KAMII: What do you think?

Welcome!

Missed some of the Weinstein weekend's sessions? Want to know what happened? Want to share your thoughts and reactions, not just about the weekend, but about where we are going as a congregation?

• Read summaries of the Weinstein Weekend's sessions
• Use the "Labels" links on the right-hand side bar
  

• See what fellow congregants had to say
• Click the comments button below this (or other) entries

• Add your voice to the mix
• Use the comments button below this entry to bring up the comments window.
• You will then see a text box titled “Leave your comment,” where you can simply type in your comments.
• For security purposes, you will also be asked to type a string of displayed letters/numbers in a “Word verification” box.
• Finally, sign your comment by clicking the "Nickname" button, typing your name in the space provided, and then clicking "Publish your comment"
• Alternatively, you may submit your comment anonymously by clicking the "Anonymous" button and then clicking "Publish your comment"
  

Join the conversation!

Take advantage of this opportunity to participate in the life of the congregation--and remember, please be respectful of all who participate as readers and writers in this discussion!

Text of Professor Sarna's Presentation

CONTEMPORARY REFORM JUDAISM: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

By Jonathan D. Sarna, Brandeis University

In 1895/96, the famous Zionist orator, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Masliansky, then recently expelled from Russia, toured the United States. He visited Cleveland, and then moved on to Cincinnati, where he delivered a memorable address, in Hebrew, at the Hebrew Union College. In his memoirs, Masliansky recalled that at the conclusion of his address he turned dramatically to the venerable Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise, the founder and president of Hebrew Union College, and complained to him that a former HUC student, Rabbi Moses Gries, then the rabbi in Cleveland’s Temple Tifereth Israel (“The Temple”), had committed what Masliansky described as “a Hellenistic abomination. He has removed the Torah scroll – the glory of our sanctuary – from the holy ark and put it in the basement, replacing it with a copy of the English Bible.”¹

In fact, Rabbi Gries, in 1894, had proudly abolished the reading of the Torah from a scroll in Cleveland. In his congregation, “the Bible was read in English from a book.”² Wise, according to Masliansky, described this action as “an awful thing” that made him sick to his stomach.

Chatting in Wise’s home, after the lecture, Wise, according to Masliansky, “suddenly rose from his chair, and with eyes flashing” told Masliansky in a prophetic voice, to walk over to the wall. Maliansky did as he was bidden.

--“Why are you standing there and not walking further,” Wise thundered.

--“How can I walk any further,” Masliansky replied, “the wall is in the way.”

-- “So it is with my foolish students,” Wise declared. “They have gone so far out that they have come to a wall. They are banging their heads against the wall, but there is no path before them. They shall return. . . .”³

Whether or not this conversation took place precisely as Masliansky recalled it,⁴ many scholars have argued that Wise’s dramatic prophecy has in fact come to pass in our day. Reform Judaism, having experimented with the most radical of reforms—abolishing the Torah reading, renouncing Jewish peoplehood, moving Shabbat to Sunday, and the like – has now, so the argument goes, “returned.” Today, in Reform Judaism, the Torah is back, Jewish peoplehood is back, Shabbat is back, Hebrew is back, even the blessing mehaye hametim (who revives the dead) is back (at least as an option).

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding its seeming persuasiveness, I am going to argue this evening that the by now widely accepted cyclical interpretation of the history of Reform Judaism in the United States -- the idea that what we are seeing is a “return” to tradition –inadequately explains major aspects of post-war Reform Judaism. To properly understand contemporary Reform, it seems to me, we need to appreciate major developments that too often go unremarked: first, Reform Judaism’s astonishing twentieth century rise from third place to first place among America’s Jewish religious movements; second, the concomitant metamorphosis that it underwent in order to successfully win over East European Jews; third, its conscious abandonment of theological and ritual uniformity in favor of an internally pluralistic, “big tent” approach to Reform Judaism; and finally the implications of decisions made a generation ago concerning outreach and patrilineal descent.

The immigration of some 2.5 million East European Jews to America between 1875-1925 shattered Reform Judaism’s hope of becoming “minhag Amerika,” the predominant form of Judaism in the United States. It also profoundly shook the Reform movement’s self-confidence. Instead of growing, Reform’s market share of American Judaism plummeted. By World War I, fully 85% of American Jewry was of East European origin or descent while Reform Judaism, by and large, remained the province of a comparatively small number of German Jews and their descendants. In America’s largest Jewish community, New York City, in 1918, just 2 percent of the city’s synagogues were Reform; the rest were Orthodox in one form or another. Nor did there seem to be much chance that Reform would make inroads into this East European groundswell. The Reform movement’s basic platform, the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, ran counter to some of East European Jews’ most cherished beliefs, including Jewish peoplehood and Zionism. Moreover, the church-like atmosphere of Reform temples, the heavy use of English, the substitution of confirmation for bar mitzvah, as well as the icy German formality and the evident condescension displayed toward East European Jews by many classical Reform congregations – all suggested to knowledgeable observers that Reform Judaism would become a kind of Jewish Episcopalianism: small, smug, and paternalistically elite.⁵

Those East European Jews and their children who left Orthodoxy flocked not to Reform Judaism, but rather to the new and ideologically broad Conservative movement. The United Synagogue, the synagogue body of the Conservative movement, ballooned from 22 member synagogues in 1913 to 229 member synagogues in 1929 -- making Conservative Judaism the fastest growing by far of America’s Jewish religious movements. As for Reform Judaism, it was ridden with dissension surrounding the volatile issue of Zionism, and many of its rabbis were disillusioned. A nationwide survey of Reform rabbis published in 1926 found “many expressions of dissatisfaction, that Reform is in need of resurrection, reformation, revitalization, that Reform must be reformed.”⁶

