glosser@ut-ngp.UUCP (glosser) (10/09/84)
<>
Various discussants on the net have expressed a negative
opinion concerning Conservative and Reform Judaism. Of
these criticisms, Yoaquim Martillo has been the most
vocal. I disagree with his criticisms. My reasons for
disagreement are as follows:
(1) A failure to adequately explain what is wrong with these
branches of Judaism *today*.
(2) The notion that the conservative and reform movements
were strictly the result of Ashkenazim and fail to reflect
the contributions made to Judaism by the Sephardim.
(3) A failure to realize the uniqueness of America vis a vis
the Diaspora. And subsequently a lack of any sensitivity to
the additional pressures imposed on the Jewish community
because of the United State's unique features.
Since the response to the first point is rather long (over
200 lines), This posting will only discuss the first point.
The next posting will take up the latter two points.
At this point I would like to add that this response is not
a claim that the more orthodox branches of Judaism are what
is wrong with Judaism. In the words of a leading Jewish
Scholar and proponent of Conservative Judaism, Robert
Gordis:
"Since I am opposed to all monopolies, social,
economic, political, and cultural as well as religious, and
believe that the whole truth is only with G-d, I do not wish
to see the extinction of Orthodox Judaism or, horribile
dictu, even of Reform Judaism. I believe, on the basis of my
study and observation of all three movements and the
subgroups within them, that each has made and is capable of
making highly significant contributions to the greater and
more vital Judaism of the future."
Further, when he explains why he has attached himself to the
Conservative movement, he makes the following
qualifications:
"To be sure, I can not be certain because I do not
have a "hot line" to the Almighty. But neither, I venture
timidly to suggest, do those who today loudly trumpet their
claim in the marketplace."
What follows is the basis to my criticism.
(1) A failure to adequately explain what
is wrong with these branches of Judaism *today*.
A few months back, Yoaquim Martillo made the comment to the
extent that the modern forms of Judaism that where developed
by the Ashkenazim were disastrous. In response I replied:
"Specifically how were and are the Reform and
Conservative movements disastrous for all of Judaism?"
Yoaquim responded to my question by replying that both of
these movements were "intellectually empty" and that they
have "lead to a real decline in Jewish Learning. No one even
argues about this point."
First of all, to counter this last statement by Yoaquim
consider the following quote by Dr. Eli Grad, president of
Hebrew College in Brookline, Mass.:
"I am not convinced that the aggregate level of
Jewish knowledge is lower now than it has ever been before.
To the extent that a major function of Jewish knowledge is
to motivate communal commitment and activism, one can argue
that we have achieved higher levels than ever before".
Further, to argue that Conservative and Reform Judaism are
the causes of a decline in Jewish Learning is absurd. True,
it is a problem, but it is not the fault of the Conservative
and Reform movements. This misconception is further
exacerbated in the following statement (NOTE: the pronoun
"this", in the following quote is assumed to refer to the
"decline in Jewish Learning").
"I have seen lack of Jewish national sense and
increasing assimilation and intermarriage attributed to this
type of ignorance."
Where is it written that Reform (Reform by todays standards)
and Conservative Judaism tolerates the lack of Jewish
Learning as well as assimilation. Since when have these two
branches of Judaism made the claim that they accept and
support laziness (vis a vis Jewish Learning) amongst the
members of their congregations.
Yoaquim is comparing the worst of one group with the best of
another. Such an argument can be turned the other way. For
instance, I can argue that to espouse Orthodox Judaism is to
support rock throwing and the subsequent possible killings
of those who violate the Sabbath. I can also argue that the
Sefardim accept the desecration of the Sabbath for the sake
of a soccer game. In other words, it is wrong to assume
causality just because there exists correlation between two
events.
When I had asked what is it that is wrong with Conservative
and Reform Judaism, I had in mind the following issue: The
problem of finding some adjustment between tradition and the
modern world. To be more succinct consider what Moshe Davis,
in his book THE EMERGENCE of CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM, considers
to be the central points of the American Historical School
as it crystalized into the Conservative movement:
1) The Emancipation and secular Enlightenment must be
accepted as significant positive factors in the Jewish
present and future development.
2) The equal status of Jews in democratic societies
generally, and in the United States in particular, offers
new opportunities for Jews and Judaism.
3) Klal Yisrael is the historic basis for the unity of the
people for all times and places.
4) Judaism can be adapted to changing conditions according
to biblical and talmudic teachings in the light of the
development of the Tradition in all ages.
5) The traditional mitzvot, the precepts, are the basic
precondition for the establishment of a Jewish way of life.
If Conservative Judaism is to be criticized, perhaps such
criticism should be based on the five ideas stated above. I
am not claiming that the above ideas are a definitive
statement of Conservative Judaiasm's ideology. I am saying,
based on one scholar's research, here are five ideas that
can be used to characterize Conservative Judaism - without
mistaking correlation for causality, what is wrong with
them?
As far as Reform Judaism goes, first consider what Yoaquim
had to say on the subject:
"Most do not know the history of Reform.
Reform began as a movement which claimed that German Jews
really were Germans who practised a Mosaic religion and
that German Jews really had no more in common with a non-
German Jew than a Bavarian Catholic had with a Polish
Catholic..."
The above statement criticizes Reform Judaism as it existed
in Germany. To be fair, American Reform had made a similar
claim in the Pittsburgh Platform adopted in November of
1885. Consider the following statements from that platform:
"...and today we accept as binding only the moral
laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and
sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted
to the views and habits of modern civilization."
"...We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a
religious community, and therefore, expect neither a return
to Palestine nor a sacrificial worship under the
administration of the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of
any laws concerning the Jewish state."
I must give credit to Yoaquim for recognizing that at that
juncture in time, the Reform had basically thrown out the
baby with the bath water. In fact, historically, he is in
good company. He is amongst such prominent Jews as David
Philopson, Israel Bettan, and the other one hundred and one
Reform rabbis who in 1937 adopted the Columbus Platform.
This Platform was in part a repudiation of the fundamental
principles of Reform as had been incorporated in the
Pittsburgh Platform.
The Columbus Platform made clear that the doctrine of Jewish
ethnicity superceded the notion that Jews were only a
religious community. Further vis a vis the Torah the
Platform stated that "The Torah, both written and oral,
enshrines Israel's ever growing consciousness of G-d and of
the moral law. It preserves the historical precedents,
sanctions and norms of Jewish life." Also the platform took
a strong stance towards the establishment of Palestine by
urging all Jews to aid in the building of Palestine as a
Jewish Homeland - a center of Jewish culture and spiritual
life as well as a refuge for the oppressed. On the other
hand the Columbus Platform retained such doctrines from the
Pittsburgh statement as the harmony of Judaism and science,
the immortality of the soul, and the principles of
progressive revelation and evolution of Judaism.
My point is Yoaquim has chosen to critique a Reform Judaism
that even the Reform, as far back as 1937, refused to
accept. I feel, to be fair, if present day Reform Judaism is
to be criticized, at least start with the Columbus Platform.
In summary, Yoaquim fails to adequately explain what is
wrong with present day Conservative and Reform Judaism for
two reasons:
(1) Mr. Martillo mistakes correlation of two events for
causality (and its debatable whether one of the events is as
serious as he puts it-the decline in Jewish Learning). This
mistake is evident by his comparing the worst of one group
with the best of another.
(2) His concept of Reform Judaism is a concept that the
Reform Jews in the United States dismissed almost fifty
years ago.