Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism Part 1 As has been written many times, this group is for the discussion of Orthodox Judaism, without reference to non-Orthodox streams. However, in recent days, many members have posted opinions (hurtful to many, including yours truly) critical of Orthodox attitudes toward non-Orthodox groups. This has brought about a dilemma foe the moderators. How can we answer these questions without discussing how we differ, and why? After discussion among the moderators, it was decided to post not a polemic, but a sober, impartial analysis of the differences that, sadly, divide our people. First we need to define Orthodoxy. Although there may be vast differences in practice and philosophy between groups, nevertheless, all who recognize the existence of G-d and his Unity,the special relationship which G-d maintains with the Children of Israel, the Divine origin of the Written and Oral Torah, the obligation to observe the Mitzvot (commandments) and accept the Eternal Truth of these ideas, is an Orthodox Jew. Although there may be differences in specific customs, or even in the interpretation of certain laws, all are on the same page with basics, and recognize the validity of each others identity as Orthodox Jews, even if we have a different practice, or even consider the others legal rulings hopelessly mistaken. We can disagree on details, but agree on the essential identity of all who share the same basic ideology and legal framework. Among the classical Orthodox thinkers of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, there were legalists, philosophers, humanists, mystics, philologists, and a host of others. In the eighteenth century, Western Europe was undergoing some basic soul-searching. For a century and a half, Protestantism had challenged the most basic assumptions of the Church. new sects and sub-sects arose, each with its own take on the meaning and application of Christianity. Similar undercurrents were occurring in the Jewish community, especially in Germany. Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1781) was a German Jew who was, on the one hand sought to have the Jews learn modern languages, literature and Western philosophy, in order to become welcome into the general community. He fought for the acceptance of Jews as having the potential for noble character, an idea that shocked German society at the time. At the same time, he argued for the strict maintaining of all Jewish laws, Biblical as well as Talmudic, IN PRIVATE. Be a Jew in your home, a man on the street was his motto. There gathered around him many German thinkers and philosophers. He also developed a Jewish following. However, we now know that his Jewish followers were all from Sabbatean backgrounds, the heresy which I discussed in a past series, which believed in sacred sin, and the freeing of G-ds sparks from Evil by diving into it. His students mostly broke with traditional Jewish beliefs and practices, creating a new Judaism based on the idea of Ethical Monotheism. This idea meant that the point of the Torah was an ethical life. All the commandments, the theory went, originally had an ethical meaning, which has mostly been forgotten. In these cases, they can, and should, be abandoned. Only those which had a clear ethical message need be adhered to. The synagogue, too, needed changing. First the sermon, later the service, switched to the vernacular. The services, in most cases, began to take on the style of Christian services; clerical vestments, an organ, a choir, everything to make it more German. The idea was born that we are NOT a people, but Germans, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Englishmen of Mosaic faith. In the following century the term was coined Reform Jews. As the idea spread to America in the 19th century, it became still more radical. In the Northeast, a Sundays Sabbath was introduced. (Although this was opposed by the Western part of the movement). Now, there was no obligation to keep the mitzvot, no special covenant relationship.At the dedication of an early reform synagogue in Charleston, South Carolina, the rabbi said We neither expect nor hope for a return to Zion. this land is our Holy Land, this city our Jerusalem ,this building our Temple. The word Temple has been used ever since for non-Orthodox synagogues. Rather than increasing Judaisms adherents, assimilation became rampant.At the centennial celebration for the Charleston Temple, descendants of the original founders were sought. Not one was still Jewish. In 1937, a convention of Reform rabbis met in Columbus, Ohio. It was discovered that fully thirty percent of Reform congregations had, since the mid 1800s, become Unitarian Churches.After all, what was the difference, other than one more prophet? A decision was made to reintroduce some traditional Jewish practices; not as obligations from G-d, but as ways of maintaining and strengthening Jewish identity. This trend continued throughout the twentieth and into the twenty first century. Each new reform prayer book became closer to the Traditional one, in language, structure and content. Reform Temples began to look more like synagogues, and less like Churches. However, the basic philosophy is unchanged. The Torah is not binding, except in terms of ethics. We are Americans of Mosaic faith. Some voices within Reform have arisen, urging a return to a more Jewish approach. Many Reform congregations welcome Orthodox rabbis to speak to their members,even encouraging Orthodox outreach groups to conduct classes or programs. It must be noted that this was not so much a change of heart, but was born of a realization that that they had cut away their roots.Several late twentieth century reform leaders have left an indelible mark on Reform worldwide. I will discuss more in my next installment.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 00:02:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015