Barking Kiruv up the Wrong Tree

I know I rarely agree with R. Harry Maryles. And that's ok. I know we're worlds apart on most things. But he's usually pretty nice about it.

Recently, though, R. Harry seems to be trying to lay the kiruv work on a little thick. First he posted about Susan, a committed patrilineal Reform Jew (see her response here). R. Harry, trying to be nice, gives her a few back-handed compliments, and then draws his line.

Here is a person who sees the beauty of Judaism and actually tries to fulfill many Mitzvos. She may in fact have somewhere within her the inner soul of a Jew waiting to come out. But she is not Jewish according to Halacha neither according to Orthodox Judaism nor Conservative Judaism. Despite her best efforts she is not Jewish in the eyes of vast numbers of the people she identifies with. Her Jewish soul beckons to come out. But the only way she will have universal recognition is if she undergoes a full and formal conversion that will be unquestioned by any denomination.

R. Harry assumes that this is a major issue for Susan. Of course, I would guess that if this was the case, she would have done something about it sooner.

R. Harry holds out the carrot of universal "recognition" and suggests that Susan wants nothing more than being accepted by all the "people" she identifies with. People like who? Going out on a limb, most Reform Jews I know don't spend that much time with Orthodox Jews. I'm not putting words in Susan's mouth, but I'm guessing this just doesn't come up that much. Not to mention the fact that, as I pointed out in March, Orthodox Jews only make up 14% of the global Jewish population. Sure, they're visible, and sure, they're vocal, and sure, in some places they're outright in charge, but if you're just talking numerical acceptance, Reform honestly ain't that bad.

R. Harry keeps going with a modified version of Pascal's Wager:

Even though she disagrees with the Orthodox definition and considers herself Jewish – what harm can there be in doing so? If she is as sincere about her Judaism as she says (and I have no reason to question that) why not do this thing so that there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind about it?

Yeah, just do it in case you ever decide to care about what the Orthodox think. Come on!

Of course, what's missing here is any ability-- or attempt-- to see the situation through Susan's eyes-- and in effect, it relies on the premise of convincing her that she has a defect that needs to be fixed by conversion. It's like trying to tell a healthy or fairly attractive person that they're fat or need plastic surgery. "Sure, I know you think you look fine... but what harm is there in a little lipo? If you're sincere about wanting to be pretty, why not just do this one thing so there's no doubt in anyone's mind?"

That was last month. This month, R. Harry blogged about Zach Emanuel. He had a Bar Mitzvah, you see. But it turns out his mom "only" converted via Conservative auspices. Dun-dun-dun!

How can anyone think of themselves as fully Jewish if a major segment within it rejects their validity as a Jew? Shouldn’t that be enough to seek a conversion that is universally accepted?

Again, R. Harry seems to be applying the logic of high school popularity contests to Jewish life. How can you really be Jewish if not everyone thinks you are? (I suppose by that logic, Reform rabbis should start trying to get Orthodox shmicha, just to cover their bases.) Never mind that Reform and Conservative Judaism, numerically far bigger than Orthodoxy, reject plenty of elements of Orthodox practice. If we're going by the numbers here, then why don't we use that argument to convince the Orthodox to abolish the concept of mamzerut or agunot? Oh wait, because no denomination of Judaism sincerely cares about what the other ones think as long as they can't actively hamper them? Wow, I can't believe I forgot that one.

It's true not being accepted can be upsetting to some people, such as small children or emotionally needy teenagers. But I would hope that most adults, particularly in this age, accept that not everybody agrees with them, their politics, their lifestyle, or their values, and live their lives and craft their communities accordingly. If the Orthodox don't accept someone, guess what, there are plenty of people who will. Outside of Israel, it's not that big a deal.

And honestly, that's the problem for Orthodoxy when it comes to outreach. Unless someone has a fundamental change of perspective and decides that they believe Orthodoxy is the true path, OR they have low Jewish self-confidence and/or self-esteem and feel a tremendous need for acceptance (take, for instance, many of the young Baal Teshuvah folks recruited into specialized yeshivas that emphasize their lack of knowledge and appeal to their desire to do things in an "authentic" way), there simply aren't that many compelling reasons to become Orthodox. If you don't believe Orthodox theology is true or accept Orthodox interpretations of halacha, Orthodoxy becomes just one more opinion. And viewed within that context, honestly, who cares if one particular group doesn't accept you as long as there are others that do?

From what I've seen, universal Jewish acceptance is just simply not most people's-- especially the youth's-- biggest issue these days. And, in light of all the misheggos going on with Ortho rabbis in Israel invalidating conversions, this carrot increasingly appears to be an unobtainable pipe dream anyway.

The sad part is I know that this is coming a sincere person trying to expand Orthodoxy's big tent. But it really just demonstrates how divergent Jewish perspectives have become. The Orthodox don't-- and can't-- understand why people wouldn't want to live Orthodox lives, or at least convert Orthodox so they have their bases covered and can be "in the club." They don't get that for many Jews around the world, their particular club is not one they really care to belong to.

Facing Reality

The past few months have seen an interesting upswing regarding intermarriage stories. Here are the best bits.

In March, the Reform movement's CCAR met in San Francisco (woot!) to discuss, among other things, the movement's official position on intermarriage. While on a practical level Reform has long acknowledged that I-M exists, the traditional response to this was to officially condemn it while quietly letting I-F families into the shul. Finally, it seems that Reform is able to get over itself and admit what everybody already knows: Intermarriage is real. Luckily, however, not every intermarriage is necessarily an INTER-FAITH one. My personal experience, and a lot of anecdotal experiences that I've read and heard about, are that one of the crucial elements in determining whether an intermarriage results in a Jewishly-identified couple or family, though, is the response of the community.

In a major shift, Reform rabbis have publicly acknowledged intermarriage as a "given" that calls for increased outreach and understanding, rather than a threat to Jewish identity that must be resisted at all costs.

Halle-freaking-lujah.

Now, on a practical level, not much has changed. Reform rabbis are still given the choice of whether or not to officiate at I-F weddings, for instance. But, there seem to be some good policy points that are starting to be articulated.

But now that the group's attitude about intermarriage has officially changed, Dreyfus expressed hope that clergy will make greater efforts to welcome interfaith families into religious activities and life-cycle events like bar and bat mitzvah ceremonies for their children.

"Ignoring intermarriage won't make it go away," she said. "We want to embrace it as an opportunity."

The new position is not a formal policy or resolution, but rather a semi-official "recognition" of changing times based on the task force's 10-page report.

"In the past, there was a great focus on how to prevent intermarriage," the report said. "Today we are more likely to focus on how to deal with intermarriage as a given in our society with the goal of positive Jewish engagement of the family."

One Reform rabbi, Reeve Brenner, thinks it's about damn time, and has a laundry list of things the movement can start taking a hard look at any time they feel they're ready:

Among the neglected issues:

• A Jewish-non-Jewish polarity cannot long be sustained in 21st-century America, seeing that there are so many who constitute our loving eruv rav, the mixed or intermarried “multitude” who are part of us. They are clearly not gentiles in the previous meaning of that term. They are another category.

• The consequences of not recognizing the legitimate needs of the ger toshav family in the synagogue. What is to be lost and what gained were we to allow, if not encourage, the non-Jewish partner(s) to stand alongside his or her child at life-cycle events within the synagogue sanctuary.

Because they are ger toshav and not Jews; because they have only converged, but not converted, are they to be excluded from participation in family life-cycle events in shul?

• That certain rabbis have decided for themselves that they will not participate in an interfaith wedding and, furthermore, no other rabbi should — and, therefore, they give no referrals.

Sound like some great starting points to me. I particularly like one of his last lines:

We have to do better, so these couples do not end up raising Unitarians with a Jewish parent as opposed to raising Jewish kids with an all-but-a-Jewish parent.

