The Union for Reform Judaism convenes early next month in Toronto for its Biennial Convention, and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism will follow with its biennial in December. These gatherings are opportunities for the two largest denominations in North American Judaism to take stock of the big picture. Looking at the big picture should also involve examining its frame: the ways we think and talk about our Judaism.
Cognitive linguist George Lakoff has argued that the Republican Party’s ascent over the last three decades was due to the ways in which conservative frames dominated American political discourse. Even when liberal candidates have taken opposing positions, they have defined their positions in terms of the Republican frames (such as “tax relief” or “the war on terror”). It was hard for Democrats to win when they let Republicans establish the terms of the debate.
Similarly, religiously liberal Jews (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, nondenominational, etc.) frequently suffer from a deficiency in framing when talking about their Jewish ideologies and practices. Consciously or unconsciously, liberal Jews often invoke frames that implicitly establish Orthodox Judaism as normative and set up their own forms of Judaism in comparison with Orthodoxy.
The remedy is clear: For liberal Judaism to thrive, it must develop frames to see itself as authentic on its own terms. Orthodox Jews aren’t doing anything wrong by viewing Judaism through Orthodox frames, but we as liberal Jews are missing an opportunity by failing to see Judaism through our own liberal Jewish values.
This framing problem manifests itself in subtle ways. When we refer to Jews of other denominations as “more religious” or “more observant,” we undermine our own standards of religious observance, and judge ourselves on a scale external to our own Judaism.
Consider this phrase: “I’m not shomer Shabbat: Every week I light candles after sundown and then drive to synagogue.” The speaker obviously observes Shabbat but is allowing someone else to define what Shabbat observance means.
Furthermore, one version of this frame (problematic even for Orthodox Jews) equates “religious observance” solely with ritual observance. That’s how convicted felon Jack Abramoff can be labeled as an “observant Jew” despite violating many of the Torah’s ethical commandments.
These frames can even infect language intended to be inclusive. When supposedly pluralistic Jewish organizations claim to be open to “Jews of all levels of observance,” they are stipulating a hierarchy of observance in which some forms of Jewish observance are at a higher level and others are at a lower level. Such organizations may be sincere in welcoming everyone, but they are indistinguishable in that respect from Chabad. When the Conservative-affiliated Camp Ramah in Israel writes on its Web site about Jews “from Orthodox to secular and everything in between,” it is collapsing all the diversity of Judaism onto a single linear spectrum, where everyone is measured on a scale from 0 to Orthodox. In actuality, the liberal streams of Judaism have distinctive philosophies of their own and are not merely “in between” Orthodox and secular.
So what can be done about this problem? Being careful about our words is necessary but not sufficient; the solution must also be about ideas. It is not enough to take the sentence “Orthodox Judaism is more religious than liberal Judaism” and replace “religious” with a more acceptable synonym. We need to eliminate the idea that Orthodox Judaism is more anything and liberal Judaism is less anything.
The liberal streams of Judaism should articulate visions of Judaism that do not depend on explicit or implicit comparisons to other contemporary movements and offer instead a picture of how we would think about Judaism if we were the only Jews on earth. These visions would provide a path to being a fully actualized religious Jew within each liberal stream, rather than advancing the perception that someone who wants to be “more religious” has to go elsewhere.
Ben Dreyfus blogs at mahrabu.blogspot.com and jewschool.com.
I have long felt the Orthodoxy pretends that it already has most of the answers while Reform Judaism asks the most interesting and relevant questions.
The next time somebody says, “I don’t do that because I am Reform," I am going to strangle that person. Our answer must be along the lines of, “Our ancestors raised important sacred questions to which we respond in a modern way.”
Assuming that conservative and reform Jewish communities are passionately involved in their Judaism, then I agree that orthodoxy should be leveled to the same field. But, I believe you are misunderstanding the word "religious." To be religious means to be actively involved in something. For instance, a person exercises religiously, or collects an item religiously. Orthodox Jews are regularly involved in their Judaism on a daily, if not hourly, basis. Can the same be said of the involvement of a typical reform or conservative Jew? I do not think so. For orthodox Jews, their entire lives revolve around Judaism, and Judaism does not revolve around their wants or needs.Their lives are dictated by Torah law, specifically as how it is understood by the Talmud. By definition, they have been and will always be more religious. Donald, what questions do you believe orthodox Judaism does not entertain? I believe your aversion to orthodoxy, or your belief that they "pretend," is rather misguided. Orthodox rabbis engage in all issues, I strongly urge you to read essays composed my Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, specifically one entitled "Confrontation."I believe your true anger with orthodoxy is that you simply dislike the answer it proposes.