One charismatic Reform rabbi, Stephen S. Wise of New York, went to far as to establish a new rabbinical seminary: the Jewish Institute of Religion. It boldly competed with Reform’s primary seminary, Hebrew Union College, and advocated a striking new agenda for the rabbis whom it trained – an agenda that placed great emphasis on Zionism, social justice, and the task of serving klal yisrael, the Jewish people as a whole. Seeing all of this -- two seminaries, two ideologies, two warring camps -- many foresaw a destructive schism brewing within the Reform movement. That almost come to pass in 1942, when the American Council for Judaism was established, which opposed a Jewish state and sought to restore Reform Judaism to its classical moorings.⁷ Two years earlier, the small, divided Reform movement claimed a membership in the United States of just 265 paying congregations and only 59,000 family memberships, meaning that there were fewer than 200,000 dues-paying Reform Jewish men, women and children in the whole country.⁸

When we consider that Reform Judaism today boasts more than 900 member congregations and some 1.5 million dues-paying Reform Jews⁹ we begin to appreciate the magnitude of Reform Judaism’s transformation over the past seven decades. Since 1940, the movement has won over large numbers of Jews of East European descent, and moved from being the smallest of America’s Jewish religious movements to the largest.

Much can be learned from looking at how this happened. First, Reform Judaism, influenced by the free-market principles of American religion, studied the ways of its religious competitors, and effectively emulated them in an attempt to attract members and improve its share of the Jewish religious marketplace. Some Reform rabbis, for example, came out in favor of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan’s emphasis on Judaism as a civilization. They embraced “cultivation of distinctive forms of religious art and music and the use of Hebrew,” and wrote this into Reform Judaism’s 1937 Columbus Platform – much to the horror of Classical Reform Jews like R. David Philipson.

Other Reform Jews, in a bid to attract East European Jews, reintroduced once-discarded rituals such as the bar mitzvah. Congregations in Lancaster, St. Paul, and Dallas, among others, witnessed bnei mitzvah already in the 1930s. Temple B’rith Kodesh, in Rochester, reintroduced the practice around 1940. By 1953, a survey found that the bar mitzvah “is practiced in varying degrees in 92 percent of the Reform temples.”¹⁰ That development alone removed a central impediment to East European Jews’ entry into the Reform movement.

Reform Judaism’s turn back to Zionism likewise made it more appealing to many East European Jews. The story of Reform Judaism’s re-embrace of Zionism is by now well-known. Over time, more and more rabbis and lay leaders turned to Zionism, defying traditional Reform opposition as expressed in the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform. Rabbi David Philipson, a graduate of the first class of the Hebrew Union College, historian of the Reform movement, and a participant in the Pittsburgh conference, reported to his diary in 1927 that he stood “in proud isolation in my universalistic advocacy of Judaism.” Where before, he claimed, “it was generally agreed by Jews of every shade of opinion that the Jew was such in religion only, that he was an American of the Jewish faith. Today,” he lamented, “we who hold to this description of the Jew are frequently laughed to scorn.. . .”¹¹ Ten years later, in 1937, Reform’s new more positive attitude toward Zionism was officially recognized in the Columbus platform, which affirmed the “Obligation” of “all Jewry” to aid in the upbuilding of Palestine “as a Jewish homeland. . . not only a haven of refuge for the oppressed but also a center of Jewish culture and spiritual life.¹²

Reform rabbis of East European descent played an important role in producing this public transformation of Reform ideology, and the new statement, in turn, made Reform Judaism easier to market to East European Jews and their children.

Finally, a new generation of leaders assumed power in the Reform movement, and introduced critical changes in Reform Jewish education, in its youth movement, and in its women’s movement that made Reform more alluring to young Jews of every stripe, particularly those with roots in Eastern Europe.¹³ Classical Reform Judaism, and the ideology of the Pittsburgh Platform, by no means disappeared as a result of these changes. Rabbi Gerson Levi here, for example, was in many ways a classical Reform Jew and a follower of Emil G. Hirsch. But alternative views now gained legitimacy and that made outreach to Jews of East European descent more and more possible.

The possibility of “alternative views” portended a second major change of great significance. Where the notion of a platform implied that there was a single formal statement of Reform Jewish beliefs to which adherents were expected to give their intellectual assent,¹⁴ now Reform became more internally pluralistic. A comparison of the different Reform statements bespeaks this change. Back in 1885, Rabbi Kaufmann Kohler stated that the purpose of the platform that became known as the Pittsburgh Platform was to “declare before the world . . . what Reform Judaism means and aims at.”¹⁵ Half a century later, the 1937 Columbus Platform billed itself as a “declaration of principles,” a term which allowed for more flexibility than a platform. Indeed, the new text was officially promulgated “not as a fixed creed but as a guide for the progressive elements of Jewry.”¹⁶ By 1976, the Reform movement was so broad and multi-dimensional that neither a “platform” nor a “declaration of principles” could embrace it. The document was instead described as a “Centenary Perspective.” The new document consciously celebrated “diversity within unity,” announcing that “Reform Judaism does more than tolerate diversity; it engenders it. . . We stand open to any position thoughtfully and conscientiously advocated in the spirit of Reform Jewish beliefs.”¹⁷ While the most recent 1999 document, the so-called Pittsburgh II, returns to the Columbus language, calling itself a “statement of principles for Reform Judaism,” it too acknowledges at the outset “the diversity of Reform Jewish beliefs and practices.”¹⁸

Diversity, which became a growing reality in Reform Jewish circles during the twentieth century and is now celebrated as one of its central virtues, helps to explain both the rapid growth of Reform Judaism since 1940, and the perception that it is re-embracing tradition. Precisely because Reform came to be expressed in so many different flavors growing numbers of Jews found themselves comfortable in one or another spot under the ever-wider Reform Jewish tent. Traditional Jews became welcome and Classical Reform Jews remained welcome. The majority of Reform Jews, of course, were happy to “pick and choose” among the rituals that they elected to observe.