The reality is, there are many couples, many families, today, whose dynamic does indeed match this model: an all-but-Jewish spouse with another one who happened to be born Jewish. This is an opportunity that needs to be encouraged, not a case where the couple should either be scorned, or, even worse, aggressively pursued for conversion.

The Conservative movement finally seems to be getting it, too. Shortly before the CCAR meet-up, the Jewish Theological Seminary had an intermarriage-focused workshop for rabbinical students. Given that JTS has tended to be more conservative than the CJ institutions on the West Coast, this is notable.

“When I was in rabbinical school, we were taught there was only one way to respond” to intermarriage, Rabbi Charles Simon, executive director of the Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs and a JTS graduate, told the group of students. “And that was not to respond at all, but to walk away and say ‘I’m sorry we’re losing another person.’ ”

Speaker after speaker at the workshop urged students not to walk away but to reach out, not only to intermarried Jews and their partners but to longtime congregants whose children have intermarried and who are fearful of being judged.

...Today there is talk of allowing rabbis to attend interfaith weddings of friends and family members. The question will come before the Rabbinical Assembly when it meets later this year.

And in January the movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards ruled that the non-Jewish spouses of congregants can be buried alongside their Jewish partners in Jewish cemeteries -- provided they are in a section set aside for this purpose; that gentile clergy do not officiate at the funeral; and that no non-Jewish markers appear on the graves.

In the ruling, approved by a vote of 10 (three law committee members abstained, and one voted against) is the statement, “Our relations to non-Jews are very different than in the past. Many of us have non-Jews in our families. All of us know non-Jews who are strongly connected to the Jewish community although they have chosen not to convert and retain their status as non-Jews.

“In regard to the question of interfaith marriages, we must be sensitive to their feelings and make them feel welcome in our communities. In addition, non-Jewish spouses and children who are involved in our synagogues, while not Jewish, are nevertheless part of our community.”

Today, a number of Conservative synagogues allow non-Jewish family members on the bimah during b’nai mitzvah and baby-naming ceremonies, although some require them to stand on a separate step or make sure to clarify that they are not saying a blessing over the Torah.

As the article points out, this is by no means as sweeping as the Reform announcement (the workshop was only attended by 30 people.) But even if this is a series of baby steps, this is still a major improvement over the past ten to fifteen years:

At one session, a male rabbinical student burst out, “If we’re going to be so welcoming, why not just do the intermarriage? Yet I don’t want to. This feels like a slippery slope.”

A female rabbinical student next to him retorted, “It’s a slippery slope either way. If you don’t slip down one side, you slip down the other side.”

“I want to be welcoming, but I have this ‘but,’ and I don’t know what to do with the ‘but,’” the male student replied.

Intermarried Jews have always been able to join Conservative synagogues, of course, but strict regulations barred them from assuming leadership roles and prevented their gentile partners from participating in lifecycle ceremonies, appearing on the bima or even being listed as a family member on synagogue mailings.

Of all these policies, the lifecycle events seem the most alienating, many at the workshop noted.

Finally, people are grappling with these issues in a real way, instead of pretending it doesn't exist. And, even as Orthodox apologists continue to hammer home the "unchanged since Sinai" line ad infinitum, the J Post points out that they, too, have begun to start adapting to the intermarriage facts on the ground:

Even Orthodoxy has responded to the challenge of intermarriage. The haredi Eternal Jewish Family project actively encourages the non-Jewish spouse of a mixed marriage to convert to Judaism if he or she is willing to embrace an Orthodox lifestyle. This marks a departure from a more stringent position in Orthodoxy that rejects the possibility of conversion for the spouse of someone who has chosen to marry outside the faith.

Now, I of course neither need nor expect Orthodoxy to give sanction to mixed marriages. What I do hope to see one day is an increased willingness to acknowledge the humanity, decency, and commitment of all members of Jewishly-identified families-- Orthodox or not, halachic or not. In the meantime, I'll stick to putting the liberal movements' feet to the fire.

Of course, I have a personal stake in this issue, but for me what's really important is that Judaism, particularly American Judaism, finally stop shooting itself in the foot by turning away committed Jews and Jewish-friendly spouses. Seeing the liberal movements finally starting to get it is a welcome change.

A slow evolution

I've been doing some reading about the processes of change among the different Jewish denominations. It's interesting to see what decisions influence what changes, and at what pace the denominations move to adapt to each other.

Take the issue of ordaining female rabbis. Apparently the Reform movement was kicking the idea around all through the late 1800s (and vetoing it through the first few decades of the 1900s), but took another 100 years for it to come into practice with Rabbi Sally Preisand, who was ordained in 1972. I had vaguely heard of R. Preisand but was surprised to learn that right behind her, nipping at her heels, as it were, was a Reconstructionist Rabbi, Sandy Eisenberg Sasso, ordained just two years later. It took 11 years after Sally Preisand for the Conservative movement to follow suit, a process which some feared (and others threatened) would split the movement. For the most part, this did not happen. And even though there is presently no widespread move towards ordaining women rabbis in the Orthodox world, it too has not been immune from the shift. Since the 1970s, there has been a dramatic increase in the quality and diversity of educational opportunities for women, something that I would say must be partially read as Orthodoxy's attempt to negotiate a middle road between not actually ordaining female rabbis (too goyish!) and not overly pissing off/alienating women and the feminist-inclined in their own camp ("I can read Hebrew better than you, I can understand Talmudic argumentation, so remind me again why I can't study Talmud?")

This is all interesting to look at because it suggests the model for future issues. Take homosexuality. Again, we have Reconstructionist and Reform leading the way, letting gay students into their seminaries back in the late 1980s. As before, it has taken the Conservative movement longer, this time about twenty years, to come to similar conclusions- though, again, there is a lot of talk about this potentially splitting the movement, and the decision by the American wing to allow the ordination of gay rabbis seems like it will take a while to gain full acceptance among its counterparts in the UK and Israel.

But what's really fascinating is to look at how these questions of law and ideology influence things like political positions. The Reconstructionist and Reform movements were vocally supporting same-sex marriage as early as 1992 and 96. A recent article chronicling the latest salvo in the marriage wars in California focused on the religious movements involved, and which side they came down on:

On one side are the Mormon church, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. They describe marriage between a man and a woman as "the lifeblood of community, society and the state" and say any attempt by the courts to change that would create "deep tensions between civil and religious understandings of that institution."

On the other side are the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. Saying their faiths and a wide range of historical traditions honor same-sex unions, they argue that the current law puts the state's stamp of approval on "the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry."

Notice anything? The Conservative movement stayed out of it. Didn't want to take a side. It's kind of sad, but understandable. Given the trend for the Conservative movement to act slower (perhaps, in their minds, rightfully slow) on issues relating to social change, so it might have been too much to expect them to come out swinging for same-sex marriage so soon after finishing the last major battle over whether gays and lesbians can even become rabbis.

But then I spotted this:

Los Angeles — In 2005, when a Jewish gay-marriage activist first pressed California rabbis to sign a statement supporting full marriage equality for gays and lesbians, only a handful of Conservative rabbis lent their names. Over the course of the past two months, however, more than a dozen Conservative rabbis here have signed on to a growing list of clergy who support gay marriage in the civil realm.

What changed in between was the December 2006 decision, or teshuvah, by the Conservative movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards to allow gay and lesbian clergy and same-sex commitment ceremonies — a decision made after 15 years of rancorous argument about the issue. As a result of that long-simmering debate, observers note, Conservative rabbis, many of whom were previously uninformed on issues of gay rights in the civil sphere, did their homework and read up on the issues. Others who may have already supported gay marriage finally felt freed up to express their views publicly.

