Readers' Questions to
Larry Kaufman
Is there any room any longer within the Reform Movement for us “Ethical Monotheists”? It seem more and more that so called Classic practice is marginalized, while I and I know many others still find the majestic language of the Union Prayer Book and the hymns of the Union Hymnal (if you can ever find them) and the emphasis on prophetic Judaism far more uplifting and rewarding. I know there are a few large holdout temples like Sinai in Chicago and I read the commentary from them quite closely. Please advise how we can at least retain much of what was very good about the classic period?
Bert Devorsetz
Temple Beth Shalom
Winter Haven, Florida
The question is not whether there’s room for Ethical Monotheists—hopefully that’s all of us—but whether Ethical Monotheism is enough. Judaism remains the operative word in the phrase Reform Judaism, and “Movement” hopefully implies forward movement. “Classicists” might not see it the same way, but I believe today’s mainstream is totally committed to prophetic Judaism, but without ossifying the style of 1885, or even 1955, into a new Orthodoxy.
As expressed in the opening statements, today’s Reform worship style reflects the wants and needs of today’s worshippers—less formal, more participatory, more visual. To retain that which you miss from the Classic period, you have only to assemble a community of those who shares your preferences. My observation of congregations that identify with the Classic tradition is that many of them (including Chicago Sinai) are quite different from what they were even twenty-five years ago in terms of their ritual practice and worship style—and that is very much as it should be in a movement committed to modernity. .
Like Mr. Kaufman, I was raised in a different tradition. Even in the eleven years I’ve been involved in the Reform Movement, I’ve seen drastic changes toward traditionalism which have, quite frankly, made me a lot more comfortable in the Movement. From what I understand about the Conservative Movement, they seem to be moving toward us while we are moving toward them, embracing egalitarianism, allowing musical instruments at Shabbat services, and with a majority of the membership (in one survey) favoring the recognition of patrilineal descent because they have some of the same issues with intermarriage that we do. Do you think that we’re headed for an eventual merger? I could at this point ask the same questions about Reconstructionism.
Steven Taub
Greensboro, North Carolina
Prior to commenting on Mr. Taub’s premise (or premises), let me zero in specifically on his question: Do I think we’re headed for an eventual merger? No.
I remembered when, immediately following the establishment of the state of Israel, there were suggestions that, their mission accomplished, the various Zionist organizations could close up shop. One knowledgeable observer responded that no organization in Jewish life ever closes up shop while someone still wants to be president and someone still wants to be executive director.
Institutional self-interest aside, would an eventual merger make sense? Let’s look again at the three-part formula for differentiation – how we live, how we worship, how we think. I don’t see a lot of lifestyle differentiation between Reform Jews and Conservative Jews (and haven’t for years, except possibly in terms of at-home Kashrut observance); and I agree that the cosmetics of worship are less different than they once were, and that Conservative Judaism has followed us, not only in the areas mentioned by Mr. Taub, but also in ordination of women and acceptance of gays and lesbians, to name two that I consider very significant.
But even with the new, more liberal leadership at its Seminary, I don’t see the Conservative movement abandoning its commitment to finding its new answers within halachah, binding Jewish law; and I don’t see the Reform Movement accepting halachah for governance. Ideologically, I think there’s room under the big tent of Reform for the Reconstructionists, but the same institutional constraints to a merger would apply. So no, I don’t think in any near term definition of “eventual,” that it’s likely to happen either. |
Readers' Questions to
Ben Dreyfus
This is truly what should be discussed. Great topic. Don’t let it stop. I find this so important to many of us who have found themselves uncomfortable in having to choose a certain congregation because of location or services that are not what we were raised with. Reform Judaism has been an adjustment to me, being raised Conservative and educated Orthodox. I find its approach to be more inviting to the lay crowd yet dis-inviting to those with an understanding of Conservative Jewish customs. As society has now evolved so far from its restrictive elements of the nineteenth century, I wonder if these few changes in Reform traditions will be like the natural ebb and flow of other cultural organizations and businesses in order to change with the times. The times are now begging for more structure in our lives and customs.
David Weinstein
I agree with your suggestion that there should be more diversity and flexibility in customs among Reform communities. Reform Judaism represents a set of approaches to halachah (Jewish law) and aggadah (narrative), but there are many possible minhagim (customs) that are consistent with Reform halachah and aggadah. These include minhagim that are based in the last 200 years of Reform Jewish history, but also include minhagim that come from other streams of Judaism and from present and future innovations. While each community will develop its own minhag and therefore no one community will appeal to everyone, the Reform Movement as a whole should be open to a wide range of practices that reflect Reform Jewish values but may not reflect aesthetics that have historically been considered “Reform.”
In light of this call for more flexibility, I disagree with your suggestion that recent changes in Reform Jewish practice represent “more structure.” Yes, society has become less restrictive and more open to individual expression; these changes in Reform practice are a manifestation of this, not a backlash against it. To take communal prayer as an example, Classical Reform worship was very regimented, with the congregation reciting responsive readings in unison, sitting and standing when instructed to, and listening attentively to the choir. Congregations that have moved away from this model have done so in ways that increase individual freedom. And this increase in individual freedom is not at the expense of the community; on the contrary, communities become strengthened when their constituents are fully actualized, active participants rather than passive followers.
While I value reevaluation of religious ritual as inherent to Reform Judaism, I wonder if the current trend of observing certain rituals, running conferences on spirituality and other developments in our movement isn’t more of a response to the rise of “faith based Christianity” than it is to something meaningful in Judaism. It is fine and good to wear a tallit if it makes us “feel Jewish”—I really mean that—but we should recognize that this is all it does. It doesn’t change our relationship to the halachah on which the wearing of a tallit is a command, not a matter of choice or feeling. More importantly, I question whether focusing on “good feelings” diverts us from the passion for social justice that motivated Reform generations in the recent past. I would happily be proved wrong, but my sense is that, as liberal Jews try to look and feel more Torah-centered, we are losing our focus on the great issues that are prophet-centered.
David Bamberger
Cleveland, Ohio
Several disconnected responses:
1. In my experience, there is little or no significant influence from Christianity, even though there may be concurrent trends in Judaism and Christianity. This may vary regionally, but my Jewish communities are not in sufficient contact with Christian religious communities to be influenced by them; the non-Jewish world I live in is primarily a secular one.
2. In an emancipated society, the distinction between “command” and “choice” is not so sharp when it comes to matters not addressed by civil or criminal law. Believing in any religious belief system that places commands on the individual (whether Reform Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, or anything else) is ultimately a choice, and once one believes in such a system, the question of whether or not to carry out those commands is also a choice whose consequences will not be enforced by any human authority.
3. As I mentioned in my response to Larry Kaufman, the Torah itself explains the purpose of the tallit: “…look at it and remember all of God’s mitzvot and do them” (Numbers 15:39). Thus the very earliest source we have for the tallit describes its purpose as evoking a particular reaction in the wearer. But this reaction is not merely “good feelings,” but is a prompt to further action. In this sense, the tallit is emblematic of the ritual mitzvot in general. Ritual, then, if carried out with the proper intention, should not divert attention from social justice, but on the contrary, should deepen our passion for social justice. We are approaching Yom Kippur. During this holy day, we read how the prophet Isaiah warned us that it is worthless to observe a fast out of context while continuing to sustain an oppressive society. However, if fasting for one day can focus us so that we can work the rest of the year “to unlock fetters of wickedness, and untie the cords of the yoke to let the oppressed go free” (Isaiah 58:6), then this fast is effective. |
