What Does Reform Judaism Stand For?

What Does Reform Judaism Stand For?
Jack Wertheimer
June 2008


It is by now a well-documented fact that liberal Protestant denominations in the United States have fallen on hard times. In the mainline churches that once dominated American religious life—and from which emerged the country’s political and cultural elites—the pews have been emptying since as long ago as the 1960’s.1 As the average age of churchgoers edges ever upward, the challenge of recruiting both members and qualified clergy looms larger still, adding to the general sense of demoralization and desuetude. In the meantime, membership in conservative Christian denominations, particularly the evangelical churches, has been swelling.

Against this backdrop, the seeming growth and high morale of Reform Judaism—the Jewish analogue to the liberal Protestant denominations—are nothing short of astonishing. Rather than losing “market share” to its more conservative counterparts, the Reform movement has become the label selected by the plurality of those who identify themselves with the Jewish religion. Nor is its success a matter only of numbers. The movement’s internal decisions—on everything from synagogue liturgy to the religious status of gays and lesbians to rabbinic officiation at intermarriages—are widely regarded as bellwethers of American Jewish life at large. The voice of Reform leaders is also heeded on issues of American public policy, and as its base has grown, the movement has come to expect its views on these issues to carry considerable weight in the councils of the American Jewish community, if not beyond.

Understandably enough, Reform seems to attract the greatest attention when it appears to be acting contrary to type. Late last year, for example, articles in the general and Jewish press marveled at the release of a new Reform prayer book incorporating a much more “traditionalist” attitude toward long-discarded practices and modes of Jewish worship. What could this signify? A healthy openness and self-confidence or, perhaps, a sudden loss of direction? In either case, the time is ripe for a look at the successes Reform has achieved in the last decades, and at the obstacles that may lie in wait for it.

_____________



As it happens, shifts in direction, even radical ones, are nothing new in the history of Reform Judaism. The movement proudly declares its name to be both a noun and a verb, and ever since its emergence in America 150 years ago, it has self-consciously striven to adjust to the rhythm of the times.

In its first period of growth, Reform appealed primarily to Americanized Jews of Central European origin whose families had arrived here in the early and middle decades of the 19th century. By the post-Civil War era, this population had achieved economic success and high social status, and in the process had sloughed off most traditional Jewish practices like observance of the dietary laws (kashrut) and home-based Sabbath rituals. Their synagogues, too, were undergoing what seemed to be an inexorable tide of reformation, introducing organ music, a formal “High Church” aesthetic, abbreviated services, a liturgy largely in English, and rabbinic sermons delivered with oratorical panache.

On the organizational side of Reform, Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise of Cincinnati spearheaded an effort to weld individual congregations into a Union of American Hebrew Congregations. This body, in turn, founded the Hebrew Union College (HUC) to train rabbis. By the early 20th century, Reform Judaism had become the dominant religious expression of the native elite of the Jewish community (as opposed to the newly arrived immigrants from Eastern Europe and their families who, insofar as they affiliated themselves with religious observance, tended to join more traditionalist synagogues).

Historians have debated the reasons for the movement’s rapid spread. Much of the debate is academic, but one question has continued to reverberate: was American Reform built upon a structured ideology—on strongly held principles—or did it primarily reflect a series of pragmatic adjustments to the shifting scene? Perhaps the most sustained attempt to articulate a true ideology was the “Pittsburgh Platform” of 1885. According to that document, drafted at a conclave of Reform rabbis, the movement was committed to Judaism as a religion of ethical monotheism; to a highly rationalistic understanding of the deity, presented as a “God Idea”; to the pursuit of social justice for all; and to a definition of Jewishness as solely a matter of confession. On the negative side, much of the ritual structure of Judaism was dismissed as a throwback to an era now rendered anachronistic by the advances of science and human reason. In particular, the movement rejected “such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress.” By the same token, it also rejected any national component to Jewish identity or hope for the restoration of Jews to Zion.

We cannot know for certain how ardently these principles were held by ordinary Reform Jews, as distinct from their rabbis. In Reform congregations, however, men were forbidden to wear a head covering or prayer shawl; dietary laws were openly flouted; and the prayer services pointedly eschewed any reference to the national aspirations of the Jewish people.

