the bay taught her to accept. You cannot save people one body at a time. You save them before the body breaks. You close the liquor store on the corner before the corner makes the addict. You change the policy before the policy makes the gurney. The crackdown, the war on drugs, the man hauled off in cuffs, all of it she reads as theater performed downstream, where the wound has already opened and nothing remains but to dramatize the loss. Her hero is the one who arrives early, who works on the cause while the cause is still soft, who saves the man who never learns he was in danger. This is the sacred shape of her life. The real save is the one no one sees.

Hold the word save up to the light and it splits. Becker saw that every hero system runs on a few load-bearing words, and that the same word names different gods in different systems. To the trauma surgeon down the hall from young Bass, save means the next ten minutes. The airway, the clamp, the hand that does not shake. He measures his life in the saves he can name, each one a man who walked out who should have died, and his heroism arrives in the worst hour and not a minute before. To the Pentecostal preacher three blocks from the Coalition office, save means the soul at the altar, the man who comes forward weeping while the organ holds a chord, and the rescue is sudden, total, and aimed at eternity rather than at the corner. To the firefighter on the line, save means the house. He wets the roof, he holds the ridge, and at dawn the count is structures standing and structures lost, a ledger of saves you can walk through and touch.

To the builder, save means the keys. Rick Caruso (b. 1959), who ran against Bass and lost in 2022, carries this hero in him, the developer who looks at a broken city and sees a thing he can finish. You save Los Angeles by building it, by handing a family a door that locks and a street that works, and the save is the completed object, the open mall, the housed tenant, the deal closed. To the homeowner in the Palisades, save means the photographs. The box you grab on the way out, the wedding album, the child’s first shoe, the thin paper record of a life, and everything outside that box is loss. Each of these men means something true by the word, and each would fail at the others’ work. The surgeon cannot prevent. The preacher cannot build. Bass cannot save the next ten minutes, because her whole gift is the years before the ten minutes arrive.

A hero system buys its meaning by subtracting something from the world. Bass subtracts the rescue. To make prevention sacred she has to make the visible save suspect, and so across forty years she learns to read the man in the photograph as the lesser figure, the one who shows up late to harvest the credit, the one who treats the symptom and calls it courage. She subtracts the dignity of presence. She subtracts the simple human good of the leader who stands in the ash with his people, because in her system that leader is a distraction from the upstream work that might have spared the ash in the first place. The subtraction serves her well for forty years. It carries her from the Coalition to the Assembly, where she becomes the first Black woman to lead a state legislative house, and on to Congress, and into the mayor’s office in December 2022, the first woman to hold it. Then the wind comes.

January 2025. Bass stands in a receiving line at an embassy in Accra, in town for the inauguration of Ghana’s president, a glass in her hand, posing for photographs. She had promised not to travel abroad as mayor. Back home the National Weather Service has warned of extreme fire weather and a windstorm coming off the mountains. While she smiles for the camera in West Africa the Palisades begins to burn, and then the hills above Altadena, and before the week ends more than ten thousand structures stand as ash and more than thirty thousand acres are gone. She comes home on a military transport. The city that wakes to the smoke wants one thing from its mayor, and it is the one thing her hero system taught her to distrust. It wants her face in the smoke. It wants presence, the body of the leader standing where the houses stood, and she is in a tuxedo line on another continent, the apostle of the save you cannot photograph caught absent at the most photographed disaster in the country’s recent memory.

The rivals arrive to fill the empty frame. Caruso, whose own daughter loses her home to the Palisades Fire, goes on television to indict the city’s failure to prepare, the builder turned accuser, the man who shows up. Spencer Pratt (b. 1983), the reality star whose house burns, runs for mayor on the wreckage of his own block and floods the feed with insults and machine-made videos, the victim turned avenger, a hero system that draws its standing from the suffering it can display. Both men trade in the visible. Both understand, as Bass’s hero never let her understand, that a burning city does not want a theory of root causes. It wants a witness. It wants to see that someone with power has looked at the loss and not flinched.

Does she know what her hero costs her. In part. On the campaign trail in 2026, with a March poll showing more than half the city against her, she reaches for the only currency her system mints. She points to homelessness down by better than seventeen percent two years running, the first sustained drop in street homelessness anyone has seen, against a national rise. She points to a homicide rate at a sixty-year low. These are saves, real ones, the prevented overdose and the gang fight that never starts and the family that comes indoors, and every one of them is invisible by its nature. You cannot photograph the fire that did not happen. She is asking the city to be moved by counterfactuals, by the wounds that never opened, and she half knows the city will not be, because the human eye is built to see the man pulled from the rubble and blind to the rubble that never fell. She tells her supporters she loves them and thanks them for believing when others doubted. The line is warm and a little wounded. It is the sound of a woman who senses that the image beat her and who cannot become the thing that beat her, because the rescuer is the hero she spent her whole life arguing against.

Three coordinates locate her. The first is the shape of her hero, the organizer who walks upstream, who saves before the wound by closing the store and changing the law and reaching the boy before the corner does, whose finest work is a thing that never happens and so can never be seen. The second is the rival she fights without naming, the rescuer, the man in the photograph at the scene of the loss, whether he wears the firefighter’s coat or the developer’s suit or the burned-out star’s grievance, the hero whose whole standing comes from arriving at the disaster rather than before it. The third is the cost her ledger cannot price. A city on fire does not want a number. It wants a face in the smoke, and the hero system that taught her to distrust that hunger as theater left her unable to feed it on the morning the city needed nothing else.

There is a hero system she might have borrowed and did not. The hospice nurse knows from the first day that she cannot save, that the man in the bed will die on schedule, and so she pours everything into presence, into the hand held and the room kept clean and the dying done in company. Her work begins where the save ends. Bass built her life on the opposite faith, that the save is everything and the save lives upstream, and the faith served her until the day the save was already lost and the only good left on offer was the one she had taught herself to scorn. The houses were gone before her plane landed. Prevention had no more to give. The city asked only that she stand in the ash and grieve with it, and that is the one save her hero never learned to make.

Posted in Los Angeles | Comments Off on The Save You Cannot Photograph

The Baker’s Son: Ed Feinstein and the Two Terrors

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Luke Ford

Ed Feinstein (b. 1954) grew up in the back of his parents’ bakery on the western edge of the San Fernando Valley. The oven ran before light. Bread came whether the customers arrived happy or grieving, whether the morning’s news was good or terrible. A boy raised behind an oven learns that the world keeps its appointments. The dough rises on a schedule. The shop opens the day after the funeral.

Ernest Becker (1924–1974), in The Denial of Death, built an account of human life on two terrors. The first is plain. The body dies, and the man knows it, and no other animal carries that knowledge through an ordinary afternoon. The second runs deeper. A man can bear the thought of dying if he believes his life counted in some order larger than his body. He cannot bear the thought that it counted for nothing. So he builds a hero system, a scheme of significance that tells him he counts in a story larger than himself and that some part of him survives the grave. Religion is the most direct of these systems. It answers both terrors at once.

A rabbi runs a house built against both. Feinstein has run one at Valley Beth Shalom in Encino since 1993, and has been its senior rabbi since 2005, when he followed Harold Schulweis (1925–2014) into the chair. He has stood at more gravesides than he can count. He has sat on the edge of hospital beds and held the hands of men who knew the number of their remaining mornings. He has had colon cancer twice. The man who sells transcendence for a living has twice been handed the bill in his own name.

Here is the part a stranger misses. Feinstein does not, in the main, sell a personal heaven. His theology moves the prize. Schulweis taught a Judaism that put godliness ahead of speculation about God, that asked what a man does and not what happens to his soul. Feinstein took the lesson and made it a program. In The Chutzpah Imperative he argues that the Jew’s task is partnership with God in the repair of an unfinished world. In Tough Questions Jews Ask he tells the teenager that doubt is permitted and the afterlife is not the center of the matter. The immortality he offers is collective. A man lives on in the people, in the covenant, in the chain of generations, in the story told again at the table. He does not vanish, because the people does not vanish, and he has added his link.

This is a particular answer, and it sets his hero system apart from the one a stranger assumes a rabbi holds. The reward is not your face preserved forever. The reward is your name spoken at a seder you will not attend, your deeds folded into a story that runs past you in both directions.

The subtraction story stands against all of this. It is the tale the modern man tells about himself: that he has grown up, that he has subtracted the old illusions, that what remains when the superstition is gone is the bare and honest truth, a self that needs no scheme of significance and faces the dark without a story. Becker’s reply is that no one does this. The man who believes he has no hero system has only an invisible one. He has swapped the synagogue for the gym, the covenant for the brand, the chain of generations for the quarterly number, and he defends these with the heat of a man defending his soul, because that is what he does. Feinstein meets the subtraction story every week at the back of his own sanctuary, in the Jew who keeps the ethics and drops the covenant and cannot say why the ethics should outlast the dropping.

Now the value. Feinstein built a book around chutzpah, and the word carries his whole system. For him chutzpah is sacred audacity, the nerve to argue with heaven, to demand that the world be better than it is, to refuse the counsel of resignation. Abraham bargaining for Sodom has it. The prophet shouting at the king has it. The man who buries his child and rises to bless the next morning has it. Chutzpah, in his mouth, is the human half of the partnership, the standing to make demands of God and of oneself.

Carry the same word into other houses and watch it change.