The problem is even more severe than viewing one's Judaism from an Orthodox frame of reference. The Reform Movement has historically been in opposition to real Jewish education. A Sunday school education of three hours a week for a few years is standard. In other words, being an ignorant Jew is quite the norm. The result has been that one's education is non-Jewish by definition. One learns to view the entire Jewish world in American eyes. There is no Jewish point of view, no Jewish point of reference, when one doesn't have any real background. The time has arrived to admit that Reform education has been an historic failure. Real Jewish education for the masses has been left to the Orthodox, so one shouldn't cry that the Orthodox point of view has remained the standard one.
Tradition . . .
"The story begins with Isaac Mayer Wise, the major spokesman and organizing genius of the early Reform movement in America. Wise was a bitter adversary of Zionism from its very inception because, he charged, it was incompatible with the aims of liberal Judaism. The major vehicle of his opposition was the Anglo-Jewish weekly newspaper which he published, The American Israelite. The pages of the Israelite were constantly filled with a barrage of condemnations of what Wise called "Ziomania." [Howard R. Greenstein, Turning Point: Zionism and Reform Judaism, Brown Judaic Studies 12, 1981] // Wise: " . . . the idea of Jews returning to Palestine is no part of our creed. We rather believe it is well that the habitable world become one holy land and the human family one chosen people." [Greenstein, pp. 135-136] // " "We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community; and we therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning a Jewish state." -- from the Pittsburgh Conference of Nov. 16-18, 1885 // "For Isaac Mayer Wise, the leader of American Reform Judaism in the 19th century, Zionism was an anathema. He rejected both the premise and conclusion of Zionism that anti-Semitism was an absolute condition in all nation-state’s where Jews were a minority and that a separate nation-state for Jews was thus a necessity." [ Allan C. Brownfeld, Zionism at 100: Remembering Its Often Prophetic Jewish Critics, 1997 -- see http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=94]
@Michael Levin, what point is it you’re trying to make? Liberal Judaism has long since abandoned its opposition to Zionism. That was an earlier attempt to “reframe” Judaism as a universal religion, rather than as nationalism or peoplehood. Were it not for the Holocaust, it may even have remained a valid viewpoint.
In response to Jonathan: I think he misunderstood the author's objection to the way liberal Jews use the word "religious." As an Orthodox Jew, he views the word through an Orthodox lens, which is completely fine. For any Jew, Orthodox or not, there exist wider interpretations of what it means to be religious. For example: Martin Buber was deeply religious, in a genuine way that I believe pushed the limits of human possibility. The fact that he was not strictly observant of Jewish ritual law, is in no way a degradation of Jewish ritual law. Rather it is an example of the complexity of the world and the many paths that lead towards great spiritual depth. As Dreyfus pointed out, we live in a complex world, and the linear scale of religiosity does not need apply.
A quote to illustrate this from Walter Kaufman famous prologue to "I and Thou."
"Man's world is manifold, and his attitudes are manifold. What is manifold is often frightening because is is not neat and simple. Men prefer to forget how many possibilities are open to them. "They like to be told that there are two worlds, and two ways. This is comforting because it is so tidy. ... "Not all simplicity is wise. But a wealth of possibilities breeds dread. Hence those who speak of many possibilities speak to the few and are of help to even fewer. The wise offer only two ways, of which one is good, and thus help many."
I think it's important in discussion such as this one to make sure we're not comparing the idealized version of one camp to the reality of the other camp. There are Orthodox-identified Jews who live out the letter and spirit of Orthodox halacha, and there are Orthodox-identified Jews who fall short (as Dreyfus indicates with his Abramoff example). Similarly, there are Reform- and Conservative-identified Jews who live out the letter and spirit of their respective ideologies, and those who fall short. Let's make sure we compare apples to apples.
Thought provoking piece. Thankx. Bruce www.BrucesMidEastSoundbites.Blogspot.com
There is a flaw in Dreyfus' opinion piece. The flaw is that he demands something that already exists. Allow me to explain:
He writes that "[t]he liberal streams of Judaism should articulate visions of Judaism that do not depend on explicit or implicit comparisons to other contemporary movements..."
But they already do that! Dreyfus admits it himself:
"In actuality, the liberal streams of Judaism have distinctive philosophies of their own and are not merely “in between” Orthodox and secular."
Indeed, if you go look at the philosophy of the Reform movement, you will not find the word "Conservative." If you look at a Conservative ideology, you will not find the word "Reform." Most noteworthy, you certainly won't find "Orthodox" in either! Dreyfus is incorrect. The liberal streams of Judaism do, in fact, have their own articulate visions.
It should be noted that the examples he brings of liberal or pluralistic Jewish institutions utilizing a "scale" of observance and seeing Orthodoxy as normative, such as Camp Ramah, are anomalies. On an institutional level, at least, this type of rhetoric is rare and almost unheard of. If you don't believe me, go search the websites of JTS and HUC. You won't find anything that frames those institutions in terms of another movement, and certainly nothing that frames them in terms of Orthodoxy! On the contrary, you will find that liberal Judaism already promotes all the "liberal Jewish values" Dreyfus espouses to (e.g. emphasis on social justice in the Reform movement)!