This period of what is known as “classical” Reform lasted until nearly the outbreak of World War II, when the movement experienced an influx of new leaders with a different set of assumptions. As the children of East European immigrants became a force within both the membership base and eventually the rabbinate, and with the growth of the Nazi menace in Europe, Reform’s longstanding opposition to Zionism began to collapse. By 1937, the Reform rabbinate had accepted a neutral (as distinct from hostile) stance on the issue. During the war, this would give way in turn to a positive embrace of the Jewish national movement, compelling anti-Zionist Reform rabbis to break away and found the American Council for Judaism.

_____________



Throughout this period, Reform Jews continued to dominate the leadership of the American Jewish community at large—including the top positions within the Zionist camp, occupied by Rabbis Stephen S. Wise and Abba Hillel Silver. But Reform attitudes were increasingly out of synch with the sentiments of the large majority of Jews in the country, a majority now made up of second-generation Americans who held a generally more positive view of ritual observance and found Reform “temples,” with their socially exclusive policies and their emphasis on strict decorum, to be alien places.

As the new Jewish majority moved out of the inner cities and into the burgeoning suburbs, Reform began to adapt. Suddenly, temples were sponsoring such formerly unheard-of rites as bar-mitzvah and, later, bat-mitzvah ceremonies. The shofar replaced trumpet blasts on the Jewish New Year, and head coverings and prayer shawls made a slow comeback.

Some of this “increased ritualism,” as it was dubbed by its antagonists, represented a self-conscious effort to compete more effectively with Conservative Judaism, which during the 1950’s would overtake Reform as the preferred religious choice of the plurality of American Jews. But many within the movement saw it as a move in precisely the wrong direction, into the benighted past. The historian Jacob Rader Marcus, a revered professor at HUC, spoke for them:

There are today too many Reform Jews who have ceased to be [religious] liberals. Their Reform, crystallized into a new Orthodoxy, is no longer dynamic. . . . We cannot lead our people forward by standing backward.
Sounding a similar note, rabbis contributing to a 1960 symposium urged Reform to stick to its pristine agenda. As one respondent declared: “We should not fear to be different.”

For the next few decades, the movement zigged and zagged without a defined direction. Clearly, it had repented of large parts of its “classical” ideology. But what it stood for was harder to say. For the centenary of its founding in 1973, the movement had hoped to produce a timely statement of principles; the document finally appeared three years later.

_____________



At some point in the 1980’s, however, things appear to have changed again, and Reform emerged stronger, more unified, and more sure of itself. This is the Reform we know today. Several related initiatives undertaken by the movement help explain the turn in its fortunes. Their common watchwords are “inclusiveness” and “choice.”

For one thing, the movement incorporated sexual egalitarianism as a cardinal principle. Initially this meant that women would be treated as complete equals in all aspects of religious and synagogue life. In 1972, HUC had been the first American Jewish seminary to ordain a woman rabbi, a precedent it followed by becoming the first to graduate a woman as a cantor. Over the ensuing decades, women assumed key positions in the governance of congregations and in the movement’s national institutions. In time, Reform also embraced openly homosexual Jews, welcomed so-called gay synagogues into its congregational body, ordained open gays as rabbis and cantors, and sanctioned wedding and/or commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Nor were these the only moves toward inclusiveness. Hoping to retain the allegiance of Jews who had married or who wished to marry non-Jews, significant numbers of Reform rabbis began to bless interfaith unions, thereby overturning a long history of opposition to the practice. Congregations, meanwhile, launched “outreach activities” to draw in intermarried Jews and their families. In 1983, the Reform rabbinate turned aside the accepted rabbinic definition of a person qualifying as a born Jew—the traditional criterion is a person whose mother was Jewish—so as to include anyone who had one Jewish parent of either sex and who took part in public acts of Jewish identification (for instance, by attending a synagogue).

In terms of demographics, this particular initiative produced dramatic results: by the turn of the 21st century, over 25 percent of the member families in Reform temples were intermarried.2 And no less open-armed was Reform’s new approach to diverse types of Jewish expression. In ritual matters, the movement now happily accommodated head coverings and prayer shawls for both men and women during services, while continuing to welcome those who eschewed such garb; synagogues and other institutions began to provide for members wishing to observe aspects of Jewish dietary laws, even as they respected the desires of those partial to prohibited foods. And so forth.

Here the guiding principle has been autonomy and choice. Each individual Jew has the inalienable right to define which aspects of the faith are personally meaningful to him; so long as these choices are “informed,” the movement not only tolerates but endorses them.