In a glass building south of Market Street a man of thirty calls his investors and tells them he is burning eighteen months of runway on a bet the board rejected. He calls this chutzpah, and his people nod. For him audacity is disruption, the founder who breaks the rule and asks forgiveness once the valuation clears. His hero system promises a different immortality. The name on the company. The product that changes how a billion strangers spend their hours. He does not want a link in a chain. He wants to be the chain’s first link, the origin, the one the later story starts from.

On a ridge in a country the men at home cannot find on a map, a sergeant turns back into fire to drag a wounded private down the slope. The citation calls it valor. He calls it the only thing a man can do. The audacity here is not argument with heaven. It is the refusal to leave the body of a brother, and the hero system it serves runs on the unit, the flag, the honored dead, the names read aloud each year while the living stand at attention. He buys his immortality in the regard of the men beside him and the country behind them.

In a plain church with white walls and no images, an old man hears the rabbi’s word for audacity and flinches. To him the nerve to make demands of God is the first sin, the presumption that lost the garden. His value is submission. His hero system runs on election and providence, on the trust that a sovereign God has already settled the account, and the man’s task is to receive the verdict without complaint. What Feinstein calls courage, this man calls pride.

In a monastery where the bell wakes the men at three, a monk hears the same word and sees the disease he came to cure. The self that asserts, that demands, that wants its name to last, is the knot he has spent forty years working loose. His immortality is the reverse of a preserved name. It is release from the wheel of wanting, the dropping of the very self that chutzpah flatters.

So the word holds steady on the page and runs four different errands. Sacred partnership. Market disruption. Sinful pride. The illusion to be dissolved. Each reading makes plain sense inside its own house and near nonsense in the others. A value carries the meaning of the hero system that issues it, and little meaning outside it.

Does Feinstein know this? More than most men in his trade. The cancer is part of it. A man told twice that he might be dying does not preach the consolations secondhand. He has tested them on himself in the dark and come back to the pulpit able to say them without lying. His books push against the easy comforts. He tells the teenager that the Bible holds contradictions and that a thinking Jew may doubt and stay. He took godliness over metaphysics from Schulweis because he had watched metaphysics fail at the bedside and godliness hold. He wrote his doctoral study on Schulweis and the reinvention of the American rabbinate, which is to say he spent years on the question of how a modern rabbi keeps an ancient house standing once the literal heaven thins out. He knows the synagogue is, among its other errands, a house built against terror. He has said as much in his own words across thirty years from that bima. The self-awareness runs high, and it raises the harder question. What does a man miss when he sees almost everything?

Three coordinates locate him.

The shape of his hero is the man who keeps telling the story. Not the martyr, not the mystic, not the scholar walled in his books. The hero is the baker’s son grown up, the man who opens the shop the morning after the funeral and hands the bread across the counter, who turns his own private terror into a story the next person can hold. He defeats death by handing it forward changed. The storyteller outlasts the grave because the story does, and he has made himself a link the story runs through.

The rival he fights without naming is the self-enclosed modern man who wants the warmth without the covenant, the comfort of belonging with none of its claims. Feinstein spends his charm on the Jew at the back of the room who likes the music and the values and the community and will not be bound, who treats the synagogue as a service he consumes and a heritage he edits. Feinstein never calls this man an enemy. He courts him for forty years. But the whole weight of his work presses against the proposition that a man can keep the fruit of the covenant after he has cut the root, and the rival is that proposition, wearing the face of a charming and reasonable congregant.

The one cost his ledger cannot price is the man for whom the people’s survival is not his own. Feinstein’s immortality runs on continuity. You live in your grandchildren, in the seder you will not attend, in the link you added to the chain. To the man with children and a community this is rich. To the childless man, the one who founds no line and leaves no descendants and sits in no one’s memory at a future table, the offer thins to the point of cruelty, and he hears the thinness even as he is told it. The story that saves the people cannot save the man who falls outside the people’s reproduction. He still dies, and he still wants his own self to count, not the tribe’s. Feinstein’s house has a warm seat for the father and the grandfather. It has a harder time pricing the terror of the man who will not become an ancestor, for whom continuity is the one thing he lacks, and to whom the chain of generations arrives as the news that he is not on it.

The oven still runs before light. The bread still comes whether the morning’s news is good or terrible. Feinstein has spent his life teaching that this is enough, that the work goes on and the man joins it and is carried. For most of the people in his sanctuary, it is enough. The essay only asks after the few it is not enough for, and whether the man at the pulpit, who sees so much, lets himself see them too.

Posted in Conservative Judaism | Comments Off on The Baker’s Son: Ed Feinstein and the Two Terrors

The Table and the Line

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Luke Ford

On the anniversary of October 7, Rabbi Nicole Guzik told her congregation that Sinai Temple would mourn, and then it would dance again. She did not promise the dancing would erase the mourning. She promised both, in that order, on the same floor. A man who has buried someone hears that promise one way. A man who has buried no one hears it another way, or does not hear it at all.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) wrote that man is the animal who knows he will die and cannot live inside the knowing. So he builds a hero system, an arrangement of roles and duties and sacred words that lets him feel he counts in a way the grave cannot cancel.

Two terrors sit under every such system. The first is death, the plain fact of the body that fails. The second runs deeper and lasts longer. It is insignificance, the dread that the life adds up to nothing, that a man passes through and leaves no mark on anything that outlives him. Becker called the answer to both terrors the project of heroism, and he saw that no man builds it alone. He borrows it. He borrows permanence from a group that will stand after he falls. Becker named this symbolic immortality, and a synagogue is one of the oldest engines ever built for it.

Guzik and her husband, Rabbi Erez Sherman run that engine in Westwood, as co-senior rabbis of a Conservative congregation more than a century old, the seat held before them by David Wolpe (b. 1958). The word they spend most, the coin worn smooth in their hands, is belonging.

Walk it through their hero system first. Guzik writes that you belong at the table, and she means the Passover table, where the door opens and the stranger is fed and no one is turned away for arriving late or arriving broken. She trained as a marriage and family therapist and built a mental health center inside the synagogue, and she talks about a loneliness epidemic as a thing a congregation can answer. The answer is belonging. You are not a customer of this place. You are claimed by it. Sherman works the same coin from the locker room. His podcast sits at the seam of sports and faith, and his lesson from the bench is that a man plays for the man beside him, that the team holds the player and the player holds the team. He builds alliances, with Black athletes who decry Jew hatred, with Hindu and Indian communities, and each alliance widens the circle of who stands with whom.

In their hands belonging carries a specific weight, and the weight comes from the dead. The mourner cannot say kaddish alone. He needs ten. So ten gather, on a Tuesday morning when nine of them have somewhere else to be, and the tenth man’s grief becomes the congregation’s business. The dead belong too. They are read aloud on the anniversary of their deaths, year after year, long past the point where anyone in the room knew them. This is what belonging buys in the synagogue. It buys a place in a story that started before you drew breath and continues after you stop, and the price of the place is that you owe the same standing to the next mourner, and the next. You belong by showing up for people you did not choose. That is the heroism on offer. A man earns his significance by carrying others toward a permanence none of them reach alone.

Now watch the word refuse to hold still.

A rifleman in a fire team belongs too, and he would laugh at the table. He belongs to four other men, and the belonging is purchased in a currency the synagogue does not trade. He belongs by being willing to die for the man on his left and by trusting that man to die for him. Ask him about the flag and he shrugs. “You don’t fight for the flag,” he says. “You fight for your guys.” His hero system answers the two terrors by making death itself the entry fee. He cannot be annihilated as long as the unit holds his name, and the unit holds the names of its dead with a fury no congregation matches. His belonging is sealed in blood and shame, and the worst thing a man can do is leave a man behind. The word means devotion unto death. It does not mean a seat at a meal.

A founder on Sand Hill Road belongs, and he means something else again. He wears the vest. He belongs to the people in the room when the term sheet is signed, to the cap table, to the mission written on the wall. He earns his place by shipping, by being load bearing, by output no one else can replace. “Are you a builder,” he asks the new hire, “or are you noise?” His hero system promises a kind of permanence too, the product that outlives the man, the company that runs after he is gone, the dent in the universe. His belonging is conditional and he knows it. The day he stops shipping he stops belonging, and he has watched it happen to better men. So he never stops. The terror of insignificance drives him at two in the morning when the office is empty and the build is broken, and belonging, for him, is the thing he rents each day by being indispensable.

A woman in a white garment at an all night vigil in Lagos belongs, and her belonging arrives from above. She was nothing, she will tell you, and then she was found. She belongs to the body of Christ, washed and born again, and the proof is the testimony she gives standing up, the before and the after. Her hero system answers death by defeating it outright. The grave is not the end of the story but a doorway in it. She does not earn her place by service to the next mourner. She receives it by grace, and she keeps it by faith, and the congregation around her sings until dawn because the belonging is a gift that must be returned in praise.

A young man behind a ring light belongs to his audience, and the audience is a number that moves. He belongs by engagement. The algorithm decides each morning whether he still counts, and he refreshes the screen the way the rifleman checks his weapon. His hero system promises immortality of a thin and modern kind, the clip that travels, the name that trends, the small permanence of being watched. He cannot say who the people watching are, and they cannot say who he is, and still the belonging is real to him, more real on some days than the people in his home. “If they stop watching,” he says once, when the light is off, “who am I.” He does not expect an answer.