So this, then, is the flaw. He is arguing for something that already exists. He writes: “The remedy is clear: For liberal Judaism to thrive, it must develop frames to see itself as authentic on its own terms.” Wrong. Rather, for liberal Judaism to thrive, liberal Jews must be better sold on already existing products.
It is lack of knowledge that creates a type of liberal Judaism where liberal Jews see Orthodoxy as normative.
Jacob- Yes, the liberal streams of Judaism do have their own visions, and yet the movement institutions frequently invoke the problematic frames anyway. Here are some examples.
This paragraph was in my original draft of the oped (but was cut due to space constraints): ==== The denominational philosophies themselves are not immune to foreign frames. When intra-Reform discourse touches on the subject of halachah (Jewish law), people on all sides of the issue tend to portray “the halachah” as a static body of law. Whether they are advocating for the position “Reform Judaism is not halachic” or “Reform Judaism should be more open to halachah,” the unspoken assumption is that Orthodox halachah is the normative halachah, and Reform Judaism should either reject it or incorporate elements of it. In other words, Orthodox Judaism is perceived as 100% halachic, and the debate is about whether Reform Judaism should be 0% halachic or somewhere between 0 and 100%. Instead, Reform Jews should steer clear of this linear scale and pursue an indigenous Reform vision of the structure and content of halachah. Likewise, when some Conservative rabbis treat the equality of men and women as a leniency rather than as the expression of an ethical principle rooted in Jewish values, they too are placing Orthodox Judaism at 100% and themselves at a lower “level of observance.” ===
Sorry, the HTML in the above comment didn't work. Here are the examples: http://mahrabu.blogspot.com/2005/08/count-frames-answers.html http://mahrabu.blogspot.com/2007/08/your-head-splode.html
Freedom from the yoke of the law! This is a great idea! Oh the apostle Paul did that already.
This one will be different it will be Christianity without a cross. Good deeds, love, kindness tikun olam.
Alternatively we can go back earlier and call it the noachide covenant and we can be reunited with humanity instead of this bothersome distinctiveness that the Torah demands.
Historically Judaism was a religion of absolutes just as "Jewish Orthodoxy" is today. If you will use the Bible as your springboard or the Talmud you will always be judged by your stance in relation to the original text and tradition.
If you want to break free truly you must make your own sacred text that supersedes the historically Jewish communities works. You have to Create something like the Koran, New Testament or book of Mormon. Maybe you can use the UN charter or the Democratic Party platform. Good Luck!
I did not say Orthodoxy was or was not the original. But you need a frame of reference. If it is the Torah or the Talmud you have a problem and if it is the process known as halacha you have no options unless you just use the term and create a new concept.
You are not the first in history to face this challenge and the other groups understood that you need sacred texts that support your claims.
The Torah texts and the Talmud as we have them today deal with absolutes. The modern movements do not deal with any absolutes (except possibly in some of the ethical dimensions. This is not to say G-d forbid they are immoral rather that as a general rule they believe in relative morality. This is neither here nor there.)If you want to create a new Kwanzaa style white Jewish liberation religion out of Judaism gezunter heit (not zai gezunt.. come on;).
I do not think liberal Jews have the ability to create myths that can be compelling and meaningful enough to be transferable to future generations. I mean even Israel is going out of stlye again for so many.
The challenge of creating myths that one does not really believe in is a much greater challenge than actually creating a new religion
To design a religion one has to be a TRUE believer or a charlatan. Most liberal Jews are not the latter and as far as the former goes..well maybe if it means espousing the fashionable liberal causes of the day. See my earlier post.
Joseph writes: "The Torah texts and the Talmud as we have them today deal with absolutes."
Which Talmud are you reading?
Joseph- Orthodox Judaism as it exists today is not the same thing as "the original text and tradition". If Orthodox Jews want to believe it is, zai gezunt. But liberal Jews must not buy into that same myth. We have our own narrative myths, originating in the same foundational texts: http://mahrabu.blogspot.com/2009/02/toward-reform-jewish-narrative-myth.html
by the way I like your blog it is very thought provoking. Most people who think like you will end up moving up in the conservative or renewal communities or maybe even making it all the way to orthodox...Ok I could not resist:)
Regarding the Talmud when it comes to both religious and ethical behavior the Talmud is all about determining the proper action. Right or wrong, permitted or forbidden. Of course the mishnah and gemoroh that make up the Talmud is full of debate about the details but that is because they are trying to determine the absolutes. So the first mishnah in the Talmud will work with an assumption that every Jew knows one reads shema in the evening but will debate exactly when does that begin and end. Even the debates about the details will at times reach a conclusion with one clear victor.