On two fronts, leaders have pressed hard for their own point of view; in each case, their instincts have appeared to be wholly in tune with the temper of the times. The first concerns synagogue services, which were deemed hopelessly deadening and in desperate need of revision. As Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the head of the congregational body, put it:

[F]ar too often, our services are tedious, predictable, and dull. Far too often, our members pray without fervor or concentration. Far too often, our music is dirge-like and our Torah readings lifeless, and we are unable to trigger true emotion and assent.
In response, congregations began to experiment with liturgies combining traditional prayers with newly composed prayers and poems; organ and choir music gave way to singing accompanied by flutes, stringed instruments, and drums; rabbis dropped their formal sermons in favor of open discussion. Most noticeably, Reform temples in which congregants were accustomed to sitting passively in pews now freed them to move around the sanctuary—carrying the Torah, dancing during prayers, greeting one another as fellow worshippers.

The final step in this process came last year with the release of the radically revised prayer book for Sabbath and holidays.3 As was immediately noticed, the new volume incorporates many more Hebrew prayers than its predecessors and restores much of the structure of the traditional worship service. At the same time, though, in the regnant spirit of inclusiveness and choice, it also provides ample room for each synagogue to tailor the liturgy however it sees fit.

The second front is the political. Until recently, it was possible to find Reform rabbis and lay leaders active in both the Republican and Democratic parties, and the movement’s pronouncements on matters of public policy retained at least a studied semblance of political neutrality. This is no longer the case. In recent years, Reform Judaism, at the prodding of its Washington arm, the Religious Action Center, has issued resolution after resolution in support of Left-liberal positions across an array of political and social issues. It has opposed the war in Iraq and the nomination of Justice Samuel Alito; sharply rebuked the Christian Right; and vigorously supported the left-wing Democratic stance on gay marriage, affirmative action, and school vouchers.

In all of these areas, the Reform movement has aligned itself perfectly with positions adopted by mainstream liberal Protestantism. But Protestant denominations have split badly over questions like liturgical innovation, abortion rights, and gay ordination. In contrast, on some of the most divisive issues of our time, Reform leaders have not only avoided schism but have evidently built a strong consensus.

Although the new prayer book was completed only after an agonizingly long period of testing and discussion, for example, the movement as a whole seems to have weathered its larger “synagogue revolution” (to use Rabbi Yoffie’s phrase) without serious resistance. In the course of that revolution, religious ideology has been replaced by a pragmatic tolerance of pluralism, religious services have become dizzyingly eclectic, drawing upon multiple sources and varying from congregation to congregation, and congregations themselves have absorbed a continuous and apparently frictionless flow of recruits from the ranks of other denominations, from the gay and lesbian community, and from intermarried households. This is to say nothing of Reform’s openly partisan stance on political matters.

In sum, whatever tempests have rocked the ship of liberal Christianity, Reform Judaism would seem not only to have navigated the storms but to be moving forward with the wind in its sails.

_____________



Needless to say, a vibrant Reform Judaism would be good news under any circumstances, and all the more so now that Reform has become the largest Jewish religious movement in the country. If Reform were to fail, large numbers of American Jews would likely be lost to organized Jewish life altogether. But is the movement thriving as heartily as its upbeat leaders and spokesmen insist? Is it, by its own standards, succeeding in not only retaining its members but inspiring them to intensive religious engagement?

The answer is a highly equivocal one, and it begins with some stark demographic facts. Aside from the minority who actually belong to synagogues, only 15 percent of self-identified Reform Jews report any involvement at all in Jewish organizational life. More than half, moreover, say they have not attended a synagogue within the past year, nearly half cannot read Hebrew, and 30 percent say they feel distant from Israel.

What we know about persons raised within the Reform movement itself is no less sobering. In 2000, fully 70 percent of Jews saying they were raised Reform were not members of any kind of synagogue, a figure that holds steady across the generational board: among older Jews, baby-boomers, and the so-called gen-x and gen-y populations. Seventeen percent of individuals raised Reform do not identify with the Jewish religion, period. Among intermarried Jews who were raised Reform, this figure rises to 28 percent.