Interestingly, as Reform Judaism committed itself to wider and wider diversity within an overarching unity, the Conservative movement in American Judaism narrowed its tent. Earlier, during the middle decades of the twentieth century, Conservative Judaism had been the broadest of America’s Jewish religious movements, stretching from Mordecai Kaplan on the left to Saul Lieberman on the right. More recently, Reconstructionists and Traditionalists have abandoned the Conservative movement, leaving its tent much more constricted. As a result, the Jewish religious movement that now covers the widest ground, ideologically – stretching from so-called Polydox Jews on the left to Jews who are Shomrei Shabat ve-kashrut on the right -- is actually the Reform movement. It has embraced the big tent that Conservative Judaism largely abandoned.

Today it is common to assert that Reform Jews are re-embracing tradition, and it is very easy to point to examples both of individuals and even of examples in the new prayer book, Mishkan Tefillah. But not everything that seems new really is new. The perception that Reform Judaism is re-embracing tradition actually dates all the way back to the 1960s. Just under 4o years ago, On March 16, 1969, Robert Gordis, writing in the New York Times Book Review, described the “far-flung, though by no means universal, striving in Reform Judaism for a return to Jewish traditional postures.”¹⁹ Theodore Lenn, in a study released in 1972, claimed that “nearly 25 per cent of the nation’s Reform rabbis favor uniting with the Conservative branch, and another 43 per cent lean strongly toward the more traditional Judaism of the Conservative movement.”²⁰ Eugene Borowitz, in 1977, provided us with an analysis of these developments, which he attributed, among other things, to “Hitler, the spiritual debility of Western culture, and the achievements of the States of Israel.” As a result of these, he reported, an “old consensus came apart,” replaced by an angry debate between Classical Reform universalists and more traditional Reform particularists.²¹ By 1989, the trend had supposedly reached “full flower.” A headline in the New York Times of that year screamed “Reform Jews are Returning to Ritual.”²² But eighteen years later, in a much discussed article last summer in the New York Jewish Week, the same phenomenon was once-again reported as big news: “Reform Youth Flexing Their Ritual Muscle: Growing numbers of the liberal movement’s teens and young adults are embracing tradition, posing a challenge for leaders.” The NY Times has since echoed these same claims. ²³

What bears recalling, after 40 years of such news stories, is that it refers only to some Reform Jews – a segment of the tent, not all Jews who worship therein. According to the National Jewish Population Survey, for example, 25% of Reform Jewish synagogue members always or usually light Shabbat candles and 8% keep kosher. The rest do not. Indeed, more than half of all Reform Jews attend religious services fewer than nine times a year; a quarter still come only on the high holidays or never.²⁴ The so-called return to ritual is evident in summer camps, among the movement’s professional leaders and among leaders-in-training, but not among the majority of the rank and file. ²⁵ Today, in the Reform movement – moreso, I think than in the past, mostly because of the influence of Israel, where all Reform Jewish professionals now spend a year – the leadership tends to be much more ritually observant than the membership at large.

So coming back to the story with which we began: Has Isaac Mayer Wise’s prediction come true? Have Reform Jews “returned?” The big “return,” I have suggested, is Reform Judaism’s astonishing and in many ways improbable “return” to majority status within American Judaism as a whole. The growth of Reform – its ability to capture market share from other movements and to vault in size from 3^rd place to 1^st place among American Jewish ‘denominations’ – is a big story not only in American Judaism but in American religion as a whole, especially since it took place at a time when liberal Protestant denominations in America were rapidly declining. Reform Judaism’s willingness to change some of its beliefs and practices in order to win over East European Jews certainly played a large part in this “return.” So did its embrace of a “big tent” model of Judaism that legitimated many different ways of being Jewish. The restructuring of Reform Jewish institutions, particularly the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now the Union for Reform Judaism) under a succession of dynamic leaders also played a highly significant role.

But there is one additional factor that we cannot overlook in seeking to explain the Reform Movement’s more recent growth, and that, of course, is its outreach campaign to the intermarried. Beginning in 1978, under the leadership of Rabbi Alexander Schindler, the Reform movement began to encourage non-Jewish spouses to join Reform congregations and study Judaism. “We reject intermarriage but not the intermarried,” Rabbi Schindler declared. “Instead of reading them out, we seek to bring them in.” ²⁶ In 1983, this decision was followed up by the movement’s acceptance of patrilineal descent, previously adopted by the Reconstructionist movement, recognizing as Jewish the offspring of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother, so long as the child identifies Jewishly. Between them, these decisions fueled a very significant rise in the membership of the Reform movement, bringing in tens of thousands of new members. Today, according to Steven M. Cohen, some 26% of the member households of Reform congregations are interfaith households.

That the Reform movement has greatly benefited, in terms of numbers, from these new members cannot be doubted. Some of our most active lay leaders today are Jews whose Mothers are not Jewish or whose spouses are not Jewish. In some communities, especially in the South, we have active leaders who themselves are not Jewish, though they love Jews, in every sense of that term. This is in many ways good news – it represents a remarkable development in terms of Jewish history -- but it poses significant challenges as well.

Some rabbis, for example, report feeling uncomfortable talking from the pulpit about subjects like Jewish peoplehood and in-group marriage. These are traditional Jewish values, but how do we talk about them in a setting where they make so many congregants feel excluded? In addition, non-Jewish involvement in the synagogue poses agonizing boundary dilemmas for Reform Jewish leaders. Should the temple treat Jewish and non-Jewish members as equals, or does being a Jew confer benefits that non-Jews can only attain through conversion? Should non-Jews be counted as part of the minyan? Should they be invited to lead the worship service or called to the Torah? Should they be permitted to recite prayers containing formulas like “asher kidshanu be-mitsvotav vetsivanu” (who hallows us with his mitzvoth and commands us) that are directed to the Jewish people alone? Should they be allowed to participate in synagogue governance and in planning the spiritual life of the congregation? As many Reform congregations are discovering, in short, the desire to be welcoming, liberal, and fair is difficult to reconcile with boundary maintenance and the demands of Jewish peoplehood.²⁷

These conundrums hint at some of the challenges that Reform Judaism faces in the decades ahead, some of them undreamed of by rabbis of earlier generations. Most significantly, maintaining Reform Judaism’s pluralistic “big tent” poses significant challenges. As the Conservative movement discovered, big tents are difficult to hold up and easy to blow down. Defections – from the right or from the left – always loom ominously on the horizon.