And a monk in a saffron robe, holding an alms bowl at first light, does not belong at all, and calls the refusal his freedom. The self that craves a seat at the table is, to him, the disease. He works to extinguish the wanting, not to feed it. His hero system is the strangest of them, because it answers the terror of death by dissolving the one who fears it. There is no name for the dead to hold, because there was no fixed self to die. He stands outside the whole transaction, and from where he stands the table and the locker room and the cap table and the ring light all look like the same fever, men clutching at a permanence that cannot be clutched.

One word. Six men, and a seventh who has trained the wanting out of himself. The synagogue’s belonging is none of theirs, and theirs is none of the synagogue’s, and a rabbi who says you belong here is heard, by each of them, in a different language.

Set against Guzik and Sherman one rival they meet in the flesh, because their work brings him to the door. He is the universalist, and he holds belonging sacred as fiercely as they do, which is what makes him a rival and not a stranger. He belongs to humanity. His hero system tells him that the boundary is the sin, that any line drawn around a people is the old crime in a new coat, and that the heroic life consists of widening the circle until it has no edge. He hears a synagogue organize itself around a people and a land, and he feels the line as a wound. Sherman has met this rival on campus, where rabbinical students once turned their anger on him, and he has built a program to send Jewish teenagers into that weather prepared. The argument looks like politics. Under the politics it is two hero systems fighting over the same word. The universalist says belonging that stops at a border is not belonging but its counterfeit. The rabbi says belonging that stops nowhere holds no one, that a circle without an edge is not a circle and cannot keep a mourner warm. Each accuses the other of betraying the sacred thing. Each is right inside his own ledger and wrong inside the other’s.

There is a second rival, quieter and closer, and it lives inside Guzik’s own toolkit. The therapeutic self is a hero system too, and a powerful one in her city. It holds the authentic individual sacred, his truth, his flourishing, his boundaries. It teaches that a man belongs to a group only so far as the group serves his becoming, and that when the obligation costs him his real self he should walk. Guzik carries the therapist’s license and the rabbi’s. She imports the vocabulary, mental health, destigmatize, process the grief, and the import does real good. It also smuggles in a rival creed. The covenant says you owe the tenth man your Tuesday morning whether or not it serves your flourishing. The therapeutic self asks what the Tuesday morning is doing for you. These two cannot both sit at the head of the table. She holds them together by main strength, and the holding is the most interesting thing she does.

How aware are they of the trade-offs? More than most, and the awareness shows in practice rather than in doctrine. Guzik does not say the covenant and the therapeutic self pull apart. She enacts the seam by refusing to let either win, pairing the mourning and the dancing, putting the therapist’s couch inside the sanctuary instead of across town from it. Sherman does not say that every alliance draws a line as it builds a bridge. He acts as though widening the circle and defending its edge are the same job, and on most days, for his people, they are. Their self-knowledge runs through their hands. Ask them to name the cost in words and they reach for hope, which is the right word for a rabbi and the wrong word for an accountant.

So name the cost yourself, in the only ledger that prices it.

The shape of their hero is the one who carries others toward a permanence none reaches alone, who earns his significance by showing up for people he did not choose, and who keeps the door open so the latecomer and the broken still find a seat.

The rival they fight without naming is not the antisemite, whom they name often and well. It is the universalist who loves belonging as much as they do and concludes that the loving requires no line, and behind him the therapeutic self that loves the individual so well it cannot see why he owes the tenth man anything at all.

And the cost their ledger cannot price is the man the warm table is not for. To make an inside warm you must have an outside. The synagogue’s gift to the lonely is real, and it is bought with an edge, and somewhere past the edge stands the Jew who cannot belong on these terms, the one whose truth the covenant cannot hold, the one for whom the open door is a door into a room he can never make his own. Guzik can count the people she has gathered in. She cannot count him, because he never comes to the table to be counted, and a hero system measures its triumphs and goes quiet about the people its triumphs are built to keep out. That silence is the price. They pay it the way every congregation has always paid it, by keeping the door open and the line drawn, and by trusting that the warmth inside is worth the cold it makes at the edge.

Posted in Sinai Temple | Comments Off on The Table and the Line

The Spark Must Be Spent

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Luke Ford

On a Friday night in Beverly Hills a rabbi picks up a guitar.

The room is the chapel at Temple Emanuel, 300 North Clark Drive, a Reform congregation that has stood in the city since before the man holding the guitar arrived in 1996. There is no organ tonight. There is no choir in robes behind a screen. Cantor Lizzie Weiss stands beside him with a microphone, and the two of them lead the prayers the way a folk duo leads a room, melody first, the old Hebrew set against tunes a congregant might hum in a car. The rabbi composed some of these melodies himself. You can find them on Spotify. He calls the service Shabbat Unplugged, a name borrowed from a record format, and the borrowing is the point. The guitar on the bima tells the congregation what kind of Jew it is allowed to be. Not the kind bent over a folio in a study hall. The kind that sings.

Jonathan Aaron came to the rabbinate from theater. He holds a Bachelor of Fine Arts from Emerson College in Boston before he holds a single degree in Hebrew letters. He writes plays. He writes the shpiels for Purim. He composes the temple’s anthem each year, a new song for a new theme, and he composes liturgical poetry and blessings, and he leads the congregation in the music he made. The synagogue, he teaches, is the center of Jewish spiritual expression. Each person carries a spark, a ruach chochmah, a spirit of wisdom, and that spark wants out. For one man it comes out as Torah study. For another as yoga, or meditation, or cooking, or standing among trees. For Aaron it comes out as art. His deepest reach toward God runs through the act of making.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gives us the tool to read this. In The Denial of Death he argues that man is the animal who knows he will die, and that culture exists to hide this knowledge from him. Every society hands its members a hero system, a set of roles and prizes and sacred acts by which a man can earn the feeling that he counts, that he is not a body destined to rot but a creature of cosmic worth. The hero system is a vital lie. It works by telling a man what to do with his terror.

Aaron’s system answers two terrors at once. The first is the plain one. The body dies. The man who sang on the bima will stop singing. Against this, Aaron offers the song that outlasts the singer. He names the thing himself when he calls Torah study a conversation between us and the generations who came before us. The conversation has no last word. A man who adds a verse to it joins a chain that ran before his birth and runs past his death. The recording stays on Spotify. The anthem gets sung next year by people who never met him. This is an immortality project stated almost in the open.

The second terror bites the modern Reform Jew in a particular place. He has set down the yoke of the 613 commandments. He keeps no strict Sabbath, no kashrut, no fixed daily prayer that binds him whether he feels it or not. The law no longer tells him he matters to God. So what does? Here the spark answers. Every soul carries one. Every spark is unique. To leave it unexpressed wastes a thing God placed in you for a reason, and so the modern Jew, freed from the law, finds a new commandment that fits a free man: express, or betray the spark. The terror of the unbound self, the fear that a liberated life leaves no mark, gets met by the doctrine that the self is sacred and the self has work to do.

There is a story told about Reform Judaism by its critics, a subtraction story. It says Reform is Orthodoxy with the hard parts removed. Take away the dietary law, the man says, take away the second day of festivals, take away the Hebrew a congregant cannot read, and what remains is a thinner thing, a Judaism for people who want the belonging without the burden. Aaron’s hero system exists to refute that story, and it refutes it by inverting the arithmetic. What the critic counts as subtraction Aaron counts as clearing. Pull up the law that grew over the spark and the spark breathes. The yoga, the guitar, the meditation, the plays, these are not the leftovers of a stripped tradition. They are additions, new rooms built once the old walls came down. The service is unplugged so that the man inside it can be heard.

Now take the word at the center of all this and watch it travel.

Expression. In Aaron’s hands the word means the soul finding its outward form, the spark made visible, the self carried out of the body and into a song that survives the body. To express is to live fully. To withhold is to die with the music still in you. The word carries love in it, and risk, and a wager against oblivion.

Carry the same word into a study hall in Lakewood, New Jersey, and it turns to poison. A yeshiva man there hears expression and hears the yetzer hara, the inclination that flatters the self and calls the flattery holy. His hero is not the man who lets the spark out. His hero is the man who annuls the self before the text, bittul, the emptying of the I so that something larger can fill the space. He fears death too, and his answer is the opposite of Aaron’s. He does not add his voice to the conversation. He receives the conversation and guards it without changing a letter. Ask him what he made today and the question lands wrong. He made nothing. He submitted. The spark that Aaron would spend, the yeshiva man would hold, because to spend it is to mistake the candle for the sun.

Carry the word into a Trappist monastery and it thins again. The monk has taken a vow that touches speech. He believes God lies past the reach of any saying, and that the highest prayer climbs toward silence, the long unsaying of everything a man might want to declare. Expression, to him, marks a falling-short. Words are the noise a soul makes on its way to the place where words run out. He stands against the same death Aaron stands against, and he meets it by growing quiet, by becoming the kind of man whose mark on the world is the absence of his clamor.

Carry it into a Marine recruit depot. The drill instructor has a hero system built on the deletion of the self. The uniform exists to make one man look like every other man. The haircut, the cadence, the surrendered name, all of it works to dissolve the I into the unit, because a unit that holds together saves lives and a man busy expressing himself gets people killed. Tell him the synagogue is the center of self-expression and he hears a recipe for a broken line. His immortality runs through the Corps, a body older than him and outliving him, and a man earns his place in it by giving up the very thing Aaron tells his congregation to find.