Nor is there any evidence that Reform synagogue membership has grown over the past few decades. If temples are holding their own, it is mainly by attracting people from outside, chiefly from the Conservative movement, which has been commensurately shrinking, and from the ranks of Gentiles married to Jews. Whatever this says about Reform’s appeal to outsiders, it suggests a serious weakness when it comes to transmitting a strong sense of Jewish religious identification and commitment to those raised within Reform itself.4

What is the cause of this weakness? A new study of schooling under Reform auspices points to one culprit: the lack of a proper education. For the overwhelming majority of children in the movement, formal Jewish schooling ends at bar- or bat-mitzvah age. More than half drop out of supplementary classes after the seventh grade; of those who continue their studies, two-thirds are gone by grades nine or ten. Despite the declared aspirations of the movement to engage Jews in “lifelong Jewish learning,” its teens and adults have so far declined to heed the message.

The same goes for regular attendance at religious services. According to the 2000 NJPS, fewer than ten percent of Reform synagogue members attend once a week. Sabbath-morning services in most Reform temples attract only the family and friends of the bar or bat mitzvah for a ceremony in which, in the words of Rabbi Yoffie, “worship of God gives way to worship of the child.” The central weekly religious gathering remains a one-hour service on Friday evening. This has been the object of major reforms in liturgy and music, and rabbis do report a consequent increase in attendance; but even so, the number of regulars rarely climbs above 10-15 percent of membership.

When the overwhelming majority shun religious study, how are individual Reform Jews expected to make the “informed choices” on which the movement prides itself? When the overwhelming majority cannot be counted on to participate in religious services, what precisely is thriving in Reform temples?

_____________



The initiatives to include once-marginalized populations show equally ambiguous and no doubt unanticipated results. Reform institutions are open as never before to women, welcoming them into positions of authority and leadership. Yet even as women have moved from the periphery to the center, Reform men have been moving rapidly in the opposite direction. As numerous congregational rabbis have testified, the declining presence of men is palpable in the sanctuary, in committee meetings, in national study programs, even in the biennial conventions of congregational leaders. Matters have reached such a pass that at the most recent convention, an all-male religious service, something usually associated with Orthodox Judaism, was sanctioned as an experiment in “bonding.”

Boys, too, seem to have drifted away. Youth groups and summer camps are filled with female teens who, according to one West Coast rabbi, “wonder where their male counterparts are.” In one recent study, boys made up only 12 percent of participants in a leadership camp for ninth graders. On college campuses, similarly, Reform programs struggle to attract males. At HUC, men now constitute only one-quarter of students training to become rabbis, cantors, and educators.

“If you look carefully at the most hands-on people who are running Jewish institutional life today, you are seeing fewer and fewer men,” says Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman, the former president of HUC—an observation manifestly not true of other denominations but very true of Reform. And an analogous situation seems to obtain on the home front. The sociologist Sylvia Barack Fishman has found that within Reform families, fathers participate much less than mothers in the Jewish upbringing of the children. This is particularly the case among intermarried Jewish men—to the point where Fishman concludes that “Reform Jewish men who marry non-Jewish women [are] the ‘weak link’ in American Jewish life today.”

In a movement so proudly identified with egalitarian ideals, the fact that men are fleeing institutional life is mystifying—unless we posit a vast gap between Reform’s professed values and the religious desires of its male adherents. In any event, the ironic fact remains that a movement that led the way toward sexual equality in Judaism is now the least balanced internally between the sexes. On this score, too, Reform today resembles liberal Protestantism, where men form a dwindling minority in the pews, in congregational leadership, and in the seminaries. Even within Reform, however, few count this fact as a sign of success.

_____________



Similarly fraught with complications is Reform outreach to the intermarried. The numbers themselves are undeniably impressive. Among intermarried families in the United States, 62 percent of those joining a synagogue opt for Reform. But this large population has posed a massive educational challenge. How are synagogues to teach non-Jews about Judaism while simultaneously working to increase the knowledge of their Jewish members? One Reform rabbi has waved away this dilemma by noting that in his congregation, Jews and non-Jews possess exactly the same (i.e., minimal) level of Jewish literacy. Others acknowledge the seriousness of the problem, but are at a loss to remedy it.

Congregational schools now draw half their enrollment from families in which one parent was not born Jewish and only a minority of such parents have converted to Judaism. One can only sympathize with teachers trying to cope with the mixed signals sent to children about the diverse religious practices on display in the homes of intermarried families. So far, there seems neither much willingness to recognize the sheer magnitude of the responsibility the movement has taken on nor any sign of appropriate resources being channeled to address it through schools, camps, youth movements, or college programs.