...In Massachusetts, an anti same-sex marriage amendment was roundly defeated in 2005, and again in 2007 at the state legislative level. Rabbi Menachem Creditor, a former Bay State Conservative rabbi who in June of last year became rabbi of Berkeley synagogue Congregation Netivot Shalom, helped organize rabbinic efforts to defeat the Massachusetts bill. Three years ago, 97 Massachusetts rabbis signed a public advertisement opposing the proposed legislation. But according to Creditor — who founded Keshet Rabbis, an organization of Conservative rabbis who support gay and lesbian equality — only seven of those signatories were Conservative. Following passage of the law committee decision in December 2006, Creditor said, many more Conservative rabbis signed their names.

Elliot Dorff, the rector of Los Angeles’s American Jewish University and a co-author of the rabbinic opinion that opened the doors for gay and lesbian clergy and same-sex unions in Conservative Judaism, said the scientific evidence that the opinion presented, showing that sexual orientation is not a choice, has been a key factor in swaying rabbis. Before the hard-fought opinion passed, Dorff said, it would have been far more difficult to convince Conservative rabbis to rally behind the cause of same-sex marriage.

I guess the desire to have the rabbi find a good match trumps the squick/halacha factor!

I have to say, I'm encouraged by this. I don't need Conservative Judaism to be a clone of Reform or Recon, but to see that there is a pattern of having CJ lean the direction of its liberal counterparts when it comes to progressive change, at least on a basic, human equality level... I see that as all for the good. And, again, as the other movements take positions, the Orthodox world modifies some of its own, albeit in different ways. (Who could have predicted this twenty years ago?)

I predict that the next big question will be about intermarriage, patrilineal descent, and so on. I think CJ is content to let patrilineal descent remain their "dividing line" relative to Reform for a good while, unless something big happens to change that. And, most likely, they will find a way of dealing with the issue that at least gives more face value to halacha than Reform's "screw it" position (perhaps continuing some of the practices they already have, like formal conversion of patrilineal-descent children at or before Bar/Bat Mitzvah age). But CJ has demonstrated over the years that fundamentally, it is more interested in seeing what halacha can permit and coexist with, as opposed to shut out. I would say that is what fundamentally distinguishes it from Orthodoxy, and that is why eventually CJ will wind up figuring something out that will probably be more, not less, inclusive of the intermarried and patrilineals.

A final thought: if R. Roth resigned from the Law Committee over ordaining gay rabbis, god knows what he'll do if they decide to allow mixed marriages. Presumably it will involve fire.

Mishkan T'Fillah finally appears

That's the rumor, anyway. Apparently some copies of the new Reform siddur have filtered their way out west, and are finally getting to see the light of day.

The good:

Laid out almost entirely in a two-page-spread format, “Mishkan T’filah” is the “high-def widescreen” of prayer books. Right-hand pages contain prayers in Hebrew, along with transliteration, English translation and footnotes. Left-hand-side pages contain alternative readings and related commentary.

Every page has a “pull-down” menu in the upper corners, in Hebrew and English so readers always know exactly where they are in the service.

Unlike “Gates of Prayer,” which leaves out the matriarchs and refers to God as “He,” the new siddur is gender-inclusive. Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah all get props in the Avot v’Imot prayer.

Some of the language retains the lofty elegance of the old Union Prayer Book, but much of it is modern and poetic.

One Shabbat evening prayer reads in part: “Lend us the wit, O God, to speak the lean and simple word; give us the strength to speak the found word, the meant word…”

And smack in the middle is the Sh’ma, spread over two pages in ornate Hebrew calligraphy (reserved only for the most sacred objects).

The siddur also reinstates techiyat hameitim, the prayer for the resurrection of the dead, something unimaginable in previous Reform siddurs.

TV comparisons for a siddur? I can't wait to see what metaphors these guys break out to talk about the Bible.

The bad:

"I had concerns about the formatting of the text and the small font size,” said Kory Zipperstein, Rodef Shalom’s worship committee chairman. “It didn’t seem to progress in a linear fashion. Some older members of the community were not at all happy with this new prayer book.”

Rabbi Stephen Pearce of San Francisco’s Congregation Emanu-El also had a few gripes. “I do not love the book,” he said. “The language is at times child-like. It is hard to maneuver the pages. Constantly having to call out page numbers interrupts the flow of prayer.”

...[Barak] has a few bones to pick. “It would nice if the cantorial [directions] were more indicated,” she said. “And as for responsive readings, they didn’t do it consistently. I really do love the call and response tradition in Jewish prayer.”

Oh, and one more thing. Barak reports that “everyone is making remarks about the weight of the book.”

By that she means the physical weight. “It’s extremely heavy,” she acknowledges.

That's a good point, especially since CCAR is also putting out a copy in large-type, which is probably even more gigantic. Let me tell you, I know old Jews and while they don't mind fasting to the point of passing out Yom Kippur, spraining a wrist trying to hold a damn book is a whole other story.

The miscellaneous:

And then, to satisfy cantors, “Mishkan T’filah” includes an extensive selection of songs and hymns, more than 100 for every conceivable worship or simcha setting. Also included — at Barak’s urging, is “America the Beautiful,” a song she likes to sing in services close to Thanksgiving.

One thing “Mishkan T”filah” does not include: any instructions. No responsive readings in italics, no “sit” or “stand” commands. For that sort of traffic control, clergy and congregants are on their own.

Meh. I think I'll live without explicit stage directions. America the Beautiful I could take or leave, but it will be cool to have a song section (one of the things I like about Temple GLBT, which, incidentally, I owe at least one new post on).

Lastly, the interesting: it's not just Reformies who like the new book.

In 2006, Menachem Creditor proofed some early drafts of the book. Creditor is the rabbi at Netivot Shalom, a Berkeley Conservative synagogue, yet he thinks highly of “Mishkan T’filah.”

“It’s a very inviting text,” he said. “Part of what sets it apart from previous [siddurs] is its willingness to engage in classical language and its attempt to become a more standardized prayer book for Reform Jews. I see this as a real triumph for the Reform movement."

The Conservative movement’s siddur, “Sim Shalom,” was first published in 1985 and has been revised twice since then.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about the article including a random quote from an Orthodox rabbi (relevance?) but since he doesn't use it as an opportunity to bash anybody, I think I can live with it:

The Orthodox movement uses a variety of prayer books, such as those published by Artscroll, the siddurs of choice San Francisco Orthodox shul, Adath Israel. Rabbi Josh Strulowitz jokes that his siddur hasn’t been revised in a thousand years.

“What might change is the commentaries on the [Torah],” he said. “They might modernize the translation or occasionally add something new, like the prayer for the state of Israel, but nothing groundbreaking. That’s a big part of what we are. We modernize the interpretation and understanding, but we don’t change the text.”

That 1,000-year reference is not arbitrary. It wasn’t until the 10th century C.E. that the prayer language found in most siddurs became fixed. For centuries prior to that, prayer was led by the shaliach tzibur — or messenger of the community — who provide the voice of public prayer, sometimes extemporaneously.

Hmm. Could that be a hidden dig at the rabbi? Nah. Couldn't be. They leave that stuff to folks like me.

I'm glad R. Strulowitz is good-humored about this (as opposed to some Orthodox triumphalists I could name), but I still can't help but wonder if an article about a largely Orthodox issue- like an eruv or shmitta- would have included a token quote from a Reform rabbi. Oh well. Diversity and all that.

Reform and Tradition

I was eating lunch two weeks ago and got an unexpected phone call from CCAR Press.

My first reaction. "CCAR Press? Sounds familiar. Hmm... I don't remember submitting anything to CCAR press. But maybe they've heard about my interminable ongoing novel-in-progress... Or maybe they somehow came across my blog and want to publish me. Or maybe they telepathically identified me as a frigging genius whose voice just begs to be heard!"

Oops. Turns out CCAR Press publishes the Reform prayerbook, Mishkan T'filah. Shucks.

