To the Editor:

While I find myself in substantial agreement with much of what Julius Weinberg says in “The Trouble with Reform Judaism” [November 1979], I find it difficult to identify myself with the “Jakob J. Petuchowski” whom he describes. According to that description, Petuchowski favors “a measure of ritual norms,” he would “lead Reform to a greater acceptance of the concept of Jewish peoplehood and toward the adoption of a more observant regimen,” and “would purge the movement of the intellectual atavisms Reform has inherited from its 19th-century origins; for Petuchowski these are represented by the higher biblical criticism and comparative anthropolgy.”

There is a certain validity in the first two attributions—provided that the reader knows that the “Jewish peoplehood” which I champion is a religious concept of “peoplehood,” and provided that the reader is made aware of the distinctions which I draw among personal observance, communal observance, and the laws of “personal status” governing one’s membership in k’lal yisrael. Those distinctions carry with them different degrees of normative authority.

But I am not aware of ever having called upon Reform Judaism to purge itself of the higher biblical criticism and comparative anthropology. That would mean letting dogmatic considerations interfere with scholarly research—hardly a mental attitude which would have made me choose the Hebrew Union College as the environment in which I work. Admittedly, I hold no brief for any one particular theory about the development of biblical literature; and the fashions in biblical research have a tendency to change rather rapidly, making it incumbent upon the scholar to keep an open mind. That is why, in my teaching and in my writing, I have repeatedly made the point that the belief in Revelation—a theological, not a literary issue—must not be too closely tied to any one scholarly hypothesis, ancient or modern, about the origins and development of ancient Hebrew literature, and why I have advocated a basically Rosenzweigian approach to the belief in Revelation. (“Even if Wellhausen should turn out to have been correct, the Redactor of the Pentateuch would still be Rabbenu, and his work, our Torah.”) But this, I would respectfully submit, is a far cry from being opposed to higher biblical criticism and comparative anthropology.

Jakob J. Petuchowski
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
Cincinnati, Ohio

_____________

To the Editor:

As we all know, it is the task of serious, independent journalism to bare the full truth on the subjects with which it deals, no matter how unpleasant, no matter how much hostility it may provoke on the part of vested interests. For its own spiritual health, Reform Judaism—and every other manifestation of organized Jewish life—requires and deserves such critical analysis by those who stand outside its institutional framework.

If only the article by Julius Weinberg were written as such a critique! If only its biases were not so apparent, its snide use of derogatory adjectives less abundant, its frequent descent to the level of “hatchet job” less vitiating of its presumptive purpose. To be sure, there are some aspects of Reform which Mr. Weinberg clearly likes: the turn to tradition and survival-ism on the part of some, the new prayerbook. But in general he tells us less about Reform Judaism than about his own incapacity to overcome ingrained prejudices against it.

When Mr. Weinberg comes to a discussion of Eugene Borowitz’s work he writes with such venom that the reader must wonder what motivates so furious a diatribe. It is certainly most difficult to recognize the journal Sh’ma from Mr. Weinberg’s jaundiced description of it. Far from serving as the platform for a particular point of view, Sh’ma is one of the few magazines in the American Jewish community which actively promotes free discussion of the vital issues affecting the Jewish people and religion. Its contributing editors represent a wide variety of viewpoints—and most of them are not Reform Jews.

On one point Mr. Weinberg is unquestionably correct (though he is scarcely the first to state it): Reform Judaism is today deeply divided on both theological and practical issues. But an impartial observer would have to leave open the question of whether such division necessarily implies spiritual malaise, or whether it may indicate the resurgence of an inner dialectic which invigorates as it breaks down an outworn consensus and moves toward a new, perhaps more adequate resolution.

Michael A. Meyer
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
Cincinnati, Ohio

_____________

To the Editor:

Julius Weinberg’s “The Trouble with Reform Judaism” is based largely on his impressions. While I share what I believe are his prejudices against Reform, I believe they have blinded his judgment. “Spiritual health” is a subject for legitimate disagreement, but the reader would never guess, for example, that Reform Judaism, unlike Orthodoxy and Conservatism, is growing numerically. Reform has problems, but I think the leaders of both Orthodoxy and Conservatism would be happy if their problems were no more serious than those of Reform.