In fact, there is little critical talk at all about the consequences of having integrated so large a population of non-Jews and their families into Reform synagogues. Non-Jewish parents who devotedly bring their children to services and classes are now publicly honored as “heroes.” But the movement has been silent on the need to maintain an unambiguously Jewish orientation within the family so as to minimize confusion and foster a strong identification with Judaism. In 2005, Rabbi Yoffie floated the idea of tactfully conveying to Gentile spouses that they were welcome to convert to Judaism and would be eagerly embraced. The response from the movement’s rabbinic and lay leadership was swift and direct. His proposal was deemed to be offensive to the sensibilities of both non-Jews and their Jewish family members, and was soon a dead letter.

According to the head of a major Reform organization, intermarriage is now so taken for granted in the movement that most Reform Jews no longer see anything problematic about it. This has created a bind for the minority of Reform rabbis and rabbinical candidates who do not wish to officiate at so-called inter-weddings—and who know that they may be denied a pulpit for sticking to their principles. Rather anomalously, movement policy still formally discourages rabbinic officiation at such unions, while respecting the right of individual rabbis to follow the dictates of their conscience. But a commission has been formed to re-examine the matter, and expectations are that it will revoke the present policy in favor of a more “inclusive” one, thereby further undermining those wanting to hold the line.

_____________



Inclusiveness, in short, has brought a number of short-term gains to Reform while exacting a very high price in unintended consequences. So has the movement’s stress on the principle of individual choice.

For one thing, by emphasizing autonomy, Reform Judaism has inadvertently weakened the commitment of many of its adherents to the collective needs of the Jewish people. Though the leadership remains intensely attached to Israel and to the welfare of Jews around the world, and has invested in a Reform presence in many parts of the globe, a connection to the Jewish people does not rank high in the priorities of many self-professed Reform Jews. In a recent survey, 44 percent disagreed with the statement, “I have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people,” and only 21 percent claimed to feel “very emotionally attached to Israel.”

Undoubtedly, this connection is even more attenuated among intermarried families and their children. But the emphasis on personalism has clearly enfeebled the allegiances of many born Jews as well. Rabbi David Ellenson, the current president of HUC, declares that the future of American Judaism is “contingent, to a large extent, upon the success Reform rabbis will have in instilling communitarian religious values and commitments.” It is hard to fathom how rabbis will succeed at this task given the movement’s insistence on the priority of individual choice.

To make matters worse, while rabbis must respect the autonomous right of their congregants to choose which aspects of Judaism they value, congregants need not and do not necessarily respect the autonomous choices of their rabbis, let alone their rabbis’ authority to create a hierarchy of choices rooted in traditional Jewish texts and practices. In this connection, it is by no means clear that many of today’s Reform Jews have adopted the positive approach of a sizable number of younger rabbis toward those traditional practices.

It is not even clear that the movement’s leadership is in accord on this matter. In a remarkable statement issued last summer, Rabbi Yoffie distinguished the Judaism practiced by Reform from other forms of Judaism in these words: “If you take it all upon yourself as an obligation rather than as a choice, you’ve reached the point at which you’re no longer a Reform Jew.”

Here, at last, is a candidly non-inclusive position. What it suggests is that in today’s Reform, red lines continue to exist to the Right: for a rabbi or a congregant to flirt with the basic concept of religious obligation, or venture too close to traditional Jewish observances, is to rule oneself out.

What of red lines to the religious Left? Are there any limits there? True, the movement disapproves of such outlying phenomena as the Society for Humanistic Judaism with its denial of a personal God, or Jews for Jesus. But, as we have seen, it has accommodated all sorts of other innovation under the rubric of legitimate Jewish expression, and has been remarkably silent on what it would consider beyond the pale.

If Reform Judaism were a movement in its adolescence, this perpetual hankering after innovation, this hunger to be in tune with the latest cultural assumptions, this writing and revising of liturgy, this seemingly blithe indifference to the consequences of the choices one has made might be characterized, indulgently, as passing fecklessness. In a mature organization that is also the largest Jewish denomination in America, one would expect a measure of constancy over the long term and a far-reaching vision for deepening the engagement of its adherents. If Reform’s leaders have actually thought deeply about the present and future religious needs of the many Jews and non-Jews in their care, or resolved upon ways of raising their levels of Jewish literacy, teaching them the skills needed for a Jewish life, and defining for them Reform’s ideal criteria of Jewish observance, there has been precious little evidence of it.