In the final analysis, the major challenge, for Reform Jews, as for most movements in the American religious marketplace, is not , as Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise and Zvi Hirsch Masliansky thought years ago, that Reform Jews will hit up against a wall and bounce back toward tradition. That happened in some cases, but its effect, I think, is easily exaggerated. The real question in a competitive religious economy, is whether Reform Judaism’s numbers continue to move up or begin to fall down. By those measures, Reform Judaism’s policies over the past seventy years have succeed handsomely. As we look ahead to the rest of the 21^st century, I hope that we can learn important lessons from this remarkable record of success and find ways to maintain it and extend it.

Thank you and Shabbat Shalom.

NOTES

¹ Zvi Hirsch Masliansky, Kitve Maslianski: Neumim, Zikhronot, U-Masa’ot (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1929), 2: 190-93. I use here the partial annotated translation by Gary P. Zola, “The People’s Preacher: A Study of the Life and Writings of Zvi Hirsch Maliansky (1856-1943),” Ordination thesis, HUC-JIR, 1982, 156=163, esp. 161.

² Lloyd Gartner, History of the Jews of Cleveland (Cleveland: Western Reserve Historical Society, 1978), 155. See Gries’ own The Jewish Community of Cleveland (1910), 5-6, available on-line at http://clevelandjewishhistory.net/gries-history.html (accessed November 18, 2007).

³ Modified from Zola, “A People’s Preacher,” 163.

⁴ Zola, “A People’s Preacher,” 228 n.113, observes that Masliansky spoke at HUC on two different occasions. The students’ HUC Journal reports on visits both in its issue of January 25, 1896 and December 10, 1899. Masliansky, in his memoirs, may have conflated the visits. Although Jacob R. Marcus, United States Jewry (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993), III, 653, dates the incident described here to 1899, the earlier date seems much more likely considering that the dispute over Gries’ actions took place in 1894-95.

⁵ Jonathan D. Sarna, American Judaism: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 132-134, 144-151, 193-197, 206-207, 249.

⁶ Central Conference of American Rabbi Yearbook 36 (1926), 317.

⁷ Sarna, American Judaism, 249-254.

⁸ See the chart, based on UAHC Annual Reports, in Marc Lee Raphael, Profiles in American Judaism (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 197.

⁹ http://urj.org/about/ (accessed November 18, 2007).

¹⁰ Leon A. Jick, “The Reform Synagogue,” in The American Synagogue: A Sanctuar Transformed, ed. Jack Wertheimer (Hanover: NH: University Press of New England, 1995 [1987]), 100; Gerry Cristol, A Light in the Prairie: Temple Emanu-El of Dallas 1872-1997 (Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University, 1998), 203; Peter Eisenstadt, Affirming the Covenant: A History of Temple B’rith Kodesh (Rochester: Temple B’rith Kodesh, 1999), 191; American Judaism, December 1953, as cited in Frank Adler, The Centennial History of Congregation B’nai Jehudah of Kansas City 1870-1970 (Kansas City: B’nai Jehudah, 1972), 243; Jacob R. Marcus, The Jew in the American World (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996), 438 (quoted).

¹¹ David Philipson, My Life As An American Jew (Cincinnati: John G. Kidd, 1941), 361-62.

¹² Meyer, Response to Modernity, 389.

¹³ Sarna, American Judaism, 249-255.

¹⁴ This definition follows J.Gordon Melton (ed.) American Religious Creeds (New York: Gale, 1988), III, p. xiii.

¹⁵ Proceedings of the Pittsburgh Rabbinical Conference November 16, 17, 18, 1885 (Richmond: CCAR, 1923), 9.

¹⁶ Michael A. Meyer and W. Gunther Plaut, The Reform Judaism Reader: North American Documents (New York: UAHC Press, 2001), 199-200.

¹⁷ Ibid, 204-5, see Eugene Borowitz’s important commentary on this statement in his Reform Judaism Today (New York: Behrman House, 1977), Book I, pp.91-139.

¹⁸ Meyer & Plaut, Reform Judaism Reader, 208.

¹⁹ New York Times Book Review, March 16, 1969, p.29.

²⁰ New York Times, June 18, 1972, p. E7. Notwithstanding these numbers, 41 % of the Reform rabbis, according to Len “defy tradition and officiate at mixed marriages.”

²¹ Borowitz, Reform Judaism Today, 101-105.

²² Ari Goldman, “Reform Jews Are Returning to Ritual,” New York Times, June 26, 1989, p.A14.

²³ Debra Nussbaum Cohen, “Reform Youth Flexing Their Ritual Muscle,” Jewish Week, August 10, 2007; for a discussion and critique, see http://jewschool.com/2007/08/13 your-head-a-splode/ (accessed 8/16/2007).

²⁴ Ament, American Jewish Religious Denominations, 30-31.

²⁵ E.g. Goldman, “Reform Jews Are Returning to Ritual,” and Cohen “Reform Youth Flexing Their Ritual Muscle.”

²⁶ Joseph Berger, “Rise of 23% Noted in Reform Judaism,” New York Times, November 1, 1985, B5.

²⁷ Sarna, American Judaism, 363; Michael A. Meyer, “The Role and Identity of Non-Jews in Reform Temples,” Gesher 48 (Winter 2002), 66-74 [in Hebrew]; Jerusalem Report, September 5, 1996, p.27.