It turns out there's good news and bad news. The good news is that the siddirum are selling like hotcakes. The bad news is that this means that little old orders like mine (shuls get a price break at around 100 copies. Yet another reason it's too bad I'm not a shul) won't get filled until sometime next year.

Anyway, it turns out this call was semi-fortuitous, because the siddur is in the news. Apparently some Reform traditionalists (chew on that for a minute) are up in arms because they think the new prayer book is on a mission to make Reform "Conservative-esque."

Scholars say the editorial decisions reflect the evolution of Jewish culture, theological ideas and history. But some rabbis and congregants who champion classical Reform Judaism believe the book endangers the identity of the movement and blurs the distinction between Reform and Conservative Jews.

"I'm really sorry it's happening this way," said Rabbi Michael Sternfield of Chicago Sinai Congregation. "I give [the editors] an A for effort. They know their stuff. But I think their mind-set is to make the Reform movement as much like Conservative Judaism as we can."

Knobel said the book responds to a demand for choices from congregations, many of which have started producing their own prayer books.

"[That's] symbolic for us that people were becoming dissatisfied with what we were providing," he said. "We really feel people are hungry for something."

Note to Rabbi Sternfield: it's not about stealing from CJ, it's about giving RJs the option to be more Jewishly literate. To deny them this ability in both your siddur and your Hebrew schools is grossly unfair, particularly if it's becoming something that more and more RJs WANT, and negates any pretense that Reform Judaism is actually about choice. Just because some Reform rabbis don't want Hebrew doesn't mean they should be in a position to cockblock everybody else, anymore than preferences involving facial hair should lead to you shaving any Reform Jews that still have beards.

Fans of the book say its beauty lies in the multitude of options. Four versions of each prayer are laid out on a two-page spread intended as one extra-wide page. On the right are the prayer in Hebrew, its pronunciation and a more literal English translation. On the left is a more poetic translation of the prayer, followed by a metaphorical or meditative passage reflecting on the prayer, or commentary about the prayer's origins. It is the first Reform prayer book to include commentary.

"The way sacred texts remain important, meaningful and relevant is through an ongoing process of commentary," Knobel said. "We're constantly looking at the sacred texts we have and looking for a meaning in them that speaks to us in our day and age in our own personal and communal teachings."

Unlike previous prayer books that have dictated when congregants sit, stand and read aloud, the new book leaves it up to the worship leader to give stage directions at their discretion. Knobel said it's also up to leaders to build in larger blocks of silence so congregants have time to absorb and reflect on supplemental texts throughout the service.

Choices and commentary? Heaven forbid! Some confused congregant might accidentally think they're reading the Talmud or something.

But some critics consider the book a giant step in the wrong direction. They say its inclusion of more traditional prayers kowtows to conservative pressure.

"I do really feel this prayer book is a mistake," said Sternfield, whose congregation wrote its own prayer book seven years ago. He said "Mishkan T'filah" reflects a shift toward the Conservative Jewish movement.

"Reform Judaism has an authenticity unto itself. The more we try to be like other movements, the less authentic we are to our own core values," Sternfield said. "I'm very much in hopes that our pendulum will swing back to a different position from where it is today. It may take the disenchantment over this book for the movement to come to its senses a little bit."

Funny me, I thought the whole Reform Judaism thing was supposed to be about changing to fit the needs of the times. At least that's what this brochure says. What do you want, Rabbi Sternfield? Do I need to personally emboss each page of MK with an imprint of I.M. Wise? Who, incidentally, knew Hebrew. Also, if your OWN congregation wrote its own siddur, clearly they weren't being served by Gates of Prayer.

JTA has more, with a specific focus on the prayer calling for the resurrection of the dead (which I find interesting, but largely a non-sequiteur).

But befitting a prayer book conceived to appeal to diverse beliefs and practices, members of the editorial committee offered various and sometimes conflicting explanations for the prayer's return. In particular they differed on whether the change reflects merely a new comfort with liturgical metaphors or a deeper change in Reform theology.

The movement's Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 explicitly rejected the notion of bodily resurrection, an idea considered unmodern, unscientific and irrational.

"Certainly to the 19th century reformers, the idea that Judaism believed in resurrection of the dead seemed to them the antithesis of the kind of rational Judaism that they thought most Jews wanted and expected," said Jonathan Sarna, a Jewish history professor at Brandeis University.

In prior Reform prayer books, the traditional blessing of God as the one who revives the dead -- in Hebrew, "m'chayeih hameitim" -- was changed to "m'chayeih hakol," literally "who gives life to all." The new prayer book includes the modified version, but also offers worshipers the ancient formulation as an alternative.

Many if not most of those involved in the production of Mishkan T'filah continue to reject the idea of God literally raising dead bodies from the earth. As metaphor, however, the phrase is thought to be sufficiently meaningful for people that it was worthy of restoration.

"For a number of people in our movement, reclaiming traditional language feels very meaningful," Frishman said. "And when that language resonates positively, people want it."

Editorial committee members provided various metaphoric interpretations for the prayer, from the reawakening that occurs after surgery to the notion that the Jewish people were resurrected after the Holocaust in the rebirth of the State of Israel.

Others, however, are less willing to dismiss the idea of resurrection as pure metaphoric fancy, arguing that if there is an afterlife -- a notion that Reform has never renounced -- it will have to be a bodily one, since human beings do not know themselves in any other way.

On the one hand, maybe this puts Reform in something of a similar quandary as Conservative- putting something on paper that the rank and file don't really believe. On the other hand, given that MK is supposed to be all about giving people options, I don't think it's quite the same thing as CJ continuing to profess that the movement is uniformly halachic (see Neil Gillman's critique of this self-conception in his speech back in Dec 2005).

Actually, the Gillman episode is an interesting one to compare to the oresent MK brou-ha-ha, because as in 2005, one of the first responses we heard was the unabashed triumphalism of folks like Jonathan Rosenblum, who said Gillman had validated the critiques of Rabbi Avi Shafran, head mouthpiece of Agudat Israel of America, who had said way back in 2001 that CJ's claim to be halachic was disingenuous. Never mind that Gillman went on to say that he still identified as a CJ and thought the movement was a legitimate one, or that plenty of CJs disagreed with Gillman's analysis- Rosenblum had his sound-bite and that was enough.

So, guess who do we find crowing about the new MK and its turn towards tradition? None other than the esteemed Rabbi Shafran, back again.

That the unveiling of a new Reform prayer book didn't elicit applause from the Orthodox world was hardly surprising. Despite media hailings of the movement's new liturgical offering as a turn toward Jewish tradition, the new prayer book, Mishkan T'filah, still pointedly omits vital elements of traditional Jewish prayer (indeed of the Torah) that its editors found discomfiting.

The essence of the Jewish religious heritage does not change; the very premise of Reform theology (and, as has become increasingly evident, Conservative theology no less) is that Judaism can be redefined according to the wishes of contemporary Jews. As a Reform leader once candidly explained, he examines each mitzva and asks himself, "Do I feel commanded [to heed it]?"

Hang on, they still believe in the right to choose things? What a lousy bunch of Orthodox Jews. Oh, wait.

And anyway who said that the goal of MK was to get Orthodox brownie points?

Rabbi Shafran also takes note of the new prayer for resurrecting the dead:

...I can't help but imagine an astute Reform worshipper motivated to indeed ponder the kind of techiyat hameitim we witness daily, like decaying organic matter fertilizing the soil, spurring dormant seeds to unfold into plants and trees. And then being stirred further to consider the relationship between such everyday "quickening of the dead" and the ultimate one that the Torah teaches lies, for those who merit it, at the end of history.

...The editors of the new Reform prayer book may insist that its users needn't subscribe to the Jewish belief that the righteous will one day rise from their graves. But their inclusion of the blessing of resurrection, however they may have sought to soften it, reflects unquestionably the deep stirrings of Jews alienated from our eternal beliefs groping uneasily toward their acceptance.