_____________



What does all this augur for Reform itself? The movement has wagered its future on the gamble that a coherent and vibrant Judaism can be built on the idea of a big tent, on the informed choice of each Reform Jew, and on a highly elastic definition of both “Reform” and “Jew.” Both in what it cannot accept and in what it cannot but accommodate, the movement is very much at one with the individualistic and “pluralist” ethos of contemporary American culture. But for how long will significant numbers of people continue to be drawn to, or stick with, a religious movement that cannot or will not define standards for committed living, and that, except when it comes to political imperatives, has self-consciously shunned the very notion of imperatives? In this regard, the dramatic decline of liberal Protestant denominations may truly serve as a warning of what lies ahead.

No less urgent is the question of what Reform’s present position augurs for Judaism as a whole, or for the Jewish people. When one puts together the increasing reliance on large numbers of non-Jewish members, the emphasis on personal autonomy, the minimal level of literacy expected by leaders, the freedom of each congregation to shape its own liturgy and synagogue music, and the low identification with Israel expressed by the rank and file, the inescapable impression is of a movement whose policies, intentionally or not, systematically discount any notion of a collective Jewish enterprise or the solidarity needed to sustain it.

Liturgy, literacy, and religious norms serve in Judaism as binding forces of a common belief system and a common vocabulary; Israel serves as a focal point for common action. All of these are of low priority to a great many Reform Jews and will necessarily become of even lower priority as more non-Jews enter the movement’s synagogues, with no requirements imposed or expected. From the point of view of the future unity and distinctiveness of the Jewish people, one can only hope that it is not too late for this movement, which has reversed course so often in the past, to reform itself yet again.

_____________



Footnotes

1 Figures are available at the website of the Association of Religion Data Archives: http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports /US_2000.asp

2 In Conservative and Orthodox synagogues, by contrast, the respective figures were 12 percent and 5 percent.

3 See the review by William Kolbrener in COMMENTARY, January 2008.

4 According to the 2000-2001 National Jewish Population Study (NJPS), only 42 percent of the members of Reform synagogues were raised as Reform Jews. By contrast, Conservative synagogues drew 60 percent of their membership from within their own ranks; in Orthodox congregations, 73 percent were raised Orthodox. I am indebted to Bruce Phillips and Judith Veinstein for help in obtaining the statistics that I interpret in the preceding paragraphs.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Author

Jack Wertheimer is professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. Among his contributions to COMMENTARY are “Judaism Without Limits” (July 1997), “The Orthodox Moment” (February 1999), and “The Perplexities of Conservative Judaism” (September 2007).

Why men are running away from Judaism

View from the booth:

Perhaps if Reform Judaism (the one I grew up in, anyway)offered more of a spiritual dimension that is based on halacha, none of this men/women stuff would be of much pertinence, as men would presumably then have an outlet for faith. Having spent the first 17 years of life in Reform Judaism, I am grateful for the start: I learned Buber and Heschel but not Halacha. Fortunately, Buber and Heschel led me back to where they started - in Hasidism and Jewish mysticism.

If you go behind the major German Reform thinkers, you find a desire to assimilate into the main Protestant culture so much so that services were patterned after classic Protestant liturgy, complete with pipe organ and choir. There was a mad delusion that a Jew could be a German. That delusion was answered starting in 1933. I was a member of "The Church on the Lake" -- as Temple Sholom in Chicago was formerly known by. The reverence of and the reliance on "reason" -- that is, to bend halacha so out of shape as to be unrecognizable -- instead of using reason to use halacha in every day life (or at least try) was the undoing of Reform Judaism for me. The only thing that Jews have to call our own is halacha. The rest of our history as a people is connected to the countries and the history of those countries where we have found ourselves over the course of past 2000 years. The moves within Reform Judaism to cleave a tad closer to Halacha over the course of the past 10-15 years bear this out. The same is true of Conservative Judaism. What is Conservative Judaism conserving? We are not preserves. We are Jews. That the JTS in New York is running a $2 million deficit and the recent intra-movement controversy tells me that Conservative Judaism is by definition a movement without the possibility of a firm foundation. What and who decides which halacha will be followed and which not? Or is this simply Orthodox-lite? What is the single defining factor of all of Jewry? In my mind, it's halacha. And that's whether you agree with the Halacha or not. The important part is its pre-eminence in Jewish life on a daily basis. So let's argue about it, disagree and grow it. That's Judaism to me. It's why you can't put two Jews in a room and not come out with at least three opinions. The culture, the nation, the everything, is or should be based on the Halacha. Without Halacha, we are nothing, and end up worshipping ourselves. That is a narcissism that I cannot personally abide.

