Reforming Reform Judaism

One tends to think of the birth of Reform Judaism in revolutionary terms. Like Martin Luther hammering his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral, or Henry VIII breaking with the Pope, the early Reformers are viewed as revolutionaries who threw off the suffocating yoke of traditional Jewish thought and practice. There were such radicals at the turn of the 19th century when Reform was born, but they were few, and have remained few in the history of our movement. The rabbis who gave birth to Reform Judaism had all been trained in Orthodox institutions and were well informed in traditional thought and practice. The modifications suggested at first were modest in scope and hardly disruptive of community norms. A struggle between the more or less radical elements was initiated, and the debate has characterized Reform, for a goodly portion of our history. Representatives of the “warring” factions in Germany, birth place of Reform, were Solomon Holdheim and Abraham Geiger. Holdheim was the more radical Rabbi of a small synagogue in Berlin, he introduced major changes in ritual practice, and when there was protest from the larger community, indicated in word and behavior that he did not care what others thought. He saw Reform as a splinter group, destined to go its own way. A more modest approach to Reform was that of Abraham Geiger. Geiger was an accomplished student of Jewish law. He endeavored to find traditional justification for the modest reforms he proposed, seeking not only to retain contact with the larger Jewish community, but to convince all Jews to accept the suggested reforms

Competing Ideologies The competing ideologies were brought to these shores and effected the development of American Reform. Emil G. Hirsch was a proponent of Holdheim’s ideology. The more moderate position was assumed by Isaac M. Wise, founder of the institutions which represent to this day the organizational structure of American Reform. Like Geiger, Wise endeavored to demonstrate that Reform was a path intended for all Jews, and was willing to compromise to attain this. The struggle between the two elements was reflected in strenuous debates at meetings of the Central Conference of American Rabbis and Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Individual congregations were divided on these issues and annual meetings of a tempestuous nature often ran late into the night. The earlier Reform congregations in this county were established by German Jews, more liberal in their ideology than new comers from Eastern Europe. East European Jews were accepted into Reform congregations with some reluctance, and were expected to accept existing standards. In time, there occurred what was humorously referred to as “The Litvak Revolution”. The German migration to these shores was modest in size. They were soon outnumbered in every aspect of Jewish life, including the Reform synagogue, by the vast number of immigrants from Russia and Poland. These Jews had more knowledge of the tradition and more affection for practices and folk ways of the Old World.

Liberals Felt Outnumbered The battle within the movement continued, but to their great shame, proponents of the more liberal stance, feeling themselves outnumbered, and their views little respected, quickly gave up the fight. Some departed our ranks for the Unitarian Church. Others dropped affiliation. Those who remained were for the most part peripherally identified with the congregation, limiting attendance to evening services on the High Holy Days. Once the opposition was stifled, the movement hastened, in the absence of debate, to adapt all manner of traditional and ethnic embellishment. Services were conducted mostly in Hebrew, which few congregants, even among the traditionalists, understood. While wearing of the tallis and yarmulke were not obligatory, the fact that the rabbi and cantor wore them and that they were conspicuously displayed at the entrance door, proved quite intimidating. The organ was replaced by the piano and guitar, which for some reason seemed less “church like”. Sins were thrown into the river on Rosh HaShanah in a new/old Tashlich ceremony. It is my understanding that some architectural drawings for new Reform synagogues include plans for a Mikveh.

Voice of Encouragement There are many Jews who find this large shift to the right most unsettling. But they have been led to believe they are few in number and should stop “whimpering”, and accept the will of the majority. I am not certain they are so few in number. It is to the great credit of the American Council for Judaism that they have proposed picking up the cudgel for this disenfranchised section of the Reform community. Their objectives are not, and should not be, to split the movement. We have sufficient splintering within the religious community, Jewish and Christian, and do not need more. What we do need is a voice of encouragement to represent the sentiments of a significant element of the Reform population. Given support, I believe this faction has the capability and responsibility to assert itself on the national scene and the individual congregation. As Reform once went too far in separating itself from Jewish roots and Jewish sensibilities, it is now in danger of extremism in the opposite direction.

Reformers Have Been Silent Too Long When I was a young rabbi, I had a specific notion of how I wished to shape the ideology of my congregation. For the most part, my vision was supported by the Board and membership. But I was frustrated in my endeavors by two men who always appeared at annual meetings and argued intensely that we were heading in the wrong direction. These individuals are long deceased. I have come in time to forgive them their disruptive behavior and come to recognize and appreciate the blessing they brought to the congregation and to me. Unlike Moses, I was not the recipient of divine revelation; neither were the lay leaders of the congregation. We needed the challenge! Martin Buber, a significant Jewish philosopher of the last generation, distinguished in his writing between the collective and the community. The former represents a group with a single ideology, to which all participants are expected to conform. The latter, and the Reform congregation should fall into this category, treasures the individuality of members, and arrives at policy through ongoing compromise. As the Jewish people we are commanded to follow the way of God. The best manner of determining the ‘way” is by familiarity with the tradition, and shared insights as to how the tradition applies to current circumstances. The Reformers within Reform have been silent for too long, and their silence has done spiritual damage not only to themselves, but to the movement as a whole. It is to give them voice that the Council has undertaken this new endeavor.