It may be naive to imagine that changes in the Reform prayer book hold out hope that Reform-affiliated Jews might yet come to consider returning to the fullness of the Jewish religious tradition.

But I'm not willing to consider a million-plus fellow Jews as nothing more than a desiccated limb of the Jewish people, hopelessly destined to wither and fall away.

Not only because there are encouragingly many once-distant-from-Judaism Jews living fully Torah-observant lives today.

But because I believe in techiyat hameitim.

Wow, so once again we get insight into Rabbi Shafran's incredible love and respect for all his Jewish brethren, that is, the ones that see the light and realize that their true purpose is to become good little BTs.

Though I'd like to be as accommodating and gracious as Harry Maryles or Daniel Treiman, Shafran comes off more as snickering than giving credit where due. That he refuses to even mention the obvious gray area between "practically extinct" and full-fledged Baal Teshuvah seems to indicate a pretty major blind spot. A true acknowledgment of the importance- and positive turn- of the new prayer book would be to encourage Reform Jews to be more observant, not merely say, "I can't wait for them to become real Jews like me."

I can accept that most frum Jews aren't going to be ok with picking and choosing. But there's no down side to more Reform Jews praying in Hebrew. And on this topic, the Orthodox would be well-served to take a page from Chabad's playbook and encourage non-Orthos to go AS FAR AS THEY WANT, rather than saying, "we look forward to seeing you in our shul next week." Even if that's what you actually believe guys, Jesus, don't say it out loud. Oh, and calling Reform Jews spiritually dead isn't exactly a way to get on their good side, either. Chalk up another lost kiruv opportunity (to be fair, the Orthodox aren't the only ones who can be provacative).

Also check out this Jerusalem Post article from last month that chronicles where the Reform movement is headed and how it's getting there. Liberally-quoted money quotes:

Gates of Prayer - a compilation of 10 themed services published in 1975 - sought to accommodate these trends. The siddur included an unprecedented selection of new prayers, readings and meditations to accompany the Hebrew texts, some geared toward Holocaust remembrance and Israeli Independence Day. The success of GOP was immediate with sales reaching 50,000 in its first year and nearly 1.5 million copies to date.

But despite its achievements, Gates of Prayer was criticized almost from the start for being more of an anthology than a cohesive prayer book and for relying on the masculine in its language. Some congregations reacted by returning to the UPB, but many compiled their own prayer books, often editing the texts for gender sensitivity.

'MISHKAN T'FILAH'

By 1985 a new siddur was in the works.

As work began, Rabbi Lawrence Hoffman, professor of liturgy at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, the Reform rabbinical seminary, prepared a monograph describing the changes in Jewish worship patterns over the course of the last generation. "A new prayer book," he wrote, "needed to take into account a number of trends: a growing emphasis on personalism as opposed to peoplehood, the individual's search for the sacred, the presence of many diverse constituencies within Reform congregations, the expansion of ritual occasions (such as new rituals for the New Moon), a new interest in the choreography of worship, and the influence of Jewish feminist thought on language and imagery in referring to God." In a radical proposition, he asserted that a new prayer book needed to take into consideration the opinions of the laity.

...After years of discussions, and trial runs, the resulting text is Mishkan T'filah: A Reform Siddur, which has sold 150,000 copies prior to publication.

Rabbi Elyse Frishman, whose proposal won an initial competition, conceived of the approach to the layout: Each prayer is set as a two-page spread. The prayer itself, fully transliterated and with a faithful English translation, appears on the right-hand page, and on the left are thematically related prayers, quotes by Jewish thinkers such as Martin Buber and Milton Steinberg, and meditations that include texts from the Talmud or contemporary poetry. Worshipers who prefer a straightforward, traditional service can choose to stay entirely on the right-hand side, while others might choose to say one or more of the alternative prayers on the left.

"Now we understand there is no single theology we represent," said Hoffman. "Rather, Reform theology is an amalgam of many voices coming together. Instead of many services there is one with many different voices on each page."

MORE TRADITIONAL?

Yes and no, said Hoffman.

"It's not so much a return to tradition as much as it an attempt to present the fullness of Jewish tradition modified by principles that animate Reform Judaism," he said.

Rabbi Daniel Bronstein , a congregation scholar at Congregation Beth Elohim in Brooklyn said it's more traditional than anything that's been done in a Reform siddur in terms of the restoration of traditional liturgy, drawing from more traditional sources, the inclusion of much more Hebrew and much less responsive English reading. But there is also a greater presence of women thinkers and rabbis, more renewal and non-rabbinic voices as well. "It reflects that on the one hand Reform is becoming more traditional and aligning itself with Klal Yisrael, but at the same time it's always going in the progressive direction."

The names of the prayer books, carefully chosen, offer some insight into what they package. Rabbi Levy, director of the School of Rabbinic Studies on the Los Angeles campus of HUC, points to the name of the latest siddur as the first indicator of the Reform Movement's embrace of tradition.

The Union Prayer Book was an attempt to create a book that all Jews could use, Levy explained. With Gates of Prayer, the emphasis is on being at the threshold. "Now we are inside the mishkan," said Levy. "Being inside reflects a wider embrace of Jewish tradition."

..."Most of us feel that it's keeping with the movement, which originally saw itself as responsive to change," said Levy. "If Torah is seen as continued revelation, then changing times help us see Torah differently."

The language of the Pittsburgh Platform, which said "at this time we reject the practices of diet and purity," opens itself up to such an argument, he said. "Whether by 'at this time' they felt it would always be so, or at another time could prove something different is open to interpretation."

The 1937 Columbus Platform, which came as a response to the Pittsburgh Platform, was created with the realization that the Reform Movement needed to affirm the synagogue as an important center of Jewish life. Similarly, the realization that holding on only to a "religion of reason" needed to be expanded was part of the motivation behind the 1999 Pittsburgh Platform. "With that platform we affirmed what had been happening for 10 years, namely an increase in spiritual life and dedication to study," Levy said.

With its origins in the 19th century, Reform Judaism was a response to an increased sense of alienation from Orthodoxy. Its founders looked to universalism as a way around the stringencies and ghetto mentality of the Orthodox world.

"Whereas in the 19th century we needed universalism, in the 1970s we needed particularism, and we did that by restoring several prayers that emphasize the particular destiny of the Jewish people," said Hoffman. The Aleinu prayer which centers around the notion that "our lot is not like theirs," was initially removed.

"By the time of the 1970s history had demonstrated that Jews have a unique destiny, like it or not, so it was restored," said Hoffman. "The issue now is no longer medieval heritage, now it is secularity."

...Deliberations about the Shema, one of the oldest known prayers, were probably the most divisive. In traditional siddurim, the Shema includes not just the Shema Yisrael and V'ahavta, but two more paragraphs which American Reform prayer books have omitted since the 1890s. The editorial committee was urged to reinstate the last two paragraphs, as part of a movement to recapture some of the traditional liturgy. But the third paragraph links divine reward and punishment to human merit and sin - an implicit suggestion that sickness or suffering may be Divine retribution, something Reform Jews reject. So Mishkan T'filah omits this paragraph, but readopted the second.

"We didn't include some traditionalist prayers that, in all good conscience, Reform Jews cannot say," said Frishman, who likens the decision to include more of the traditional liturgy to cooking. "The more I become aware of different herbs and vegetables, all become possibilities to create an amazing dish. The generation before might have rejected certain things because they were imposed on it, but we are not imposed upon, so we look at everything more openly."

CRITICS

A glance at today's critics reveals just how much the embrace of tradition has been solidified. A decade ago when Levy introduced his Ten Principles arguing in favor of greater ritual observance, critics argued the movement was caving in to Orthodoxy. Today those who point to shortfalls in the siddur say it fails to go far enough in its embrace of traditional liturgy.