Randy Shiner



Why men are running away from Judaism

Rabbi Brackman contemplates reasons why Jewish men, boys are less and less attracted to Jewish activities

Rabbi Levi Brackman

According to a study just released by the Hadassah-Brandeis Institute and the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies in the Reform Movement, today's women are far more connected to Judaism than their male counterparts are. “When it comes to gender equality or gender balance, contemporary American Jewish life is caught between a rock and a hard place,” says the study’s co-author Daniel Parmer. “Boys and men as a group are not attracted to feminized Jewish activities and environments” the study found.

Commenting on this, in a just published article, Professor of American Jewish History at the Jewish Theological Seminary Dr. Jack Wertheimer concludes that “Reform today resembles liberal Protestantism, where men form a dwindling minority in the pews, in congregational leadership, and in the seminaries. Even within Reform few count this fact as a sign of success.”

What we really have here is the law of unintended consequences. As Wertheimer notes the Reform Movement wanted to include those who were perceived to have been marginalized by traditional Judaism. They therefore gave women the same roles as men within synagogue services. This strategy has now backfired terribly and as women became more involved, men started to move away. Ironically we have now come full circle with the Reform Movement experimenting with all men synagogue services to attract the men back.

'Inflicting more damage than good'

The problem the Reform Movement is facing is simple. They dismissed the possibility of there being deep wisdom within traditional practices. This lack of respect caused them to do away with many of them. In doing so, however, they ended up inflicting more damage than good. In fact there is wisdom in having men run synagogue services.

It is now almost universally accepted that whilst men and women are equal they are different. There are always exceptions, but, one can safely say that for men public recognition and a feeling of being needed is a great motivator especially when it involves doing something voluntarily.

Despite some exceptions, on the whole it can be argued that women simply do not need the same amount of communal acknowledgment to be 'Jewishly' involved and inspired. This assertion is backed up by the abovementioned Hadassah-Brandeis study which found that within Reform families, fathers participate much less than mothers in the Jewish upbringing of the children

In light of this there is tremendous wisdom in having only men lead synagogue services. The Reform experiment of allowing women that position has made men feel that they are no longer really needed in the synagogue – women can take their place as part of a Minyan. In addition the male sense of being uniquely acknowledged by the community has been taken away from them—women can lead the services, read from the Torah instead. Add to this the fact that the Reform movement fails to offer a spiritual dimension and male motivation to be involved with synagogue life and therefore Judaism has been completely removed.

While it is certainly important for women to have leadership roles within the Jewish community – and tradition acknowledges and supports that, room must be given for men to gain religious recognition that is uniquely their own. For centuries leading synagogue services was how they did this.

This study should be yet another wake up call for all of us who care about Judaism and its future. We must initiate a back to basics campaign for Jewish life in the United States and Europe and educate people about the immense wisdom inherent in the wonderfully rich and beautiful practices that are traditional Judaism.

Rabbi Levi Brackman is executive director of Judaism in the Foothills . His upcoming book , "Jewish Wisdom for Business Success", is set to be published in late 2008.

A Not So Funny Joke

(c)2008 Randy Shiner All RIghts Reserved.


NOTE TO READERS: READ THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST UP TO UNDERSTAND THE TITLE. RS

Julia, shalom,

I hope you had a peaceful Shabbat. I am watching the second of the four NCAA Basketball games this weekend – this is the biggest college basketball tournament in the country and all my (guy) friends are glued to their TVs. Even the Drunk-Driving lawyers advertise during these shows. That should tell you something about this tournament’s importance here.

Anyway, I am going through some old email, and find that I never answered this one from you. I remember when I first got it, I did not know exactly how to answer it. I do now, after reading some mail and journal articles and speaking with people on the state of the Israeli Rabbinate and its role and impact in Israel and, in too many cases now, ours. That it is so difficult there to have a religious, though non-orthodox, Jewish ceremony is impossible for most citizens who are not already “hechshered” by the “right” rabbi, like our ONE G-d gives a damn, is just a shondeh. The whole thing smells of hypocrisy and politics (sadly, the two are the same, yet different all the same) and believe me, if the Reform, Conservative and Modern Orthodox population of this country were told that their rabbis were not “Jewish enough”, you would see defections and disaffection en masse not to mention a whole lot of middle fingers. An Israeli would be the same as an American.