This is not to say that there was only one approach in the Talmud to a mode of behavior. There were streams running in the same direction. There is no question there can be different legitimate opinions, but there are also illegitimate opinions outside the pale.
An eye for an eye is never understood as an eye for an eye. It is always understood as payment. They all agree that there are 39 forms of creative labor forbidden on Shabbos… they may debate which one is a main category or if something is done in a certain manner can it be permissible. If you told the sages of the Talmud that you can be Sabbath observant in other ways but you enjoy writing on Shabbat and you are going to be writing on Shabbat they would tell you that if you do that you are liable to death by stoning. They would not say we respect your opinion and appreciate your engagement with our talmudic dialogue.
Of course one can debate individual ideas and behaviors. However an approach that says at some point we are bound to the ethical prophetic voice of Judaism not to the ritual or tribal elements in Judaism and effectively severed its connection to traditional rabbinic understanding of the mitzvoth cannot wake up one day and say we are the legitimate heirs to the Talmud.
There is a system at work in the Talmud. Reform Judaism broke off from this system. It’s core message is religious autonomy. No one can tell me what to do. I do not have to believe in God and I can be a rabbi. I can eat on Yom Kippur it is my choice. This is nothing to be ashamed of this is the movement. Don’t make the movement something it is not.
As a reform Jew with my values and my ideas of what it means to be a good Jew. I would say 90% of the Torah and Talmud is absurd. It is part of my primitive ancestors’ heritage. Put it in a museum. Don’t try to take those fossils and twist them and change them and make them into a religion that I can relate to. Don’t make them something they are not.
If you are trying to create a reframing of the liberal movements by urging them to “articulate visions of Judaism that do not depend on explicit or implicit comparisons to other contemporary movements” The cards are not stacked in your favor. The reason is simple it is not “contemporary movements” they are comparing themselves to but rather the behavior of the Jews that preserved the sacred texts through the generations and gave up their lives for their religion. The more one learns and explores the texts held sacred by our people over the centuries the torah and the Talmud and their commentators the more one sees a Jew is supposed to serve God by following the commandments. This is our life and the length of our days. Shabbat, Kosher, teffilin, family purity, mezuzot, brit milah, and all the other opportunities for connecting to God called Mitzvoth.
To listen to Rabbi Robert Barr's (3 minute) audio podcast which refers to this article, click here: http://bethadam.org/podcasts/recordings/2009/_151_dont_think_of_10_27_09.mp3
I agree with almost all of Dreyfus' article, but would like to go further than he on one point. Dreyfus says that, "Orthodox Jews aren’t doing anything wrong by viewing Judaism through Orthodox frames." I believe that this is incorrect. Orthodox frames are problematic in various ways. They are sexist, closed-minded, and intolerant, for example. To reframe the debate, we liberal Jews should not only refuse to accept the second-class status to which Orthodox frames relagate us; we should counter-attack.
A starting point is that Judaism is a covenant religion between G-d and the Jewish people. The Orthodox are clear on what the covenant bound the Jewish people to do. The are "more religious" or "more observant" because they better adhere to something called a covenant. The Conservative movement tries to redefine the meaning of the covenant. As best I can tell from my adult life as an observant Reform Jew, Reform has decided not try to define what the Jew's obligation is on the human side of the covenant with G-d. Orthodoxy is afraid that if any part of the established understanding of the covenant is breached the whole structure of Judaism will collapse. Reform seems concerned that if the movement defines any covenantal obligation it will lose adherents. An appropriate reframing of Reform is to define the meaning and obligation of the covenant. We need to know what it is that G-d wants from us and what is our obligation. If it is no more than to fulfill the prophetic ideals of tikkun olam and building a good world we have not distinguished a Jewish life from a non-Jewish life. If there is something more, then our leaders need to get on a limb and tell people that being a good Reform Jew requires doing something that good atheist or good Christian or good Bhuddist would not consider because none of them is Jewish.
Try as hard as I might, in my reading of contemporary Judaism, I can only find an "Orthodox" frame and a secular humanist frame, and all streams of Judaism trying to harmonize the two. I simply can't imagine what an exclusively Reform or Conservative frame might look like. Can anyone give me examples?
I'm currently planning a lesson to teach to my peers in an Israeli pre-army program. The lesson is about the Conservative Movement of Judaism (as an American in a group of Israelis, I constantly find myself defending Conservative Judaism as something of its own. Conservative Judaism is a concept nearly unheard of--and untolerated--here). Anyway, this op-ed describes what I want to get across perfectly. In Israeli society, though, the problem goes even deeper than using the other movements' terminology. The problem here is that in Hebrew the word for "orthodox" and the word for "religious" are one and the same. Thus, one cannot be religious here without being orthodox.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.