Carry it into a meeting at a sneaker company and the word turns to money. A brand strategist there loves expression. Express yourself, the campaign says, and the strategist means buy the shoe, because expression has become a product category, a feeling sold back to the customer who supplied it. The word that risks everything in the chapel risks nothing in the conference room. It moves units.

Carry it into an Old Order farmhouse and it becomes the sin with a name. The Amish farmer calls it Hochmut, the pride that lifts a man above his neighbors, and he sets against it Gelassenheit, the yielding, the lowering of the self into the community and the will of God. A man who paints his barn a loud color expresses himself and shames the district. The plain coat says what the man believes about the spark, which is that a spark drawing eyes to itself burns toward damnation.

And carry it, last, into a place Aaron knows from before he was a rabbi, the theater. The actor lives by expression too, and means by it almost the reverse of what the rabbi means. The actor expresses by vanishing, by emptying himself of his own face so a written character can wear it. His gift is self-erasure dressed as performance. He does not bring the spark out. He puts it away and becomes someone else for three hours, and the better he is, the less of him you see.

One word. A wager against death in the chapel, a temptation in the study hall, a failure in the monastery, a danger in the barracks, a sales tool in the boardroom, a sin in the farmhouse, a disappearance on the stage. The word makes sense only inside the system that issues it. Lift it out and it changes shape in your hand. This is what Becker means when he says a hero system tells a man what to do with his terror. The terror is the constant. The word is the local coin, and it spends only where it was minted.

How much of this does Aaron see?

More than most who run his system, and the bio shows it. A man who frames Torah study as a conversation across the generations has half-named the immortality project in plain sight. He knows the song is supposed to outlast him. He built a service to make the spark audible and a body of recorded work to keep it audible after the breath stops. He has read his own wager, or something close to it. What the system cannot let him say out loud is the harder half of Becker’s claim, that the wager might fail, that the spark might be a story the dying tell themselves, that the conversation across generations runs on the same denial as the plain coat and the surrendered name. The doctrine that every soul is sacred and every spark must be spent comforts the free Jew exactly because the alternative, that a liberated life can leave no mark and owe no answer, sits too close to the second terror to be looked at directly. The vital lie does its work by staying lyrical. The guitar helps.

Three coordinates locate the man. His hero takes the shape of the artist-priest, the one who reaches God by making, who turns the synagogue into a studio and ordains the spark as the thing that must not be wasted. The rival he fights without naming is the Jew of the yoke and the annulled self, the man in the study hall for whom expression is the temptation and submission the crown, the figure whose existence forces the subtraction story Aaron spends his career inverting. And the one cost his ledger cannot price is the possibility that some sparks ask to be held rather than spent, that silence and self-erasure are not failures of nerve but answers of their own, and that a system which tells every soul it owes the world its song leaves no honored place for the soul whose deepest word is a vow to say nothing.

Posted in Beverly Hills, Reform Judaism | Comments Off on The Spark Must Be Spent

The Weight They Call Dignity

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Luke Ford

Yoshi Zweiback (b. 1969) grew up one of a handful of Jews in his grade in Omaha. He has joked that the city held about six thousand Jews, near the membership of the temple he runs now in the hills above Los Angeles. In the second grade the teacher asked him to stand and explain the theology of Hanukkah. He was seven. The other boys looked at the cap on his head and asked what the beanie was for. He did not have the answer the teacher wanted. He stood and gave what he had.

At home he sang. He taught himself guitar and piano, wrote songs, and held a fireplace poker for a microphone while he performed for his parents.

Set those two scenes beside each other. A boy asked to account for his difference in front of a room that finds it strange, and a boy alone at the hearth deciding the world will hear him. A hero system takes shape there, before the man has a word for it.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) wrote that a man lives under two terrors. The first is plain. The body fails and goes into the ground. The second runs deeper and frightens him more. The life might not have counted. It might leave no mark and weigh nothing. Culture answers both at once. It hands a man a hero system, a set of values that tells him what a life that counts looks like and how to earn one. The hero system comes before argument. A child breathes it in before he can name it. The boy with the poker had already picked his. He meant to be heard, and he meant what he sang to carry weight.

Years later he founded a tzedakah collective and gave it the heaviest word in the Hebrew language. He called it Kavod and said its work protects human dignity.

The root of kavod means heavy. Kavod is weight, gravity, the thing that presses down and stays. In the Torah the kavod of God fills the sanctuary, and the priests cannot stand because the weight of the Presence is too great for a man to bear upright. Honor, glory, dignity, the heft of a life that registers against the void. One word holds all of it. When Zweiback takes that word and hands it to every man, beggar and donor alike, he makes a bid. He says the weight of God’s glory rests on the ordinary person, and the job of a community is to keep that weight from being stripped away.

This is the Becker apparatus working in Hebrew. The hero system is the device for making a life weigh something. Zweiback named his after the weight.

There is a story told about men like him, and the Orthodox tell it with some heat. The story says Reform Judaism is Judaism with the weight removed. God shrinks to metaphor. The commandments become options on a menu. The synagogue turns into a clubhouse with a sanctuary attached, a place to mark birth and death and feel Jewish on the way to assimilation. On this telling, Zweiback’s human dignity is secular humanism wearing a prayer shawl, and kavod is a fine word for a thin thing.

Becker would not grant the story its premise. You cannot subtract the hero system. A man does not arrive at the bare truth by stripping illusions, because he needs the weight to live, and if you take one source he reaches for another. Zweiback has not lightened the sacred word. He has moved its holiness. He took the glory that filled the Temple and laid it on the man in the food line. The Orthodox hear this as theft. Becker would call it the oldest transfer in religion, the holy relocated to a new altar so that life can keep its gravity.

Walk the word through his world and watch what it carries. Every man bears the divine image, b’tzelem Elohim, so the kavod owed him is not earned and cannot be forfeited. The collective gives in a way that guards the face of the one who receives, no shame attached to need. Service is joy. He cites Psalm 100, serve the eternal with gladness, and he means it. He writes melodies. As part of the band Mah Tovu he recorded a camp song that turns the plagues of Egypt into a singalong. His books carry titles like Day of Days and Days of Wonder, Nights of Peace. The Judaism he sells is light to carry and warm to hold, and he believes a man need not choose between the modern world and the covenant. He holds the dignity of a people with a state and the dignity of the stranger in the same hand and calls the holding progressive Zionism. Run the whole thing back to Omaha and you find the boy who refused to be small. Kavod, for Zweiback, is the promise that no one has to be small.

Now the trouble Becker pointed at. The same sacred word means different things in different hero systems, and each system needs its own meaning to be the true one.

A trauma surgeon at the end of a long night uses the word too. He stands at the bed of a man he cannot save and asks the family whether they want him to keep going. For him dignity is control. It is the body still under command, the choice honored, the tubes out when the patient said no tubes. His hero system holds death off with skill, and when skill fails it hands a man a clean exit. Tell the surgeon that dignity cannot be forfeited and he will think of a ward he has seen, and he will disagree without saying so.

A Marine gunnery sergeant uses the word and means bearing. You do not break. You hold the line, you carry your wounded out, you bring your dead home, and you do not weep where the young men can see you. His dignity is the refusal to be shamed in front of the unit, and his weight comes from the Corps that will remember his name. He would not understand a dignity that asks for nothing and proves nothing. To him a thing given free has no weight.

A grandmother in an honor culture, Sicilian or Pashtun or Bedouin, uses the word and means the name. The family name kept clean across generations, the daughter married well, the insult answered. Shame for her is a death the body survives, and dignity is the line continuing unstained. The donor who guards a stranger’s face would puzzle her, because in her world face is the family’s and a man alone does not have one to lose.

A founder in a glass building south of San Francisco uses the word and means leverage. Dignity is the freedom to walk out of any room and not need it, the money that makes him answerable to no one, the company that might outlive him. His immortality is a dent in the world. The man in the food line is to him a problem of efficiency, and a dignity that depends on being given to looks to him like the opposite of the thing he is building.

These men are not confused about the word. Each one is right inside his own system and could no more adopt another’s meaning than he could adopt another’s death. That is Becker’s point about evil. The systems do not merely differ. Each needs the others to be wrong, because if the surgeon’s dignity is the true weight then the Marine’s is sentiment, and if the founder’s is true then the grandmother’s is superstition, and a man cannot hold his life up against the dark with a weight he half believes is fake.

The rival closest to Zweiback shares his book.

Picture an avrech in a study hall in Lakewood or Bnei Brak, black hat on the bench beside him, a volume of Talmud open, the room loud with argument. He uses the word kavod, and he draws the distinction Zweiback’s whole project rests on top of. There is kavod ha-briyot, the honor owed to creatures, and there is kavod shamayim, the honor owed to Heaven, and when the two meet the second wins every time. To the avrech, a man is not the bearer of glory. A man is the servant of the law, and his weight comes from submission, from making himself nothing before the Throne so that the Throne can be everything. He looks at the dignity Zweiback prizes, the autonomous self that chooses its commandments and keeps its face, and he hears the snake in the garden. You shall be as gods. He sees a Judaism that put the man where God belongs and called the swap progress.

The two cannot both be heroes. For Zweiback the commandments serve the man. For the avrech the man serves the commandments. Same Torah, same word, opposite floor. Each requires the other to be mistaken about the heaviest thing there is.