"A strong editorial hand doesn't give justice to profound poetic impulse that humans have expressed over the last 2,000 years," said Rabbi Andy Bachman of Congregation Beth Elohim. "I am among a whole variety of rabbis across the generations who are uneasy with too many changes to the siddur so that it makes it unrecognizable."

Rabbi Leon Morris, executive director of the Skirball Center for Adult Jewish Learning in New York, urged the editorial committee of Mishkan T'filah to include the Shema in its entirety.

"One of the things I am asking is whether the 21st century provides us with a different way of thinking about what we do with inherited classical texts." he said.

Jews today are not looking to the prayer book to reflect their theology, explained Morris, who is part of a younger generation of Reform Jews who feel a connection to the traditional liturgy. "This is a post-modern turn - we are very much aware there are different ways to read texts and, increasingly, liberal Jews are appreciating and drawing meaning from classic texts even when they clash with our own personal beliefs."

Comparing the late 19th century with where the movement stands today, it is hard to deny the trajectory toward a greater embrace of tradition, said Morris. "But it is much less guided by a deepened commitment to Jewish law and more guided by a greater openness to tradition." No one, he said, felt a "halachic obligation" to include all three paragraphs of the Shema.

"It's not that Reform Judaism has no relation to Halacha, it's that the authority of Halacha is more in its ability to be persuasive than inherently authoritative by virtue of being Halacha," he said.

Today's generation of Reform Jews doesn't carry the same baggage as the founders of the movement, Morris said. "In a certain way Reform Judaism today is rebelling against secularism rather than Orthodoxy. Today Jews need to assert they are Jews."

Will adopting more traditional liturgy and ritual practice eventually make the Reform Movement indistinguishable from the Conservative Movement from which it sought so desperately to distinguish itself?

Levy hopes not. "I think a merger of Reform and Conservative Judaism would be terrible - difference helps keep vibrance," he said.

For Bachman it remains clear why he is a Reform Jew: "I am Reform because I believe humans wrote the Torah with divine inspiration, I believe men and women are inherently equal, I believe in welcoming gays and lesbians and intermarried families - and the movement that has those principles at the core is Reform."

Very interesting stuff. Looking forward to getting my own copy. Eventually.

Godamn it, Reform Movement

Can all the movements of Judaism please stop imploding? Pretty please?

Oy Bay has a post on a recent debacle that occurred at a Reform Summer Camp. Apparently the Camp, Camp Kutz (I can only imagine how many times that sign's been defaced), has been the site of a growing number of mitzvah-observant Reform kids. This has been something of an issue for the Reform leadership, but as long as it didn't make waves (or headlines), they were happy to ignore it, as well as the ramifications for their movement.

That was, until the Kutz Kids started testing their limits. The moment of truth happened at a Friday night service on July 4th. A performer set the prayers to easy-listening Jazz with an electric keyboard and guitar. And a lot of the campers just weren't having it. By the time the service ended, about a quarter of those in attendance had spontaneously walked out, forming their own minyans elsewhere on the camp grounds.

Asked about why they did what they did, the campers said that the music just wasn't what they were looking for- too nontraditional, some even called it offensive. The Jewish Week notes,

In addition to demanding more traditional prayer, a small but growing number of campers and young faculty there are wearing yarmulkes or tzitzit, even tefillin along with prayer shawls. One of this year’s campers had shuckling — the rhythmic prayer-rocking usually done by fervently Orthodox men — perfected. For the first time, song leaders taught the chasidic songs of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach alongside more modern Reform tunes.

There are even “rumblings” of interest in making the camp, which is now kosher-style, really kosher, said Kutz Director Rabbi Eve Rudin. “We first started seeing kids lay tefillin two or three years ago. Certainly we saw it last summer. It’s a handful of kids. Tzitzit are more widespread; quite a few kids are wearing them.”

The Jewish Week identified Kutz as one of the first real battlegrounds between the old and new generations of Reform Judaism. It rightly points out that Kutz "attracts the most-committed Reform teens from around the country", which means it can't be considered representative of the whole movement, but I definitely think it's indicative of an emerging trend, as young Reform Jews, who actually believe the rhetoric they've been taught about Reform being about honest individual explorations of mitzvot and tradition coming up against an increasingly rigid hierarchy that is, it seems, just as static in its own way as the Orthodoxy it still claims to be rebelling against. At Kutz, faculty were prevented from observing Kabbalat Shabbat in a traditional manner because it goes against Reform practices. Supposedly the issue there was trying to avoid confusing the kids or giving them a religious inferiority complex. The Director, Eve Rudin, said,

“We as a faculty are here to enable the experience for the kids, so if the kids see that the faculty are not pleased with the worship, what are they going to think about their own Jewish practice? I want every camper to feel proud of the Jewish choices they are making and not to feel that ‘more is better’ or ‘more traditional is better.’ ”

No, more traditional isn't automatically better, but neither is less traditional! Why not give the kids an option?

Enter Head Reformie Eric Yoffie, who, I'm sorry, maybe I'm being unfair, but I'm increasingly not really liking this guy. He is NOT doing it for me as far as promoting Reform Judaism as an open movement that welcomes others, regardless of faith or sect. Hell, he makes the Kutz kids out to be part of the Meah Shearim Modesty Patrol just for having an opinion and personal preference about their style of worship:

“They were so afraid of offending these kids [the more religiously inclined] that they were too intimidated to proceed in their desire to bring creative approaches to prayer, something we normally do in virtually any youth setting”

First of all, horsecrap. When the kids start burning trash cans, throwing rocks or breaking out seltzer bottles of bleach, then you can play the intimidation card. These kids walked out and did their own thing- EXACTLY what Abraham Geiger and I.M. Wise did in their day.

Second of all, Yoffie is totally wrong on this. A truly creative and open approach to prayer should include more than just experimental jazz riffs. It should have the option of trying all sorts of different flavors, not just ones that have passed with the seal of approval from liberal focus-groups. Even the kids that stayed said they did so not because they found the service meaningful or relevant, but out of respect for group unity (an interesting prospect that I'm having difficulty deciding on). Jazz versions of the service shouldn't be banned, but neither should Carlebach. Reform should be putting its money where its mouth is, noticing what the trends among the youth are, and incorporating those elements into their ongoing desire to be pluralistic AND relevant. You don't sing Kabbalat Shabbat psalms? Why not try it one night? You can do jazz one week and Carlebach the next, and freaking Kabbalah-yoga the week after that- I don't care, but to act as though you can't do something because it goes against Reform tradition is to build your own laws into stone, create your own Torah-mi-Berlin (or Pittsburgh), and I honestly don't think that many people are interested in following Yoffie down that road.

Yoffie continues to be unhelpful, speaking out both sides of his mouth:

“No aspect of the tradition should be foreign to us. We should be prepared to explore everything. Even things that would have been unthinkable to parents and grandparents... Some people may want to go and become either Conservative or Orthodox. So be it.”

There are limits to what the Reform movement can encompass, he said. “We’re a mitzvah-oriented tradition, not halacha-oriented,” he said, referring to Jewish law. “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.”

But if you preclude people from even looking in that direction, you aren't being true to the spirit of choice, either- you've already decided for them. What's the difference between that and the most cloistered and insular yeshiva?