Sunday morning's lecture

Rabbi Block opened his remarks by telling about “a congregation at war with itself.” He said the war was carried out in the receiving line every Friday night after the 8 pm service. “Agh!” someone would say. “That music! Those gentiles with high church music!” Another person would say, “You carried the Torah around the synagogue? the person next to me wore a kippa!” People who weren’t there commented, too, he said, based on what they heard.

Fast-forward 10-12 years. Hundreds of people come to the auditorium at 6:15 for kabalat Shabbat. The rabbi wears a talit. There’s a lot of Hebrew, a keyboard, a hakafah, and a d’var torah. In the sanctuary, there’s a classical Reform service with more formality, an organ and choir and a sermon. Then all the people come together for kiddush. Everyone enjoys the coming together and unified socializing. Peace, harmony and unity now reign in a congregation with many who want classical Reform and many who want more Progressive worship.

His temple, Temple Bethel in San Antonio, TX, avoided the worship war. It can only be avoided by finding something that meets everyone’s needs. What really worked was moving the two services to the same time. You can’t please all the people all the time, but you have to CARE about them. We also need to be patient with people. Note that in any organization there are “pathological personalities,” and we must not be ruled by them.

Friday nights at Bethel there are few parents with young children, so not yet is everyone in the congregation well served. Yet the place is bustling with them on Sunday mornings. They now had a “Hot” Shabat and a Tot Shabat. At the “Hot” Shabat, after the hakafah, a college student takes the younger children out for activities, which is good for both parties. Is everyone yet well served? There are more than two forms of service. With success, partly measured by the numbers, and the unity of the Kiddush, God is served, and the Jewish people is served. And it’s easier to see what you’re missing. Now we can work on that.

What are the measures and results? We started having lay leadership in services. At one time, the congregation wouldn’t accept this. Now we have a few dozen volunteers including soloists and song leaders, and a one-hundred-fold increase in Jewish knowledge among them. Remember, the first paid professional in Jewish congregations was the cantor, not the rabbi, and this was in the Middle Ages when the piyuttim became part of the service and a skilled, fluent chazzan was needed, but an ordained intermediary wasn’t needed. Ten years ago at Bethel a cantor was controversial; now everyone’s excited.

When everyone feels cared about, you reduce the level of angst. At Bethel, on high holy day evenings, there’s a classical Reform service. In the mornings, there are two different services. They now have enhanced leadership. Congregational boards often have members thought to be wise but who don’t want to work. Boards need people who want to work, and maybe they don’t need to be so wise. They certainly don’t have to have toxic personalities; those people shouldn’t be nominated or retained.

How can KAMII do this? Remember, God said to Moses, “Build me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.” He didn’t say in it or live with them. Founders of congregations have build magnificent sanctuaries to be the foundation of truly great synagogues; this is part of the tradition of great rabbinical leadership. But they built not only for themselves but for all. ALL of us need to be sure that we permit God to dwell among ALL of us. How do we do this?

Experiment. Take down the anxiety level about experiment. KAMII is a congregation in transition (not crisis). It’s moving may be from crisis and division to what it’s going to be. We have to create it. Try something new. Maybe some ideas that have nothing to do with worship. Come together about something else. 1) For example, what URJ calls “just congregations”, an effort to get congregations involved in community-organizing groups. It works bottom-up; motivated members work together to talk about what matters.

2) “Vestibule ministry” to make people feel really welcome here. Aggressive greetings for a higher purpose—engaging people. 3) Volunteer activities help people get to know each other.

Rabbi Hoffman argues for transformational change—not adding new things but transforming what you are doing. You can’t take away from what you have until you build something new. If you do something new, you have to stick with it for a while, make a commitment to it. If it’s a change in worship, you have to do it each week to allow the worship community to grow. You want to build a worship community.

The people who apply for the rabbi post at KAMII will know about Rabbi Wolf and his long tenure, and they’ll know the congregation went through two rabbis in a short time. They’ll probably talk to those rabbis. This is tough, because today’s rabbi looks forward to a lay-rabbinic partnership. That means we must be ready to be partners with a rabbi. The candidate must be assured of a partnership, but also responsibility and authority, and he or she can’t discharge responsibility without authority. The congregation needs to be ready, but it takes time. Consider an interim rabbi, trained in helping a congregation ready itself. One who can correctly say, “This congregation is healed.”

So, who and what will KAMII be? What worship patterns, what organizational structure? And move out any toxic people. Soon we’ll read in the Torah that when the children of Israel came to the sanctuary, they brought too much in gifts. Likewise, KAMII has a plethora of gifts—human, physical and also commitment. So can the congregation say “be strong and of good courage to lead us to the promised land”?

Rabbi Block was asked about the distinction between having a “mission” and adopting a consumerist strategy. He said he thinks the consumer approach is at the heart of the illness that plagues many congregations. The congregation has to stand for something, it can’t be a service station. It has to have a mission, but it has to pay attention to the needs of the members. One example: Bethel had mid-week Hebrew on two days plus Sunday religious school. It was too much for the parents, often making long drives. A poll of needs was taken and the result was longer religious school, with time for Hebrew and only one day of Hebrew in the afternoon, which is offered at two different locations.

Rabbi Block urges providing “fanatical” consumer service. Answer the phones pleasantly, welcome people, listen to needs, but remember we’re here to provide what God, our tradition and Reform Judaism demand.

Lenore Mass asked if the two different services break down along generational lines. At Bethel, younger and middle-age empty nesters mostly attend the Progressive service. They asked themselves if the b’nai mitzvah should stick to classical Reform. Actually, many people move between the two services; they may like the sermon or another element. Tot shabat is in the auditorium, and teens and college kids aren’t enamored of the Progressive service.