How much of this does Zweiback see? More than most. He trained in religion at Princeton and felt the call in his sophomore year. He is a fellow at a Jerusalem institute built for Jews who want their tradition and their modern minds in the same skull. He hosts a podcast called Search for Meaning, which is an odd title for a man who thinks meaning sits ready to be found. The temple he leads prints its own creed on the wall. We make meaning and change the world. Make. Not receive, not obey, not inherit. Make. That is a constructivist confession built into a brand, and a less self-aware man would never let it stand. He knows he is building the weight, not just carrying it. He says so on the signage.

So three coordinates, in plain prose.

The shape of his hero is the singer who makes the small weigh. The boy who would not stay small grew into the man who tells every other small person that the glory of God rests on him, and who sets it to a melody so the claim goes down easy. His heroism is the transfer, the holiness moved from the sanctuary to the stranger, performed with joy so that no one notices how much is being asked of the word.

The rival he fights without naming is the avrech, who says weight comes from Heaven alone and that a dignity a man grants himself is no weight at all. Zweiback rarely argues with him head on, because to argue is to admit the floor is in question, and the whole appeal of his Judaism is that the floor feels solid and the burden feels light.

The one cost his ledger cannot price is the floor. Kavod means heavy, and heaviness needs a foundation under it. The avrech’s dignity is heavy because Heaven is heavy and certain. The surgeon’s is heavy because the body and its death are real. Zweiback keeps the full glory of the word while loosening the ground it stood on, trusting joy and community and the divine image to hold the weight that God once held. It may hold. It has held for him, in a full sanctuary on a Los Angeles hilltop. The cost he cannot enter in his books is the chance that the word travels lighter to the next room than it reached him, that his congregants keep the comfort and mislay the gravity, that the grandchildren inherit the dignity and forget the weight, and find one day they are holding a beautiful word with nothing underneath. He took the heaviest word there is and made it light to carry. He may have done it by quietly setting down the part that made it heavy.

Posted in Stephen S. Wise temple | Comments Off on The Weight They Call Dignity

The Curator of Attention

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Luke Ford

On a Friday night at Temple Beth Am the seats face each other. The room runs in the round, under glass that holds the last of the Los Angeles light. An inner circle of singers forms. The niggun starts low. Rabbi Adam Kligfeld stands inside the ring and lifts a hand, and the wordless tune climbs. He built this. He calls it Sovev, the surrounding. The other service, the Shabbat morning Hama’alot, he has timed minute by minute, the way a composer scores a film. Nothing in the hour is left to chance. The aim is one thing. He wants the man in the third seat, the one who came in tired and thinking about Monday, to stop and feel that he stands somewhere holy.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) taught that every culture builds a hero system, a way for a man to earn the sense that his life counts against the silence of death. The system answers two fears. The first is the body that rots. The second is the suspicion that nothing a man does will register, that his days run rote and then end. A hero system gives him a part to play in a story large enough to outlast him. It tells him his small acts count in the order of things.

Kligfeld names his own two fears in his own words. He says the message under most of his teaching is, in his phrase, be attentive. He believes all spiritual aspiration raises the mundane to the exalted, the ho-hum to the holy, the rote to the ecstatic. Read him through Becker and the terror comes clear. The thing he fights is the rote. A life done without attention is death before the body dies, a man eating breakfast and clearing email and never looking up. The second terror runs under the first. It is dissolution, the chain of transmission snapping, the tradition handed down for a hundred generations stopping in this one, the people thinning into the surrounding culture until nothing is left to hand on.

His hero system has sacred words. Attention is the first. Covenant is the second. Holiness sits over both. Each word feels solid when he uses it, as though it points to one fixed thing. It does not. A sacred word holds its shape inside the system that gave it meaning. Carry it across to another hero system and it bends. The same syllables open onto a different heaven.

Take attention. In Kligfeld’s hands it points up. The attentive man notices the bread before he eats it and says a blessing, and the bread changes. Attention is the door from the ho-hum to the holy, and it binds the man closer to the practice, to the people, to God.

Sit a Zen monk in the next seat. He has spent forty years on attention. For him the breath watched with enough care dissolves the watcher. Attention loosens the grip of the self until the self thins out and the man sees there was never a fixed I to bind to anything. Kligfeld’s attention ties knots. The monk’s attention unties them. Same word. Opposite work.

Now a man who sells attention. He runs a company in a glass building south of Market Street in San Francisco. His product is a meditation app, and his deck calls attention the scarcest resource of the age. He means the thing advertisers buy and apps capture and a worker spends or wastes. Attention for him is a quantity, counted in minutes, leaking out through notifications. He wants to help you hoard it and spend it on what you choose. He has read some of the same teachers as the monk. He has built a hero system out of focus, and the holy never enters it.

Send in a field medic under fire. Attention for him narrows to the wound and the hands and the next breath of the man bleeding on the road. He does not raise the mundane to the holy. He holds a man inside the mundane long enough to keep him there. His whole training points his attention down, to the body, to the artery, to the clock.

Take covenant. Kligfeld loves a line from the Midrash. God says to man, your light is in My hand, My light is in your hand. He hears mutual fragility in it. The covenant binds two parties who can each fail the other, and the binding is the holiness. He hears the chain too, the brit handed from a father to a son for a hundred generations, the rabbi one link in a line that must not break on his watch. His immortality runs through the chain. He will die and the tune will go on, sung by people who never knew his name, and that is how a man cheats death in this system.

His wife works the same word for a living. Havi Kligfeld is a couples therapist. She sits across from two people who once made a covenant and now cannot stand the sound of the other chewing. Covenant for her is not the chain. It is the choice the two of them make again on a Tuesday afternoon in her office, or fail to make. She repairs covenants one marriage at a time. He repairs the covenant of a people. The same word runs through both their workdays and points at different things, his at the line of generations, hers at the two faces in the room.

Put a Haredi man in the picture. He keeps the covenant as a yoke, the ol malkhut shamayim, the kingdom of heaven taken on whole and without edit. Covenant for him is the fence, the law that does not move because a man finds it hard. He looks at the curated Friday night, the in-the-round seats, the new music, and he sees a covenant redecorated to please the people in the chairs. Where Kligfeld hears living tradition, he hears erosion.

Set a young organizer beside him, the kind who marches and writes and means every word. Covenant for him is the bond of the just against the powerful. He uses the word the way the prophets used it, a demand for righteousness, and he has little patience for a covenant that spends a Friday night on niggunim while the world burns. Kligfeld’s covenant looks inward, toward the people and the practice. His looks outward, toward the street.

Becker said each hero system carries a subtraction story, a picture of what the man becomes once you strip the illusions away. Kligfeld’s subtraction story sits right under the word attention. Take away the practice, the blessing over the bread, the timed service, the chain, and what remains is the modern man who does his days without noticing them. He works and scrolls and sleeps. He feels little and expects little. He has a self sealed off from any larger order, a self that no longer leaks out toward God or the dead or the people. Kligfeld looks at that man and sees one already dead inside his own week, and the whole craft of the curated service, the minute by minute, the inner ring of singers, exists to pull him out for one hour and show him he can feel.

Most men inside a hero system cannot see they stand in one. They take their heaven for the only heaven. Kligfeld is harder to catch this way. His own theology runs on the mean. He quotes the Talmud that absolute justice is oppression and absolute peace is lawlessness, and he reaches for the point between. His movement, Conservative Judaism, names itself as a middle thing, tradition and change held in one hand, set between the Orthodox who change nothing and the Reform who change at will. A man who builds his house on the mean knows he has chosen a tension and not a pole. That is a rare clarity. He knows the fundamentalist sleeps better. He knows the man who threw the whole tradition overboard travels lighter. He chose the harder seat and he knows the price of the seat.

Three coordinates fix the man. The shape of his hero is the curator of attention, the rabbi who times an hour to the minute so the tired man in the third seat will feel the holy press in, who earns his slice of forever by keeping the old tune sung after he is gone. The rival he fights and does not name is not the Haredi and not the Reform Jew, who are his cousins and quarrel with him as cousins do. His real enemy is the shrug, the man sealed in his own week who finds the whole tradition a pleasant noise and feels nothing when the niggun climbs. Against that man he builds every service.

The one cost his ledger cannot price is the suspicion under the mean. He has chosen the middle and called it wisdom, and he might be right. The middle might be where truth lives. It might also be where a man goes to keep everyone in the room, the donor and the doubter and the board, none of them angry, all of them dues-paying. The mean makes no martyrs. The bridge-builder gets walked on from both ends and thanked by the center, and he can earn a long warm career without once finding out whether he held the middle because it was true or because it kept the peace. He teaches that absolute peace is lawlessness. The teaching cuts toward his own life and he knows it. That is the one number the ledger will not show him, and he keeps the books anyway, by candle and tune, on a Friday night, in the round.

Posted in Beth Am | Comments Off on The Curator of Attention

The God Who Cannot Compel: Bradley Shavit Artson and the Hero System of Process

Posted on June 21, 2026 by Luke Ford

A woman sits in the rabbi’s study. Her son is dead at nineteen, a car on the 405 at two in the morning, and she has come with the question that predates the Book of Job. She does not raise her voice. She asks where God was.