I understand Yoffie's bind. It's not unlike the one going on in Conservative Judaism- where are your lines? What tradition do you keep? Who do you try and tailor yourselves to? But the Reform Judaism I've read about is supposed to be committed to individual paths. If you truly believe in co-opting adopting the Reconstructionist dictum of "the past has a vote, not a veto," you have to actually be willing to deal with the consequences of some people in your movement wanting to follow that vote- otherwise all that personal choice stuff goes out the window, and you really do lose a lot of the ideological integrity that keeps Reform together as a movement. Without at least giving lip service to the idea that more traditional approaches are legitimate, Reform becomes just as tyrannical and closed-minded as its favorite Orthodox punching-bags. And it alienates its more traditional-minded members at its peril: one of the reasons Reform has been in ascendancy has precisely been its perceived turn back towards tradition, not necessarily in a binding way, but in a potential way that doesn't close the door on being a Reform Jew and say, keeping kosher, or wearing tzitzit. To make that break definitive is to totally change the dynamic, in name if not fact, that Reform Judaism has been trying to perpetuate since the 1950s. No, you shouldn't be freaking out the adherents of "classical" Reform (all 25 of them), but wake up and smell the free-trade haroset: pushing out the traditionalist contingent from the movement is going to lead to disaster- they will go to Conservative Judaism and give it the boost it needs, and what's more, Reform will no longer be an "automatic" next-step feeder for the non-affiliated American Jew. It will essentially become a larger and fancier (and slightly more theistic, but who knows if the rhetoric will match the reality) version of Humanist Judaism. And as much as I think Humanist Judaism serves a purpose, I don't think it's going to become the next big thing anytime soon.

Yoffie's watch is going to determine Reform Judaism's future for the next generation. He should be very mindful of that.

Oh, and the triumphalist Orthodox such as Levi Brackman would do well to cool their jets. Brackman practically drools over the news of the Kutz standoff, saying that "We have now come full circle and Reform Judaism itself is losing some of its finest members to traditional Judaism."

Well, yes and no. Reform is certainly losing people to other movements (though as of right now my impression is Conservative is losing the most to either side. I would be curious as to how many Orthodox apikoroses just leave Judaism alltogether, or stick to their own individual worship, as opposed to joining up with another movement), but it's far from the deluge Rabbi Brackman seems to be hoping for. At least not yet. The true test, though, is going to be in how Reform Judaism deals with people like that a more traditional style of Judaism.

Brackman is brain-dead if he thinks that the kids at Kutz are BTs in the making. At best, they'll wind up in the Conservative or Reconstructionist movements. What they really want, though, is to be allowed to be who they are WITHIN the Reform movement. These kids, even only in their teens, are asking to keep the traditions and melodies of their families, of their own childhoods, not be forced to put them away because they don't tow the party line. One camper said she didn't like the music because it wasn't what she had at her Bat Mitzvah. Call me crazy, but I don't see her hopping over a mechitzah anytime soon.

Yet Brackman will ignore all this to get in some cheap (and fairly nonsensical shots):

the elite Reform youth are getting interested in religious ritual, demanding kosher and turning their back on “innovative” types of prayer services. This growth from within the Reform Movement removes the raison d’être of Reform Judaism.

...By modernizing Judaism... [early Reformers] hoped to make it relevant to the modern, emancipated Jew and thus salvage it from certain demise.

....So in fact Reform Judaism was not meant to be an ideology; it was a response to a perceived problem that modern societies posed to traditional Judaism. Unfortunately that response has failed on a number of levels. Statistics show that, instead of saving Judaism, Reform just allows it a more peaceful death...

Clearly, Reform Judaism has lost its very reason for existing.

Undoubtedly, what we are witnessing is the beginning of the end of a failed experiment called Reform Judaism.

Brackman should calm down and take another look at the Jewish Week article. These kids are not abandoning Reform, nor are they trying to bring their movement down. Reform may yet collapse, but Brackman would do well not to confuse wanting a more traditional Judaism with wanting to be Orthodox. These kids are still very much within the Reform mindset of choosing their own paths. They just happen to be choosing one their parents and grandparents don't like.

The more things change...

Triumphalism Pisses Me Off

It's my 400th post (wee!), and seeing as how a lot of my ire seems to get focused on Haredi Jews, I thought I'd try to amend this by pointing my lens over at the other end of the spectrum: Reform. Now, ideologically, I'm pretty close to Reform Judaism. I like that it's honest about picking and choosing mitzvot and customs, and that it isn't afraid to say so. I also like that it hasn't shied away from reversing itself when it was proven wrong (its shift from anti-Zionism to Zionism is one example, its return to more traditional Jewish ritual and education is another). And I think that the pioneers of Reform Judaism, especially in America, were fascinating individuals who accomplished a lot for their communities.

But here's the rub: deep down, it's hard to escape the stereotype that Reform is:

A) Convenient, by which I mean designed to be convenient, not necessarily meaningful or deep, and

B) Elitist. A big part of that is its history- long the movement of the rich and acculturated Germans, there's still some significant cultural baggage there for good ol' shtetl-descendants like me. As Reform has become increasingly political, this subtle sneering has seemed to increase.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like other denominations don't do this, too. But it's particularly tricky for me because, in a perfect scenario, there wouldn't be so many details about Reform Judaism in practice that turn me off and thereby prevent me from yelling loud and proud, "I'm Reform! Where do I sign up?" Instead I seem to be stuck between Conservative, whose theology I disagree with but whose everyday worship and scholarship seems to resonate with me, and Reform, whose theology I like, but very little else.

Whatever the answer to my personal dilemma, I'm sure of one thing: guys like Robert Heller, head of Board of the Union for Reform Judaism, aren't helping.

Heller is right in identifying that today Judaism demands active identification, and that Reform Judaism has more to offer people than merely "not Orthodoxy."

They -- we -- are choosing Reform Judaism because it stands for something and enables us to engage in Jewish prayer, study and action that has meaning and relevance for us in today’s world, not because it is not Orthodox Judaism.

Amen. But there's a problem. Heller goes on to articulate six points of "attractive" Reform tenets- none of which are exclusive to Reform. Let's take them one at a time, and out of order for dramatic effect.

1: Egalitarianism. A wonderful thing. But it's not new, and it's not just Reform. These days, any place that isn't Orthodox is egalitarian, and even some Modern Orthodox folks are trying to test the boundaries, for instance, by having women sing psalms during Friday night worship.

2: Inclusion. Also great. Also not limited to Reform. Conservative has a ways to go on the gay thing, but for the most part, this is an issue of degrees, not principles. And incidentally, it's a little weird to hear about the inclusiveness of Reform while they're simultaneously trying to nudge non-Jewish spouses to convert. Just saying.

3: Pluralism. Here I admit that Reform is in pretty good standing, but part of that is because it's the most liberal denomination. Unless it's going to say, "halacha is bullshit and you're all idiots," it's kind of a given that they're going to be the ones championing a many paths to God mantra. Also, Heller's reference to people being made in the image of God seems to be a total nonsequiteur. Everyone is made in the image of God, that doesn't mean that every path or position is legitimate (ex: Jihadism).

4: Prophetic Voice. Again, Reform has been at the vanguard of social justice, and I for one appreciate the fact that they extend their gaze beyond "Jewish only issues." At the same time, while relevance to the outside world and putting your faith into practice is great, a critique I've heard is that a Reform bar mitzvah is more about volunteering at soup kitchens than learning Hebrew. I'm not saying tikkun olam isn't a good thing, just that it can't (or shouldn't) be the only thing.

5: Lay people. Where has Heller been? What community or congregation DOESN'T have lay people involved? Even Orthodox communities do this. I don't know who Heller's comparing himself to here.

And lastly, the big H.

6:

Proper role of halachah: We know that halachah is a set of man-made rules (and I mean man-made – women have not been a significant part of their development). We respect that tradition and understand its evolution over time in different places, but we also understand that halachah was not handed down from on high at Sinai or anywhere else. Hence, we give it a voice, not a veto, and we interpret it in light of modernity and the realities of human experience.