Joe Marlin asked what the involvement of board and committees had been in all the changes; he also wondered if the KAMII board members not attending the Weinstein weekend sessions might not be fulfilling their responsibilities. Rabbi Block said Bethel has a long history of rabbis in charge of worship, and a lot of deference is given. He himself frequently cedes to the Religious Practices Committee (which he actually initiated). He consents to suggested board members and to agenda items. He as rabbi had the power but gave it to the committee; one has to be in a secure position to do that, and his partnership is very strong.

Clive Kamins asked about “the donkey in the room”, KAMII’s current situation. He said it was a privilege to serve on the Special Committee and that its report deals in detail with the roles of professionals in the synagogue, but now he wants to hear the board’s view of the report. It recommends a partnership and collegial relationship. He emphasized that being a lay leader means accepting a responsibility, not obtaining certain rights. He feels the Nominating Committee must recognize that we don’t just need people who know governance, or people who are smart.

Rabbi Block says he retains oversight of all programs and services. The committees are responsible to him. The Executive Director reports to the board, which is appropriate because a lot of the issues are financial. But at KAMII, he said, once we have a long-term rabbi, the rabbi will have to be involved in finance and the future of the congregation and facilities.

He later mentioned that the Executive director is responsible to the rabbi; the board doesn’t supervise, but there’s constant 3-way communication. He also said anyone who micro-manages other professionals is out of line. He has monthly supervisory meetings with all professionals, as well as annual reviews. Before the annual review, he meets with the appropriate committees.

The rabbi and Executive director should be co-supervisors of programs and services. This varies, but the rabbi supervises the cantor. (Doesn’t tell the cantor what to sing or not, but they coordinate.) The rabbi reports to the board via the president at Bethel. The board reviews and evaluates the rabbi. Rabbi Block mentioned that Bethel is quite old (1874). It has moved, from the downtown to the early north suburbs (1928). In the 1990s another move was considered, since many members have long drives from two different directions, but they decided to stay where they are. The building is a landmark, and the congregation felt there should be a significant Jewish presence in the city. It has1150 member households. The board has 18 members plus officers, two past presidents and three organization reps, totaling 31. JFS has an office at the temple. There are two other congregations nearby: an ailing Conservative one and a growing Orthodox one. The congregations do things together.

Larry Joseph asked Rabbi Block to elaborate on issues relating to expectations of new rabbis. The answer was that the big handicap, of course, is about going through two rabbis in a short time. A rabbi will take a huge leap of faith in taking the job this summer. We would have to take the leap with that person. An interim rabbi would be better than not getting the right person. And the right person has to want to enter a congregation that’s in transition. Larry also said we’re struggling to understand what’s happened; we have different views of what’s happened. He agrees that there’s a real question whether we’re ready to make the decision by June.

Lenore Mass wondered whether we could try experimenting with an interim rabbi. And could we undertake major fund-raising with an interim rabbi? Rabbi Block said yes, experimenting is feasible, but undertaking major fund-raising would be a mistake. We raise funds because we have hope about the future. With an interim rabbi, we would work on what you need to do, including experiment, to help figure out who we are.

Judy Kamins said that KAMII has turned down outside offers to assist with leadership development, preferring to work from within. She asked what Rabbi Block thinks about URJ or Federation assistance. He replied that the Commission on Synagogue Management of the URJ is great. There is also good help available with management issues from NCRCR. There is also the Alban Institute. Rabbi Block recommended a visit by the URJ rabbinic placement director.

Jerry Meites said there’s been discussion of an interim rabbi, even with URJ, and it would be better than a wrong choice. There are 17 or 18 applicants, and some seem quite good on paper. The Search Committee is sorting through; maybe there’s a really good candidate. There’s a feeling among board members that we need to hire a rabbi before a cantor, though if there’s an interim rabbi, a permanent cantor could be hired. Rabbi Block mentioned that in the past the cantor was expected to leave when a new rabbi arrived, but that has changed. You don’t have to call a halt to everything while seeking a rabbi, though it can be delicate when things are in flux.

Prepared by Jane Heron

Saturday afternoon's panel discussion on reform Judaism

Prof. Sarna, as moderator, laid out focal points:

• the limits of diversity
• new developments in Reform Judaism
• the debate about ritual
• what does it mean to be a Reform Jew?

He emphasized the ‘reform’ is a constant process, that change is built into Reform Judaism.

With Rabbi Knobel and Rabbi Moffic, we are lucky to have two different positions on Reform Judaism.

Rabbi Knobel mentioned some things that are happening in Reform Judaism. He compared the 1885 and 1999 Pittsburgh Platforms. The 1885 statement in Section 2 said: We recognize in the Mosaic law a system of training for the people of ancient Palestine. Today, only the moral laws contained in it apply…It rejected all Mosaic and rabinnic laws pertaining to diet and dress as not leading to holiness.

The 1999 Platform urged on-going study of all mitzvoth and “fulfillment of those that address our community.” He said two things are worthy of note about the format of the Mishkan T’filah as they touch on current problems and directions: First, the 2-page spread, with full transliteration of the Hebrew so we all can keep up and the alternative readings on the facing pages, the idea being that “on any page…you can find yourself” (unlike the Gates of Prayer, which offers differing views among its services). Second, there is an emphasis on Jewish peoplehood, with added reference to Eretz Yisrael and Zionism, and in the 2d prayer of the Amidah, the reference to resurrection of the dead.

The 1885 Platform eliminated all bodily mitzvoth and emphasis on peoplehood. It emphasized sprit and soul and treated participants as rational beings. Today, we’re exploring what’s been rejected. Judiasim understands us as body and soul, the physical as the source of the spiritual. We use bodily powers to perform mitzvoth.

Even in 1974, Reform Judaism thought that the primary mode of being Jewish was Jewish thought and prayer. That’s why the 8 different services with different theologies are in the Gates of Prayer. We began to move away from serious theology and reflection toward sociology and marketing. We stopped being mission-driven and instead became program-driven.