Ernest Becker (1924–1974) puts two terrors in that room with her. The first is the body. The boy is meat now, and so is she, and so is the rabbi across the desk, and every creature that ever drew breath has come to the same end. The second terror is worse, because a man can almost bear his own death if it counts for something. The second terror is that it counts for nothing. The universe runs on whether or not the boy lived. A hero system answers both terrors at once. It tells a man how to die and still win, how to lend his small life to something that does not perish, so that the grave becomes a door and not a wall. Every culture sells one. Every clergyman is a salesman of the local model.

Bradley Shavit Artson (b. 1959) holds the dean’s chair at the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies and has spent a career building a model unlike the one most of his congregants were raised to expect. The expected model is old and strong. It says God is King of the Universe, all-knowing, all-powerful, outside time, lacking nothing. Maimonides (1138–1204) gave the Jewish version its iron frame. That God cannot change, because change means He was once less than perfect or will become so. He cannot suffer, because suffering is a lack, and He lacks nothing. He cannot be moved by the woman’s prayer, because to be moved is to be altered, and the perfect admit no alteration. You pray to that God to change yourself. He is the fixed point, and the hero attaches his perishing life to the one thing in the cosmos that does not perish.

Artson refuses that God. He calls Him an idol.

The refusal grows from a wound and from a library. The wound is the one in the study, multiplied across a century that produced Auschwitz and the boy on the freeway. The library is process theology, and Artson is its most visible Jewish exponent, the author of God of Becoming and Relationship: The Dynamic Nature of Process Theology and Renewing the Process of Creation: A Jewish Integration of Science and Spirit. The argument cuts at the root. A God who could have stopped the car and chose not to is not worth worshiping. So Artson surrenders the divine power to stop the car. His God does not coerce. His God lures. He works the way a melody works on a listener, the way a teacher works on a student who remains free to refuse. He is woven into the becoming of things, not perched above it, and He grows alongside the world He calls forward. He felt every minute of the boy. He loses nothing. The dead are held in His unfading life. That is Artson’s answer to the mother. Not a King who could have intervened and declined, but a companion who suffered the loss with her and carries her son forward in a memory that time cannot erode.

Watch what happens to a single sacred word inside this system, and then watch the same word in the systems built against it. Take power.

For the Reformed pastor working in the tradition of John Calvin (1509–1564), power is sovereignty. It is the decree that stands before the foundation of the world, the will that elects and reproves and answers to no court. The boy died because the decree included his death, and the pastor’s comfort, hard as flint, is that nothing fell outside the plan. To worship is to bow before a will you cannot question and call it good. Power means the absolute capacity to ordain.

For the Marine on his third deployment, power is the capacity to impose. It is the round that finds the target and the order that moves the column. A man earns his place in that hero system by becoming an instrument of force aimed well, and his immortality is the flag, the unit, the name read aloud at the next muster after he is gone. Power is what you do to the enemy before he does it to you.

For the hospice nurse at the end of a double shift, power has reversed its meaning. Her hero system is built on the thing the Marine and the Calvinist both flee. She has no decree and no round. Power, for her, is the discipline of not fixing, of sitting with the dying and refusing to lie to them, of managing the pain she cannot cure. She earns her significance by presence in the face of the very helplessness the other systems exist to deny.

For the founder in Menlo Park, power is leverage and scale, the capacity to move a million users with a line of code, to outlast death by building a thing that runs after the body quits. He prays, if the word fits, to growth.

For the Hasidic rebbe, power flows downward through a channel. The tzaddik does not own it. He conducts it, drawing abundance from the upper worlds into this one, and his court orbits him because he is the conduit, the place where heaven touches the street.

Five men, five women, one word, and it splits into five different things, each of which holds together only inside the system that gives it weight. Artson’s redefinition is a sixth. Power, in the God of becoming, is persuasion. It is the strength to invite without forcing, to call without compelling, to suffer the refusal of the beloved and keep calling. Inside his hero system this reads as the highest power, the love that will not coerce because coercion is the weakling’s tool. Carry that same sentence into Calvin’s study and it reads as blasphemy, a God demoted to a suggestion. Carry it to the Marine and it reads as defeat. Carry it to the founder and it does not parse at all. The word does not travel. It means what the system needs it to mean, and the systems do not need the same thing, because they are built against the same two terrors from different ground.

The honest measure of a hero system is the cost it cannot see on its own books. Artson sees most of his. He knows he has traded the omnipotent rescuer for the suffering companion, and he names the trade as a gain. He would rather have a God who is true and weak than a God who is strong and a liar about the freeway. He has read the objection a thousand times and answers it without flinching. That is real intellectual courage, and it sells well to the educated congregant who could not believe in the King anymore and was about to leave the building. Artson built a door for that man to stay.

The cost his theology cannot price sits one floor below the argument. A God who cannot compel offers the mother company in the dark. He does not offer her the boy back, and he does not promise the dark ends. For the parent who needs a rescuer and not a fellow mourner, the partner God is thin soup. Artson chose truth over that comfort, by his own lights, and a man is allowed to. But the choice has a price, and the price is paid by the one who needed the other thing.

There is a second cost, and it does not live in the books at all. It lives in the building. In 2024 the American Jewish University investigated Artson and his deputy dean after complaints gathered over two decades from former rabbinical students, alleging a pattern of favoritism toward men and disrespectful treatment. The investigation closed that June. The firm reported that students had experienced discrimination, though it judged the problem not systematic, and the university did not release the report. The Rabbinical Assembly opened a parallel inquiry. Rabbi Artson retired in June 2026.

Set that beside the theology. A man teaches a God who rules by invitation and never by force, who holds the world in a relationship of mutual regard, who calls and waits and refuses to coerce the beloved. The same man ran a seminary, held the chair, decided whose career advanced and whose stalled, and stood at the head of a hierarchy where a student’s vocation passed through his favor. The students who filed those complaints did not describe an invitation they were free to refuse. They described a power that felt like the old kind, the kind that ordains and is not questioned, the kind Artson spent his life teaching God does not use. The theology of relationship and the structure of the institution did not match. Becker would not call that hypocrisy. He would call it the standard human gap between the hero system a man preaches and the one he lives, the gap every man carries, widened here by the size of the claim. The bigger the theology of mutuality, the louder the silence where mutuality failed.

Three coordinates, then.

The hero is the partner. The Artson hero does not wait for God to mend the world and does not bow before a decree he cannot fathom. He puts his hands on the broken thing and works beside a God who is also working and also at risk, and he finds his significance in the labor shared with a vulnerable partner rather than in submission to an invulnerable King.

The rival he fights without naming most days is the God of his own prayer book. The liturgy he leads still calls God King of the Universe, still says He kills and makes alive, still hands the old sovereign the throne. Artson preaches against that God on the page and chants to Him on Shabbat morning, and the rival lives inside the tradition he serves, which is why he can never finish the fight.

The one cost his ledger cannot price is the distance between the sermon and the staircase. A God who cannot compel is a beautiful answer to the woman in the study and a hard thing to square with the students who walked the halls below his office and felt compelled. The theology absolves God of the power to coerce. It does not absolve the man who held the chair.

Bradley Shavit Artson and the God of Becoming

Bradley Shavit Artson (b. 1959) ranks among the more consequential theologians of contemporary American Judaism, a figure who combined a long institutional career in rabbinic education with a sustained effort to rethink the idea of God for a scientific age. For more than twenty-five years he held the deanship of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles, where he helped train hundreds of Conservative rabbis. Across the same span he built a body of theological writing that drew on process philosophy, evolutionary biology, cosmology, and neuroscience, and that argued, against a long tradition of assumed conflict, that Jewish faith and modern science can deepen rather than diminish each other.

He was born in San Francisco, California, and educated at Harvard, where he studied history and literature and graduated cum laude in 1981. As an undergraduate he interned for Congressman Phillip Burton (1926–1983) and Senator Alan Cranston (1914–2000), and after graduation he worked for a time in the California State Assembly. The pull toward public life gave way to the rabbinate. He enrolled at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, the flagship institution of Conservative Judaism, and received ordination with honors in 1988. Already in rabbinical school he showed the preoccupations that would mark his later career, publishing early work on Jewish ethics and on war, peace, and nuclear disarmament.

Many rabbis with academic ambitions move quickly from ordination to the university. Artson did not. He spent a decade in the pulpit, serving Congregation Eilat in Mission Viejo, California, from 1988 to 1999. The congregation grew under his leadership from roughly two hundred families to more than six hundred, and his Introduction to Judaism course gained a wide reputation. Hundreds studied with him, more than two hundred converted to Judaism, and ten of his congregants later entered the rabbinate. The decade fixed a conviction that would shape everything after it: that Jewish life flourishes when it presents itself as intellectually serious and open to people who arrived without an extensive Jewish education.

In 1999 he joined the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, soon renamed the American Jewish University, and within a year he became dean of its Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies. He held the post for about a quarter century, and under his direction the school became a principal center of Conservative rabbinic training. Artson argued that the modern rabbi needs more than command of Talmud and Jewish law. He broadened the curriculum to include pastoral counseling, spiritual direction, psychological resilience, leadership formation, and the practical skills of communal life. The rabbi he wanted to produce served at once as scholar, legal authority, counselor, teacher, and institutional leader.

