Reform Judaism: Difference between revisions

The origins of Reform Judaism lie in [[German Confederation|mid-19th-century Germany]], where Rabbi [[Abraham Geiger]] and his associates formulated its early principles, attempting to harmonize Jewish tradition with modern sensibilities in the age of [[Jewish emancipation|emancipation]]. Brought to America by German-trained rabbis, the denomination gained prominence in [[History of the Jews in the United States|the United States]], flourishing from the 1860s to the 1930s in an era known as "Classical Reform". Since the 1970s, the movement has adopted a policy of inclusiveness and acceptance, inviting as many as possible to partake in its communities rather than adhering to strict theoretical clarity. It is strongly identified with progressive and liberal agendas in political and social terms, mainly under the traditional Jewish rubric ''[[tikkun olam]]'' ("repairing of the world"). ''Tikkun olam'' is a central motto of Reform Judaism, and acting in its name is one of the main channels for adherents to express their affiliation. The movement's most significant center today is in [[North America]].

 

 

==Definitions==

 

===God===

 

Early Reform thinkers in Germany clung to this precept;<ref>Meyer, p. 96.</ref> the 1885 [[Pittsburgh Platform]] described the "One God... The God-Idea as taught in our sacred Scripture" as consecrating the Jewish people to be its priests. It was grounded on a wholly theistic understanding, although the term "God-idea" was excoriated by outside critics. So was the 1937 Columbus Declaration of Principles, which spoke of "One, living God who rules the world".<ref>''Challenges and Reflections'', pp. 34–36.</ref> Even the 1976 San Francisco Centenary Perspective, drafted at a time of great discord among Reform theologians, upheld "the affirmation of God... Challenges of modern culture have made a steady belief difficult for some. Nevertheless, we ground our lives, personally and communally, on God's reality."<ref>Kaplan, ''Contemporary American Judaism: Transformation and Renewal'', pp. 131.</ref> The 1999 Pittsburgh Statement of Principles declared the "reality and oneness of God". British [[Liberal Judaism (UK)|Liberal Judaism]] affirms the "Jewish conception of God: One and indivisible, transcendent and immanent, Creator and Sustainer".

 

===Revelation===

 

As in other [[Liberal religion|liberal denominations]], this notion offered a conceptual framework for reconciling the acceptance of critical research with the maintenance of a belief in some form of divine communication, thus preventing a rupture among those who could no longer accept a literal understanding of revelation. No less importantly, it provided the clergy with a rationale for adapting, changing and excising traditional mores and bypassing the accepted conventions of Jewish Law, rooted in the orthodox concept of the explicit transmission of both scripture and its [[Oral Torah|oral interpretation]]. While also subject to change and new understanding, the basic premise of progressive revelation endures in Reform thought.<ref name="JJ"/><ref>See also: [[Dana Evan Kaplan]], [http://forward.com/opinion/136237/ "In Praise of Reform Theology"], ''[[The Forward]]'', 16 March 2011.</ref>

 

===Soul and afterlife===

 

==Practice==

A relatively thoroughgoing program was adopted by [[Israel Jacobson]], a philanthropist from the [[Kingdom of Westphalia]]. Faith and observance were eroded for decades both by Enlightenment criticism and apathy, but Jacobson himself did not bother with those. He was interested in decorum, believing its lack in services was driving the young away. Many of the aesthetic reforms he pioneered, like a regular vernacular sermon on moralistic themes, would be later adopted by the [[Torah im Derech Eretz|modernist Orthodox]].<ref>Michael K. Silber, [http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Orthodoxy "Orthodoxy"], [[The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe]].</ref> On 17 July 1810, he dedicated a synagogue in [[Seesen]] that employed an organ and a choir during prayer and introduced some German liturgy. While Jacobson was far from full-fledged Reform Judaism, this day was adopted by the movement worldwide as its foundation date. The Seesen temple – a designation quite common for prayerhouses at the time; "temple" would later become, somewhat misleadingly (and not exclusively), identified with Reform institutions via association with the elimination of prayers for the Jerusalem Temple<ref>Meyer, p. 42.</ref> – closed in 1813. Jacobson moved to Berlin and established a similar synagogue, which became a hub for like-minded intellectuals, interested in the betterment of religious experience. Though the prayerbook used in Berlin did introduce several deviations from the received text, it did so without an organizing principle. In 1818, Jacobson's acquaintance Edward Kley founded the [[Hamburg Temple]]. Here, changes in the rite were eclectic no more and had severe dogmatic implications: prayers for the [[Third Temple|restoration of sacrifices]] by the [[Messiah in Judaism|Messiah]] and [[Gathering of Israel|Return to Zion]] were quite systematically omitted. The Hamburg edition is considered the first comprehensive Reform liturgy.

 

 

The massive Orthodox reaction halted the advance of early Reform, confining it to the port city for the next twenty years. As acculturation and resulting religious apathy spread, many synagogues introduced mild aesthetic changes, such as vernacular sermons or somber conduct, yet these were carefully crafted to assuage conservative elements (though the staunchly Orthodox opposed them anyhow; secular education for rabbis, for example, was much resisted). One of the first to adopt such modifications was Hamburg's own Orthodox community, under the newly appointed modern Rabbi [[Isaac Bernays]]. The less strict but still traditional [[Isaac Noah Mannheimer]] of the [[Vienna]] [[Stadttempel]] and [[Michael Sachs (rabbi)|Michael Sachs]] in [[Prague]], set the pace for most of Central and Western Europe. They significantly altered custom, but wholly avoided dogmatic issues or overt injury to Jewish Law.<ref>Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 55–58, 111–115, 150–157.</ref>