Ok, I totally love the vote not veto thing, but it seems to be undermined by the fact that the general trend among Reform is to eschew a lot of traditions and mitzvot automatically. If Reform is as committed to "personal choice" as it likes to say it is, there should be a larger spectrum of practices within the movement, and the synagogues and rabbis should be the ones encouraging this exploration. Heller's drash of halacha seems more contemptuous than anything else. I don't care much for it myself, but I'm also not constructing a whole belief system here. Heller would be better served here by at least cherrypicking a few mitzvot he finds meaningful and talking about the beauty in Reform allowing people to freely choose how to live their lives with a clean conscience.

In fact, a lot of my issues with Heller aren't so much the things he's saying as how he's saying them- the construction of his 6 points seems to be almost along marketing lines: "Don't directly attack your competition, just talk about how good you are!" That'd be fine for a brochure, but it doesn't work so well here.

Heller ends with an appeal towards the countercultural trend embedded in Jewish tradition itself, which I like. But I'm still suspicious that the average 3rd or 4th generation Reform Jew is cognizant enough of tradition itself that they can make informed choices, particularly in regards to creating their own adaptations and modifications. I guess one of the things I want from Reform theologians and leaders is for them to "show their work," to show the starting-point from Orthodoxy (there's that old tricky fallacy of contemporary Orthodoxy as the gold standard!) to where they are now, and explain how we get there and why. I want some guarantees that people in Reform are there because they actually believe it, and not just because it's convenient.

Maybe that's too much to ask. But I think it's a legitimate question, and a serious one. You only get to claim authority from tradition if you actually know the tradition in the first place. Without that, Reform loses its "no BS" legitimacy with me. Radicalism plus time becomes stagnated traditionalism of its own, and is nothing to cheer about.

Edit: Poop, 400th post technically, only 389th posted. Well, back to work.

The Limists of Inclusivism

Ah, the ways of the universe. This afternoon I wrote a mild rebuke to the spirit among our Orthodox brothers who believe, like the Klausenberger rebbe, that "compromise" between Jews is tantamount to heresy, and that true compromise should be done in a spirit of respect, not coercion or triumphalism.

Soon after I finished davening in a Reform shul this evening (check it out soon on Too Cool for Shul) I happened to come across the summer issue of Reform Judaism Magazine (not the catchiest title, I agree, but at least you know what it's about- hint, hint, Jewish Action). And guess what they had on their letters to the editor page?

I am deeply disappointed by yoiur series of articles promoting kosher wine as defined by Orthodox institutions. The rules of kashrut pertaining to wine are antithetical to our principles as Reform Jews. Do we want to be drinking wine that cannot be touched by non-Jews because of the ancient assumption that non-Jews are idolators?

Other than personal taste or nostalgia, I can see no reason for Reform Jews to purchase kosher wine, and several reasons not to.

Rabbi Justin Jaron Lewis,
Ontario

Wow. Touche, universe.

Ok. Let's try this slowly. First, I agree with the rabbi that the "goyim can't touch the wine lest they sneak a quick sacrifice in to Zeus" rule is stupid. That said, I would claim that most of kashrut is pretty stupid, if you don't believe in it. That's sort of how hoks work. Yet, last I checked, the Reform movement wasn't trying to lead anti-kashrut campaigns or bash shechita.
There is no more reason to get up in arms over "endorsing" kosher wine (by offering kosher wine reviews) than there is in endorsing kosher slaughter by reviewing, say, Katz's Deli. If anything, Reform Judaism magazine should be praised for not assuming that no one in its readership gives a fig about kashrut, which allows them to claim maximum inclusiveness both within their movement as well as any other potential allies from other denominations.

If Rabbi Lewis has a problem with kosher wines (and the occasionally nutty details of said), he should be invited to write a rant urging people to rethink the system, maybe even institute a counter- (or superogetory) kashrut system, not unlike what's presently being advanced by some MO and Conservative groups in America and Israel (even the Jewish Press seems to like it. Well, kind of.) But the problem is not kashrut as a concept. Or, at least, it doesn't have to be. Like everything else, kashrut can be adapted and repurposed or reinvented, with the same kind of original thinking Reform Judaism is supposed to not only cherish, but exemplify. But Rabbi Lewis' kosher wine chip shouldn't determine movement policy, lest Reform actually become the stilted caricature its opponents like to present it as. If Reform really wants to reach out beyond its own ideological fiefdom, and I think it should, addressing a hypothetically mizvot-observant reader is an excellent start- even if that pisses off liberal zealots within the movement.

Wherefore art thou, RW reform?

I don't give a hoot about halacha. I just don't. I wasn't raised with it, I don't see any good reason to follow it, and I certainly don't consider it binding. So, despite my father's many, many freakouts any time he sees me with a yarmulke on my head ("This is not a fucking shul!"), my position on Jewish law (and the presence of a shiska girlfriend) should demonstrate to him that there's no danger in me running off to Chabad anytime soon.

That said, last night I went to a Reform Kabbalat Shabbat. And, well, it just wasn't me.

Let me explain. I wasn't raised going to any shul, and in college I roomed with a friend who spent years (and years, and years) in the Conservative movement. At this point I've been to a few Conservative shuls, and though I don't identify either as a CJ or with CJ's theology, I must confess that there's something to their services I'm quite fond of. I like the Hebrew (though transliteration is a must), and I really like Carlebach-style singing. Ideologically, I'm basically somewhere on the Reform-Reconstructionist end of things, because I don't feel the need to grapple with halacha (count me in for Kaplan's vote-not-veto), and I really like the idea of individual choice- especially since, if I'm honest, that's what I'm going to do in any case.

So a few weeks ago Shiksa Girlfriend and I went to a nice, pretty small (and elderly) Conservative shul. Everyone was very nice to us (surprised, in fact, to see people they'd never met before), and were even impressed at our ability to "read" Hebrew (thanks to some handy transliterations a friend made me for my birthday). Last night, though, we went to a large Reform shul. I prepared SG by telling her it was the city's Jewish equivalent of a Mega-Church.

And indeed, it was. The whole time I was sitting there, I felt very, very uncomfortable (not unlike the last few times I've been to Reform services, come to think of it). To be fair, this isn't about ideology. It's largely about style. In regards to style, though, this was totally NOT my thing. The transliteration wasn't what I was used to (you-don-'t ne-eed to hy-ph-en-ate ev-ery wo-rd); and the whole thing seemed like a very weird combination of a couples mixer meets Jewish summer camp.

Sorry, did I say camp? Guess what the rabbi's sermon was about. See, it turns out evangelical Christians are scary. Fine, tell me something I don't know. Do we really need to spend the whole drash talking about a movie you saw last week? And comparing evangelicals, even the crazy dominionists, to Hamas? Yeah, fine, they train their kids to hate the government and non-believers. It's not like this is an exclusive thing here. Settlers in Hebron do that, too.

And it was particularly surreal hearing the rabbi complain about weirdo Christians given the fact that the music sounded like something from a Pentecostal fund-raiser (or light-Christian rock music station), right down to the- and this part scared the crap out me- weird finger waving at the end of the song. Sort of like a cross between this stuff and jazz hands.

Me: "Are they being ironic?"
SG: "I can't tell."

It's weird, because I usually spend all sorts of ridiculous energy defending Reform to bashers on the net, and one of the most regular cheap shots they toss out is that it's like church. Well, at this point I can say, it's not High Reform- which was certainly designed to emulate the German Lutherans of the day- but the comparisons are definitely there. The place I saw last night looked pretty damn charismatic Protestant to me. That's not a dig, it's just an observation. And it's not what I want.

I'm glad Reform exists. It needs to exist. (Not unlike my feelings about Orthodoxy- I would never choose it, and I have plenty of issues with it, but good for them.) And I haven't ruled it out yet. But at this point, my Conservative college roommate has ruined me: I need a more traditional service. So the search continues.

Money quote of the night upon leaving the shul:

Me: So, that was different.
SG: Yeah.
Me: Not to offend them- or you- but...
SG: What?
Me: It was just so... Christian!
SG: Wait, why are you lumping me in with them?