His reach extended past North America. He became founding dean of the Zacharias Frankel College at the University of Potsdam in Germany, a center for Conservative and Masorti ordination in Europe under the religious supervision of the Ziegler School. He took part in the support of emerging Jewish communities elsewhere as well. In 2008 he ordained Rabbi Gershom Sizomu, spiritual leader of the Abayudaya community in Uganda, and joined a court that converted candidates from several African countries. A regional chief gave him an African name.

Artson pursued advanced theological study alongside his administrative work. He earned a Doctor of Hebrew Letters in contemporary Jewish theology from Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion under the supervision of David Ellenson (1947–2023). The doctorate supplied the academic ground for the project that became the center of his intellectual life: the adaptation of process theology to Judaism.

Process theology descends from the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) and the later work of Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000). It rejects the classical picture of God as an all-powerful, unchanging ruler who stands outside time, and describes instead a God bound up in relationship with creation and in the unfolding of events. Artson holds that the traditional doctrine of omnipotence grew harder to sustain after modern science and the catastrophes of the twentieth century. His God does not control every event. He offers, at each moment, the possibility of greater goodness, justice, creativity, and connection, while respecting the freedom of the world He calls forward. The argument found its fullest statement in God of Becoming and Relationship and in Renewing the Process of Creation, books that set out to build a Jewish worldview able to absorb evolutionary theory, quantum physics, systems theory, and contemporary cosmology without treating science and religion as sealed compartments.

The treatment of suffering and evil stands at the heart of the project. In God of Becoming and Relationship, in The Search for God and the Path to Persuasion, and in the broader argument he sometimes summarized as “Almighty No More,” Artson maintained that faith need not rest on belief in a deity who directs history and could halt any tragedy at will. The Holocaust, natural disaster, illness, and human cruelty press hard on the older claims about divine power. Process theology answers that God neither causes suffering for hidden reasons nor holds the coercive power to prevent every loss. God accompanies creation through suffering, offering strength, guidance, love, and new possibility. The aim is to keep both divine goodness and human freedom intact, and to make a defensible faith available after Auschwitz.

The roots of this theology run into Artson’s own home. He married Elana Shavit Artson, and they have twins, Shira and Jacob. Jacob’s severe autism shaped his father’s thought and public work. Artson wrote at length about raising a non-verbal son, and about how the experience tested his earlier assumptions about prayer, communication, and human dignity. He came to treat disability not as a problem demanding explanation but as a summons to deepen compassion and widen communal inclusion, and his writing on the subject made him a leading advocate for the place of people with disabilities in Jewish religious life. That commitment ran alongside his support for broader participation in Jewish communal life, including LGBTQ inclusion, interfaith engagement, and racial justice, positions he advanced while remaining rooted in Conservative Judaism and its claim that the tradition holds resources for the moral questions of the present.

A large part of his influence came from a capacity to carry difficult ideas to readers without specialist training. Beyond his scholarly books he wrote for general audiences in The Bedside Torah and The Everyday Torah and in many guides to practice and spirituality. He published hundreds of articles, lectured across North America and abroad, oversaw adult education programs, and supervised the Louis and Judith Miller Introduction to Judaism Program at the American Jewish University. His weekly Torah commentary reached thousands of subscribers.

His theology met a personal test when he underwent treatment for cancer. Writing about the experience in public, he reflected on mortality, resilience, and gratitude, and found the themes of his scholarship pressing on his own life. The episode confirmed his sense that faith rests less on certainty or supernatural rescue than on relationship, courage, and companionship in the face of what no one escapes.

In 2026 Artson concluded his deanship after more than a quarter century, and the American Jewish University marked the occasion with a gala in his honor. He took up the title of Mordecai Kaplan Distinguished Scholar, a name that links him to Mordecai Kaplan (1881–1983), the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism and an earlier American thinker who tried to reconcile Jewish tradition with a naturalist account of the world. Artson continued to teach, write, and mentor.

Conservative Judaism has long been known for scholarship, legal reasoning, and institutional strength rather than for systematic theology. Artson worked against that pattern. By bringing process philosophy into long conversation with Jewish sources, he undertook an ambitious theological program and pressed a question central to modern religion: how an ancient faith might stay intellectually credible and spiritually compelling in a world shaped by evolution, neuroscience, cosmology, and historical catastrophe. Whether a reader accepts his answers or not, he stands among the significant Jewish theologians of his generation, a man who sought a Judaism that holds tradition and scientific inquiry together and that names God a partner in the ongoing work of creation rather than a distant ruler above it.

Theodicy and Charisma: Bradley Shavit Artson Through Max Weber

The problem of innocent suffering does not press on all religions with equal weight. Weber saw that it grows sharper as a faith grows more rational and more demanding about its God. A world of many gods spreads the blame, since one god’s cruelty answers to another god’s mercy, and no single will stands behind the whole. A God who made everything, knows everything, governs everything, and loves what He made has no one to blame but Himself. Ethical monotheism builds the trap and then lives in it. The more majestic the God, the louder the question of the child dead on the freeway and the six million dead in the camps. Weber called the rational accounts that answer this question theodicies, and he held that a high religion stands or falls on the one it can sustain.

Weber counted the solutions that hold together under pressure, and there are not many. Predestination keeps God’s power and goodness whole by placing His decrees past human judgment, so that the elect and the damned both serve a glory no creature may question. Calvin took that road. Dualism splits the cosmos between a power of light and a power of darkness, so that suffering comes from an enemy God fights rather than from God’s own hand. Zoroaster took that one. The doctrine of transmigration in India solves the problem with an iron justice across many lives, so that every soul reaps what it sowed and no fate is undeserved. Each answer holds, and each pays a price. Predestination buys God’s majesty with His warmth. Dualism buys His innocence with His sovereignty. Karma buys perfect justice with the abolition of grace. Weber’s point stands behind all three. A man cannot keep God’s goodness, God’s power, and the reality of evil at full strength at once. He keeps two and surrenders the third, and the religion he builds takes its shape from the one he gives up.

Bradley Shavit Artson gives up the third. He keeps God’s goodness and the reality of evil, both at full strength, and he lets the power go. His God does not govern the freeway and chooses companionship over control. The car crashes because the world holds real freedom and real chance, and God could not stop it without unmaking the freedom that makes love possible. Weber’s older theodicies refused this move, and they refused it for a reason Weber understood. A God stripped of coercive power loses the majesty that made men kneel. The Calvinist God terrifies and so commands. The Artson God accompanies and so consoles. Weber would file the surrender of omnipotence as a fourth solution, late and distinctly modern, available only to a religion that has already absorbed the disenchantment of the world and no longer expects God to part the sea. The price is the throne. Artson pays it without protest and calls the throne an idol.

The man who builds such a theology belongs to a type Weber drew with care. He is the religious intellectual, and Weber held that the intellectual carries a hunger the ordinary believer does not feel. The peasant wants rain and a cure for the sick cow. The intellectual wants the cosmos to cohere, to form a single whole that yields an answer to the question why, and he suffers when the world refuses. Salvation religions of intellectuals, Weber wrote, grow from this refusal of the world to make sense on its own. Process theology is an intellectual’s theodicy through and through. Artson built it for the educated congregant who reads evolutionary biology in the morning and cannot kneel to the King of the Universe at night, the man who needs his science and his faith to speak without contradiction or he will keep neither. Weber named the demand. Artson tried to satisfy it.

The demand runs into Weber’s hardest verdict, the one he delivered in “Science as a Vocation.” The world has been disenchanted. Science has emptied the cosmos of intrinsic meaning and left a chain of causes that answers how and never why. The scholar at his desk can tell a man what is and cannot tell him what to do or how to live or what his suffering is for. Weber thought the honest man of his age had two roads. He could bear the disenchantment with a clear eye and ask no comfort of a silent universe, or he could make the sacrifice of the intellect, the sacrificium intellectus, and return to the arms of the old churches, which take such men back without shame. Weber respected both roads and warned against the third, the road of the man who wants the consolation of faith without the surrender of reason, who dresses the old longing in the language of the laboratory and calls it knowledge.

Artson takes the third road and means to walk it without paying the toll. He reads the disenchantment and refuses Weber’s choice between bearing it and fleeing it. He says the cosmos that science describes, the cosmos of emergence and novelty and relationship, points on its own toward a God of becoming, so that the believer need not check his reason at the sanctuary door. Weber watches this with respect and doubt. The respect is for the seriousness of the attempt, which asks no man to deny what the telescope shows. The doubt is older and colder. Weber suspected that the marriage of science and salvation always hides a sacrifice somewhere, that the intellectual who finds his God confirmed by cosmology has read his hope into the data, and that the disenchanted world stays disenchanted no matter how warmly a gifted teacher describes it. Whether Artson dodged the sacrifice or only buried it deeper is the question the frame leaves open, and the frame does not flatter either answer.

Then there is the school, and here Weber’s second great category takes over from the first. Artson did not build the Ziegler School on rules. He built it on himself. Students wanted what he carried. The weekly commentary reached thousands because the man on the page held them. The curriculum he wrote, the rabbis he formed, the campers and the European ordinands and the African community he flew to install, all of it gathered around a person with extraordinary gifts whom others recognized as extraordinary. Weber has a name for authority of that kind. He calls it charisma, the power that rests not on tradition and not on rule but on the recognized gifts of a particular man. Charisma does not inherit and does not elect. It appears in a person, and it commands because the person commands, and it knows no regulation outside the leader’s own sense of his calling. Weber gave it a motto borrowed from the Sermon on the Mount. It is written, but I say unto you.

