Reform and Orthodox bigotry, and a brief history of new movements

People need to get into their heads the realization that both sides contain at least a bit of bigotry towards the other. The primary difference between the two, though, is the method of expression, which lies in each movement's formation.

Reform was a movement started, concurrently with the so-called Jewish Enlightenment, as attempt to modernize Judaism and make it more palatable. This drive was fulled both by modern sensibilities accrued by those making the reforms, as well as a desire to live up to the modern sensibilities of the dominant religion- Christianity. Reform congregations went as far as possible to model themselves after Protestant churches- they included choir, music, changed the service to Sunday, removed Hebrew as the language of prayer, and removed any mention of Zion.

However, as Ruth Wisse points out in Jews and Power, the attempt was also to ameliorate to their new found status as equals in Europe. Everything was to be given to Jews as individuals, but not as a nation. As such, they tried to eliminate the nationalistic attitudes within Judaism.

Before Reform Judaism, there wasn't an Orthodoxy as such. Simply put, most Jews were just religious. Those who were not, may have had serious theological misgivings about Judaism, or its prevalent form, but the main body of Jews were simply religious. Orthodoxy, as it is characterized today, was a reactionary movement to the modernizing, and 'traitorous' denationalization of Jewry. The Chasam Sofer manipulated the Torah prohibition of new grain to coin the phrase of 'Chadah Assur Min HaTorah,' 'new things are prohibited from the Torah.' As an example of the reactionary tendencies of the movement, see the sacrosanct Hasidic garb, which is nothing more than 18th century Polish dress, which has been vaulted to a mark of specific Jewish identity.

Thus, Orthodoxy came to emphasized that anything that was ancient was more theologically valid, in contrast to the modernizing Reform. Minhag, custom, became more and more sacrosanct- often to the detriment of Halacha, Jewish Law. In addition to the modernizing influence of the Haskalah and of Reform, there was the opposition of Zionism. However, Zionism came later in the game, and I think the reaction to it, and indeed its very particular constitution, resulted from the Orthodox reaction to Reform.

Why do I say this? The only thing problematic in Zionism qua Zionism, vis a vi an Orthodox perspective, is its shirking of Torah obligations. Further, Zionism was itself a reaction to the Reform movement- it thought the assimilation attempted by the Reform had failed. As such, to an Orthodox perspective, Zionism was a movement that came from assimilated Jewry, and was therefore problematic. In order to contrast to Zionism, while still holding the Jews as a nation, Orthodoxy emphasize the constitutional nation of the Torah. While it does seem to be true that, theologically speaking, the Torah serves this purpose, it also seems true that the Torah is meant to be kept as a state, in some way or another. So, the Orthodox reaction to Zionism was motivated by its reaction to Reform.

Why is this relevant? Because the bigotry on each side is the call to arms left over from the initial fight. The Reform call the Orthodox antiquated and narrow-minded. They extent this charge to accuse all Orthodox outreach programs of cultish behavior and brainwashing- how else could one want to be 'antiquated'? The Orthodox, on the other had, continue to denounce Reform as irrelevant to Judaism, and traitors to the cause. Zionism is either perceived as a perverting influence, or else (by the religious Zionism) perverted to a type of messianism.

What is most ironic is the fact that the war is over. Both sides lost in some respects, and the Orthodox probably suffered greater casualties- they were fighting against things, instead of for things. The Reform failed to completely modernize Judaism, and denationalize it, and the Orthodox failed to prevent modernization. Both are gravitating towards the mean. Orthodoxy is presenting itself more and more as relevant to the modern age, and Reform is adhering more and more to the traditions of traditional Judaism.

I only wish that both sides would realize that the war is essentially at a stalemate, and work together towards encouraging those who completely slipped through the cracks and have no Jewish identity at all.

There are no Reform bigots..................Not!

Members of the Reform movement often complain about being oppressed in some fashion or another. Most of it is b.s.- its just a matter of the Orthodox thinking they are right, and actually caring about their convictions. But, Orthodox sentiment does indeed 'cross the line' sometimes. You know what? So does Reform.

In discussing the new Reform prayer book, Rabbi Elyse Frishman had these nice words to say:

So much so that a huge, publicized debate has arisen because of the decision to return the "Resurrection of the Dead [M'chayeih Hameitim]" prayer to the prayer book. Previous Reform prayer books had dropped this prayer because of the movement's refusal to accept the expression's literal meaning, which is not suited to the rational outlook of Reform belief, and instead replaced it with the blessing "Gives Life to All [M'chayeih Hakol]." The discussion on including the prayer went on for many long months. In the end, Frishman's own opinion was accepted: The dead were brought back to the prayer as a metaphor - but in parentheses. Frishman is not referring to the dead literally coming back to life but rather to a blessing that stands for renewal, for a flourishing after a withering. There is no need to be alarmed by a prayer like this. Our community, she says, is smart enough to understand why the prayer has returned and what it symbolizes.

Nice! So, the Reform movement has a particularly rational outlook, and they, above all, are smart enough to have the capability of recognizing metaphor! Woot! Dumbass- all religions, no matter how watered down, do not fit the bill of being 'rational.' So, you reject the resurrection of the dead, but you keep certain mitzvot when you feel like them- where is the rationality there? Oh, right, because it's the culture of our fore bearers. Well, they kept all, and not some. Further, you really care about culture that much? Why? Unless there is something more to Judaism than meets the 'eye of rationality' than why not completely assimilate- it would be much easier. At least the Orthodox are consistent- they accept it wholesale. The Reform only accept half, and try to pass that half off as rational. What's that I hear? Oh, you meant 'modern.' So say that, you dumbass.

The Ha'aretz editorial isn't any better:

Frishman thinks "worship is an art" - that is, if it is done properly. She also aspires for her prayer book to provide a spiritual experience. The Reform movement is more spiritual than Judaism's more traditional streams, which are parallel to it. In fact - and this, too, has often been spoken of, demonstrated and discussed - it has drawn quite a lot from Hasidism.

So, Reform is the ultimate experience in Jewish spirituality, yet it needs to draw its inspiration from Hasidim? What you meant was less ritualistic. But even that's problematic, because while many synagogues do, in fact, do ritual for ritual's sake (and I even know a Rabbi who claims he enjoys that concept) most Orthodox shuls understand the meaning being the rituals- and hence, the rituals themselves are immensely spiritual.

Yet another campaign of misinformation born out of inherent bias.