We now have a wide variety of programs. The model for the synagogue seems to be the megachurch. Today the bon mot is ‘Judaism of meaning’. Each of us has to create our own Jewish identity. Supposedly this leads to spirituality (“whatever that is”). I should find some connection to God who is friend, lover….intimate and immanent, not transcendent. ­Something’s missing. There’s no ‘should’ here. We had a covenant with theology that has now disappeared.

Rabbi Moffic asked: 1. How has Reform Judaism changed? 2. How will it change? .

Reform Judaism today is less hierarchical and more intimate, not in the sanctuary but the chapel, much more interactive than before. These are the key factors influencing Reform Judaism:

• interfaith marriages (over 50% of religious school students have a non-Jewish parent)
• continued demand for interaction between clergy and laity
• the need to market the synagogue will drive the “shape” of worship; people join to find a good experience
• most American Jews won’t learn Hebrew and we’re not a worshipping culture

Judaism today is more home-based. Should we/can we do more to promote that? To bring people into the synagogue, should we have more cultural events? The sense of Jewish ethnicity will continue to diminish, so the religious component needs to become more important.

We have these theological considerations. Reform Judaism is a religion of reason. God should be both transcendent and immanent. What does this mean for synagogue worship?

1. Worship must be very inclusive. The congregation, though, can’t be all things to all people. Reflection and spirituality.must be part of it. “Synaplex” as a model could be good, but it loses the sense of community.

2. Congregations do need to market themselves. We have to create community and relationships;

you have to get people in the door before you can “say the hard things”.

3. We have to recover universalism. The 1999 Platform is more particularist, and this has been a trend for the last 30 years. What makes Jews different? There is a widespread trend toward universalism in the larger society today.

Rabbi Knobel responded: When we talk about Reform Judaism today, it’s largely a set of institutions. He told of Rabbi Eisen saying mitzvoth and community are the program for Conservative Judaism. What, then, is Reform? We’re not theological nor ideological. The synaplex may be a desperate move. We don’t know who or what we are. It would be a mistake to buy into the consumerist mentality. We have been seeing the individual as the unit of decision-making, so we reject a responsibility to the collective voice. Rabbi Knobel thinks the future is in the attempt to be mission-driven. A particular, exciting collective mission.

Rabbi Moffic agreed that we must be mission-driven. Ethics is a very important component of Reform Judaism. The synagogue has to be a place where you hear what you don’t want to hear. How are we going to include what we hear about in how we affect the world?

Rabbi Knobel responded: we can probably think about the synagogue in the 3-legged mode of Pirke Avot: torah, worship, and deeds of loving-kindness. Our tradition appeals for tikkun olam and prophetic Judaism. The consumer mentality leads to lack of a stance. Whether or not the congregation liked it, Reform rabbis wanted to preserve the synagogue as a place with a voice. The synagogue must tackle the problems of people and our society.

Fran Grossman was concerned that Rabbi Knobel was talking about what should be rather than what is, namely: fewer come on Friday night, there’s a different service on Saturday morning, so who and where are the leaders? Do we work from the top down or the bottom up? How are we going to get people here so they can hear and want to be a part of it?

Sam asked how we accommodate all the different views within the tent?

Liane Casten asked: How do we define the mission? In what way could Reform Judaism be more meaningful?

Rabbi Moffic reminded us of the phrase “Let us be a light unto the nations,” exemplify morality, and pointed out that this in the early days of Reform was linked to the sense of being chosen. The idea of the Jews being the teachers or leaders doesn’t work today, so what should the mission be? Sinai Temple’s mission is to maintain the liberal Jewish mission. And maybe temples have to have multiple services today to accommodate all the views.

Rabbi Knobel pointed out that having multiple services doesn’t equal the synaplex concept. Openness to variety and experiment is good. We don’t all have to do the same thing. To adopt the new Miskan T’fillah we have to work together; we need to engage in strong conversations with each other where we may disagree agreeably. Rabbis should inspire and push congregations. There has to be conversation between lay and professional leadership. We need facilitated conversation. We have entrenched interests, and we have people who fear speaking truth to power.

Noel Salinger asked for clarification of the significance of transcendent vs. immanent in the view of God. Does each suggest different paths?

Clive Kamins asked what’s the future of Hebrew? It’s virtually essential in the camping movement.

Lorna (from Sinai) asked, Aren’t you talking about being all things to all people? Are Reform and Conservative going to merge?

Rabbi Moffic reminded us of the phrase “You are as close to us as breathing yet farther than the most distant star” as the paradigm for transcendent and immanent. Early Reform emphasized the transcendent God, but today we regard God as immanent, especially in the past 20 years. (We have small sanctuaries, lower bima, more sense of community and participation…we are closer to God.) It would be wonderful for more people to learn Hebrew. It can teach us about Judaism, but people understand more and get more using English. Reform isn’t trying to be more like Conservative, but we are attracting many people from the Conservative movement.

Rabbi Knobel said we need a balance between Hebrew and English. As to immanence and transcendence, this is not an age of systematic theology that defines God. Ours is the narrative theology of the Bible, Talmud and midrash. We need the variety of ways our people experience God.

Rabbi Moffic said we need a balance between inviting people in vs. teaching and telling.

Monroe Roth said expanding the membership is the job of the board, not the rabbi. The rabbi should preach. Rabbi Moffic disagreed; Rabbi Knobel agreed.

Nikki Stein said there’s a split between the dedicated, active members and the passive members, and some of the passive members come but want it to be a different place. She wanted to hear more about serving the “people who come and don’t create strife”.

Prof. Sarna said that religion has been on the rise in the US, and Reform Judaism has followed the trend. Now, though, religion is getting a bad reputation; secularism is on the resurgence. How will this shift affect and shape Reform Judaism as it today “looks at the left”?