Charisma is the least stable authority Weber knew, and it cannot survive in its pure form. The gifted man ages and dies, and the school he built on his person must find some way to outlast him, which means it must convert his charisma into something that runs by rule or by inheritance. Weber called the conversion routinization, and he treated it as the fate of every charismatic order, the slow exchange of the prophet’s fire for the clerk’s ledger. Routinization is itself a kind of disenchantment, the cooling of the personal flame into the impersonal office. The deanship gave Artson an office, a legal and bureaucratic seat with rules attached, but he held the office charismatically, by the force of the man rather than the terms of the chair. An institution run that way distributes its goods the way charisma always distributes them, by the leader’s favor and not by impartial rule, because charisma recognizes no rule above the leader’s own discernment.

The collision arrived in 2024. The American Jewish University opened an investigation into Artson and his deputy dean, Rabbi Cheryl Peretz, after complaints that had gathered across two decades from former students, who described a pattern of favoritism toward men and disrespectful treatment. Weber’s frame names the form of the conflict. A bureaucratic and legal apparatus, the firm, the formal process, the assembly’s probe, was brought to bear on an authority that had run on personal gift. The complaint that a charismatic leader favors some over others and binds himself to no even rule is not an accident of one man. It is the standing tension Weber predicted between charisma and bureaucracy, the one that says favor and the other that says rule, and the investigation is the rule arriving to ask the favor to account for itself. Routinization, in Weber’s sense, came to the Ziegler School in the shape of a law firm.

In 2026 Artson stepped down after a quarter century, and the university held a gala, and he took the title of Mordecai Kaplan Distinguished Scholar. Weber would read the gala and the named chair as routinization completing its work. The charisma of the man becomes the honor of a title, the fire becomes a name carved into a chair, and the school keeps the prestige while shedding the unruly person who generated it. The Kaplan chair is a fitting close, since it ties Artson to an earlier teacher who also tried to keep faith and the modern world in the same room. The honor is real. It is also the form that charisma takes when it has been made safe for the institution that outlives the man.

Artson’s theology spent its strength stripping God of coercion, building a God who governs by persuasion and never by force, a God whose power is the patience to invite and wait. Charismatic authority is the most personal power a man can hold and the one least bound by rule, the power that says I say unto you and answers to no written code. The theology unmade compulsion in heaven. The authority that carried the theology into the world ran on the one form of earthly command that recognizes no rule above the gifted self. Weber does not call that hypocrisy. He calls it the condition of charisma, which builds great things on a person and then must be tamed by rule before it can be trusted, and which feels, to those who stand below it without favor, like a power that answers to no one. The God lost His throne in the books. The throne stayed warm in the dean’s chair until the rule came for it.

A God for the Immanent Frame: Bradley Shavit Artson Through Charles Taylor

A man sits in the pew on a Saturday morning and cannot do the thing his grandfather did without effort. He cannot believe the old way. He has read his biology and his cosmology, and the universe he carries in his head runs on causes that ask no God to push them along. The sea does not part. The dead stay dead. He knows this the way he knows the earth goes around the sun, in his bones and below argument, and no sermon will talk him out of it. He also cannot do the other thing, the thing the village atheist does with a shrug. He cannot live in a world that means nothing, a flat world of matter and decay where his love for his children is a chemical accident and his grief at the graveside signifies as little as rust. He is caught between two impossibilities, and Charles Taylor (b. 1931) wrote a thousand pages about him in A Secular Age. Bradley Shavit Artson built a God for him.

Taylor’s account starts with the shape of the modern self. The man in the pew has what Taylor calls a buffered self, a self with a firm wall between the inner mind and the outer world. Meaning lives inside him, in his thoughts and his choices, and the world outside stands inert, a field of objects that carry no charge of their own. His ancestor had a porous self, open to a world thick with spirits and powers and holy places, where a relic could heal and a curse could kill and the boundary between mind and cosmos ran thin. The long change Taylor traces, the draining of the spirits out of the world, sealed the porous self into the buffered one. The buffered man is safe from possession and safe from grace alike. Nothing outside gets in without his leave. The old God belonged to the porous world, a King who reached into nature and bent it, and that God cannot find a door in the buffered wall. Artson’s congregant is buffered to the core, and he cannot will himself back into porousness any more than he can unlearn the heliocentric solar system.

Around this self Taylor draws the immanent frame, the background all moderns share whether they believe or not. It is the sense of a natural order that runs on its own, complete in itself, requiring no reference to anything beyond it to be understood. We breathe it. The unbeliever takes the frame as closed, sealed against any transcendent, and reads his own closure as the verdict of reason. The believer takes the frame as open, spun toward a beyond that the same natural order might point to. Taylor’s sharpest claim is that neither reading is forced by the evidence. The frame can be lived open or closed, and the choice runs deeper than proof, down in the place where a man senses where life is fuller and where it goes thin. The believer and the unbeliever both feel the pull of the other side. Taylor calls this the cross-pressure, the modern condition in which no faith is naive and no doubt is final, and every position feels the draw of its opposite.

Taylor spent his polemical energy on a story he thinks modern people tell themselves and get wrong. He calls it the subtraction story. The story says that secularity is what remains when you subtract illusion, that the modern unbeliever is simply the human being who was always there under the religious paint, revealed once the paint came off. Taylor denies it. Unbelief was not uncovered. It was built, a new and demanding self-understanding that had to be constructed against the grain, an achievement and not a residue. Hold this against Artson, because Artson tells half a subtraction story and resists the other half. He accepts that the omnipotent King was an error the modern man does well to subtract, a primitive picture science and history have retired. He refuses the larger subtraction that would leave only matter and call faith a leftover. The doubleness is the Taylorian condition exactly. Artson stands in the cross-pressure and tries to keep his footing.

His footing is process theology, and read through Taylor it is a re-enchantment built to the buffered self’s own specifications. The trick of it is restraint. Artson does not ask the buffered man to become porous again, to expect the sea to part or the relic to heal. His God of becoming never breaches the causal order. He does not reach in from outside and bend nature, because He has no outside to reach in from. He is woven through the becoming of things, present in the emergence and the novelty and the relationship that the science describes, calling the world toward goodness from within rather than commanding it from above. This is a God the buffered self can hold without breaking his own wall, a transcendence that asks no return to the enchanted world, a way to spin the immanent frame open while leaving the buffered boundary intact. Artson found the one shape of God that fits through the modern door.

Taylor insists that belief and unbelief are lived from particular places, that no man reasons his way to God or away from Him on a blank slate, that the sense of fullness a man orients by rises from where he has stood and what he has carried. Artson stood in a home with a non-verbal son whose dignity no theory of the useful soul could account for, and he stood later in the country of his own cancer, where the questions stop being academic. A theology that grew from those places is not a marketing scheme for the educated. It is the testimony of a cross-pressured man working out, from inside his own life, how to keep the frame open when the flat reading is always there at his elbow offering its cold relief. Taylor honors that. He thinks the open frame is lived this way or not at all, out of the depths of a particular life, and Artson’s God carries the marks of the life that produced Him.

So the frame grants Artson his sincerity and his achievement, and then it asks the hard question, the one Taylor reserves for the liberal theologies that accommodate the modern self with such care. Has Artson spun the immanent frame open, or has he furnished its inside more warmly. A God so fully at home in immanence that He never disturbs it, never breaks the causal order, never confronts the self with anything the self did not already half-possess, starts to look less like a transcendent Other and more like the immanent frame’s own most comfortable tenant. Taylor worries that the malaise of immanence, the flatness the congregant fled, might not be cured by a God who is immanence described in a kinder voice. The buffered man wanted a way out of the flat world. Artson may have given him a way to stay in it and feel religious, which is a different gift, and perhaps a smaller one. The transcendent in Taylor’s account is supposed to unsettle, to break in, to call the self past itself toward a good it did not author. A God who fits the modern door so well may have been measured to the doorframe.

The danger sharpens in what Taylor names the age of authenticity, the late modern climate where each man finds his own path and his own spirituality and answers to no authority but his sense of what speaks to him. The God of becoming is a God a buffered seeker can accept without surrendering anything, without the scandal of miracle or the yoke of a law he did not choose, and a God accepted on those terms edges toward a God of the self’s own choosing, the deity of expressive individualism wearing the robes of an ancient tradition. Taylor does not say Artson has crossed that line. He says the line runs near, that a religion shaped this precisely to the contours of the modern self risks becoming a mirror, and that the warmth the congregant feels might be the warmth of his own reflection. The question is whether Artson’s God calls the buffered man out of himself or only keeps him company where he already sits.

Taylor leaves it open, because his whole argument forbids him to close it. The immanent frame can be lived open or closed, and no proof settles which reading is true, and a man who builds a door in the frame’s wall cannot demonstrate that it leads outside rather than into another room of the same house. Artson built a real door. Educated men who had given up on God walked through it and found something they could hold without lying to themselves about the age they live in, and that is no small work in the cross-pressured world Taylor describes. Whether the door opens onto the transcendent or onto the most spacious chamber of immanence is the question the frame poses and refuses to answer, and Artson, who knows the cross-pressure from the inside, might be the last man to claim he has settled it.

Posted in R. Bradley Shavit Artson | Comments Off on The God Who Cannot Compel: Bradley Shavit Artson and the Hero System of Process