I no longer wonder why the Reform, Conservative and Modern Orthodox movements are not as strong there in Israel as they are here. (I attend a liberal Modern Orthodox shul, by the way, which does not believe that it has a monopoly on the truth, as if any human can claim one.) It’s almost that there is a ban on them there, imposed because, as I understand my Israeli history, Ben Gurion needed the ultra-Orthodox to put together a government in 1948, ensconcing them as the final arbiters, seemingly permanently, of what is and is not Jewish. And perhaps over the years, perhaps, there has been made a silent “deal” to leave the “liberal Jews” in America, and allow the situation in Israel to continue.

I predict that at some point, this will become such an intolerable situation – a crisis for the Jewish people’s very existence – that the situation will have to change, lest we cease to exist as Jewish Jews. I realize as I write this that the foregoing is dependent upon the assumption on my part that the basis of all Jews, whatever they call themselves, is the Torah. And no matter how secular you are, because you are Jewish, the existence of that Torah plays a role in your life whether you want it or not. Ultimately, it is definitional for all people who are Jewish. In the end, the ultra-Orthodox regime’s stranglehold on official Judaism – how that Torah gets implemented in everyday life -- has got to end; we are all one people and the schisms that develop between “branches of Judaism” is just ridiculous doublespeak, based on so much distance from reality. (Hitler did not care what Jews looked like or how frequently you attended Schacharit during the week. Or which rebbe you admired most. He made every one of the 6 million dead.) If that religious regime was somehow allowed to exist here, and we had nowhere to go, there would be even more disaffection with the religion and with affiliating than there is now in this country. I am an American Jew and don’t have to live or worship together in the same kind of shul in a state the size of New Jersey whose religious expression I do not feel a part of. So I fully understand the difference between an Israeli and a Jew. Now.

Have a great week. And thank you for opening me to some new thought patterns that feel better, not just about religion, but about Israel, too. When I argue for a new way to deal with the Arabs other than the Likud manner, I know I am not alone in the world. Just here – where if you publicly go against the Likud line, you are “anti-Israel”, “self-hating” “lefty anti-Israel” or something equally as bad and worse. It must stop. The terror must stop. The rockets must stop. There has to be peace. Somehow. As I write too frequently about things and people, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. I don’t know if I got that from you or not, but it is absolutely correct.

Randy

From: A
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:05 PM
To: randy.shiner@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Jewish Joke of the Century

Randy
One short comment
You have conflated Jewish with Israeli.
The joke is about an Israeli soldier, not a Jewish one
Indeed the great majority of Israeli soldiers are Jewish, but there are Druze, some Muslims (a number of Bedouin Muslim men serve in the army as well), and of course Christians (from the immigrants from the former USSR)

Julia

"I Randolph S. Shiner" wrote:
To those not American:

Dan Rather is a famous newscaster here in the States – since the 60s and a former CBS evening news anchor. Katie Couric is the current CBS evening news anchor.

From:
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:49 PM
To: I Randolph S Shiner;
Subject: FW: a comment on the media


Dan Rather, Katie Couric, and an Israeli
sergeant were all captured by terrorists in
Iraq. The leader of the terrorists told
them that he would grant them each one
last request before they were beheaded.

Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan, so I'd
like one last bowlful of hot spicy chili."
The leader nodded to an underling who
left and returned with the chili. Rather ate
it all and said, "Now I can die content."

Katie Couric said, "I'm a reporter to the
end. I want to take out my tape recorder
and describe the scene here and what's
about to happen. Maybe someday someone
will hear it and know that I was on the
job till the end."

The leader directed an aide to hand over
the tape recorder and Couric dictated some
comments. She said, "Now I can die happy."

The leader turned and said, "And now,
Mr. Israeli tough guy, what is your final
wish?"
"Kick me in the ass," said the soldier."

"What?" asked the leader? "Will you mock
us in your last hour?"

"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me
in the ass," insisted the Israeli.

So the leader shoved him into the open
and kicked him in the ass. The soldier went
sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled
a 9 mm pistol from under his flack jacket,
and shot the leader dead. In the resulting
confusion, he jumped to his knapsack,
pulled out his carbine and sprayed the
terrorists with gunfire.
In a flash, all terrorists were either dead
or fleeing for their lives.
As the soldier was untying Rather and
Couric, they asked him, "Why didn't you
just shoot them in the beginning?
Why did you ask them to kick you
in the ass first?"

"What?" replied the Israeli, "And have
you two assholes report that I was the
aggressor?!"