Rabbi Moffic said there’s no simple answer to conflict between old members and new. Rabbi Knobel said process makes the difference. When feelings are ignored and people aren’t consulted, there’s strife. But process also has to end. We have to be open to change. There’s a mistrust of religious institutions as they exist today. He said he still believes in prophetic Judaism, but maybe the old-fashioned rhetoric doesn’t work today. He asked: How can we reach out to people who aren’t synagogue-oriented? Young people seek serious intellectual confrontation.


Prepared by Jane Heron

Professor Sarna's Address

On Friday night, we heard from Professor Jonathan Sarna of Brandeis University, who spoke gave an address titled Contemporary Reform Judaism: An Historical Analysis.

Were you convinced by what Dr. Sarna had to say? Let us know!

Rabbi Kaplan speaks

On Sunday, January 27, Rabbi Dana Evans Kaplan, a pulpit rabbi and scholar from Albany, Georgia, kicked off the Weinstein Weekend and KAMII's examination of the Reform Jewish movement with a discussion about his book, THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE OF REFORM JUDAISM.

First, the talk was extremely well-attended, with upwards of 100 people there to listen, learn, and engage Rabbi Kaplan.

Rabbi Kaplan noted that America is awash with new religious movements, a trend that reveals that spiritual seeking is prevalent among Americans. He said that while this seeking may not be immediately apparent in temple life, it's an important piece of the American religious landscape. He positioned KAMII as, in some respects, a distinct contrast, given this community's (hyper)intellectual bent and its rational approach to religious tradition and community. But he stressed that this widespread spiritual seeking has triggered changes in the Reform movement, a move that has left many congregants uncomfortable with the increasingly prominent place of ritual and spirituality.

Rabbi Kaplan recalled the inception of the "classical reform movement" in the U.S., noting that the core principle of the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform was that the Reform Jewish approach to religion should be rational.

Rabbi Kaplan offered that the Reform movement needs a clear set of doctrines and a compelling theology to help shape decisions and practices -- without this, Reform Judaism becomes what Kaplan called a "mish-mosh," just a "bunch of opinions." Reform Judaism owes more to America than to Judaism, he said, and that has pros and cons for the movement and its adherents.

Before taking questions, Rabbi Kaplan closed with two observations/recommendations:

1) according to Rabbi Kaplan, we need to reconceive a Reform Judaism that is "both coherent and compelling": coherent in that it makes sense, and compelling in that it draws people.

2) the Reform movement must offer a theology and practice that is immediately understandable and emotionally relevant. (Rabbi Kaplan appeared to suggest that one group that has made itself immediately understandable and emotionally relevant is the chabad movement, by encouraging people to do "one mitzvah," "to wrap tefillin" -- and that that's enough, at least as a compelling (re)introduction to the tradition.)

In closing, a few questions in anticipation of the Weinstein Weekend:

• do you agree with Rabbi Kaplan that Reform Judaism devolves into a "mish-mosh" without a compelling, and generally uniform, theology?
• to grow, should the Reform movement stress its Americanness, attempt to reassert its Jewishness, or some combination? Are "Americanness" and "Jewishness" complementary concepts, or oppositional?
• Can Reform Judaism maintain its rational core while embracing a more emotional, spiritual side?
• How can Reform Judaism best make itself "both coherent and compelling"?

Prepared by Tom Levinson

Welcome to the Weinstein Weekend

Jacob J. Weinstein Scholars-in-Residence Weekend

The Reform Movement:

Which Way Should We Move?

Since its development in 19th century Germany, Reform Judaism has evolved with changing communities and changing times. Even this year there have been dialogues about the merits and advisability of whether and why worship in Reform synagogues should become less “Reform,” whether more traditional ritual should be included in the services, and the degree to which social justice should be emphasized, in addition to other issues. Here at KAM Isaiah Israel some of these questions are being discussed, argued, and confronted.

The Jacob J. Weinstein Committee invites you to join us as we explore Reform Judaism, discussing where it is going and understanding the reasons for moving in various directions. We hope that we will learn, with the help of distinguished scholars, about how we and others may move toward services and practices that continue to be meaningful as we progress in this still-new century.

Schedule


Sunday, January 27, at 10:30 a.m
Rabbi Dana Evan Kaplan
"The Battle for the future of Reform Judaism"

Friday, February 1, at 8:00 p.m.
Jonathan Sarna, PhD, Brandeis University
"Contemporary Reform Judaism: An Historical Analysis"

Saturday, February 2
Torah Study at 9:30 a.m.
Shabbat Service at 10:30 a.m.
Kiddush Lunch following the service; reservations required.
Panel Discussion at 1:00 p.m.
"Where Is Reform Judaism in the U.S. Today?
Where Do We Want to Be Tomorrow?"
Rabbi Peter Knobel, Beth Emet Synagogue
Rabbi Evan Moffic, Chicago Sinai Congregation
Moderator: Jonathan Sarna

Sunday, February 3, at 10:30 a.m.
Rabbi Barry Block, Temple Beth El, San Antonio
"How Do We Change and Not Leave Congregants Behind?"


Resources

~American Reform Judaism: An Introduction by Dana Evan Kaplan. Available in the office for $20. Order here.

~Sh'ma, November 2007, "Reforming Reform Judaism," explores how Reform Judaism has come to be defined and where it is heading. Available in the office for no charge.

~Eilu v'Eilu, a series of dialogues on the URJ website concerning the future of the Reform Movement. Hard copy available in the office; click below for electronic copy of each article:

Larry Kaufman and Ben Dreyfus statements
Larry Kaufman and Ben Dreyfus responses to each other
Larry Kaufman and Ben Dreyfus responses to readers' questions
Larry Kaufman and Ben Dreyfus concluding statments
Rabbi Leon Morris and Rabbi Evan Moffic statements
Rabbi Leon Morris and Rabbi Evan Moffic responses to each other
Rabbi Leon Morris and Rabbi Evan Moffic responses to readers' questions
Rabbi Leon Morris and Rabbi Evan Moffic concluding statements