I take particular exception to Mr. Weinberg’s attack on Eugene Borowitz and Sh’ma. In my opinion, Eugene Borowitz has done more than any single figure among Reform leaders to reorient the movement to an ideology and style that are at least in touch with conceptions of traditional Judaism. I can attest to my indebtedness to Borowitz’s work in clarifying my thinking about Judaism and my own point of view. The portrait of Sh’ma which Mr. Weinberg paints is simply inaccurate. There is no publication in Jewish life that deliberately solicits and consistently obtains as divergent a group of contributors. The voices of Orthodox Jews, for example, are heard with such frequency that I have often suspected a deliberate effort to overrepresent them. The fact that Orthodox and politically conservative Jews find in Sh’ma a natural forum for their opinions surely belies Mr. Weinberg’s conclusion.

Charles S. Liebman
Bar-Ilan University
Ramat-Gan, Israel

_____________

To the Editor:

. . . Julius Weinberg . . . has decided that the synagogue is in decline and there is a definite “diminution” in the quality of lay leadership. He further assails Reform Judaism for the fact that it contains a wide range of beliefs and customs within its institutional walls. Finally, he tells us that the Reform rabbi can no longer play a dynamic role in the community.

The only trouble with these criticisms is that they stand diametrically opposed to my experience as a young Reform rabbi. The synagogue, especially the synagogue in the South (the bastion of Reform Judaism and the region of the fastest growth in this country), has been, is now, and will continue to be the center of Jewish life. There is not one evening a week when our young synagogue is not bustling with some sort of social or religious activity. Note the word “young.” The majority of my congregation, most with one or two children, are well under forty. For them Judaism is a heritage that they do not wish to forsake. They never considered Orthodoxy because they found its beliefs about infallibility implausible in a modern world, Conservative Judaism they found too hypocritical. . . .

Young Jews are looking for a Judaism that makes sense to them as individuals and to the way they live . . . in America. Reform Judaism supplies the freedom of choice that allows for their individuality. It gives to Jews not one Judaism, but many Jewish options from which, as intelligent individuals, they can choose. . . .

[Rabbi] Jan Bresky
Temple Ahavat Shalom
Dunedin, Florida

_____________

To the Editor:

Julius Weinberg points out that there are no reservoirs of people waiting to revitalize Reform as was the case prior to World War II when thousands of East European Jews gave new life to a then moribund institution. But even if we grant Mr. Weinberg his premise, that Reform is becoming once again anemic and in need of new blood, there does exist a potential reservoir which many overlook—namely, Conservative Jewry.

It has been my observation that, with some minor exceptions, Reform and Conservative Jewry have been moving closer and closer together since World War II, and especially since the Six-Day War. For a myriad of reasons, self-professed Conservative Jews no longer believe in keeping kosher, observing fasts, maintaining the Passover and other religious observances. . . .

As Reform moves closer to a traditional religious service (as it continually has done in the postwar era), the distinctions between Reform and Conservatism will blur even further. This will lead to a crisis of identity which is already brewing within Conservative circles. . . .

Richard I. Wallsh
Gainesville, Florida

_____________

To the Editor:

The first trouble with Julius Weinberg’s article is that it has the wrong title. Based on the evidence he himself reveals, as well as the internal evidence of the course of Jewish history, it should have been entitled “The Continued Vitality and Creativity of Reform Judaism.”

Mr. Weinberg states that “. . . Reform has become fragmented in matters of theology and ritual . . .” and describes the differing views of a number of distinguished Reform scholars and rabbis. . . . [But] Reform is fortunate in having such a galaxy of brilliant and scholarly men. The expression of such divergent views is not an indication of the fragmentation of the movement, but rather of its strength. . . .

At times, some of these views may seem extreme, even irreconcilable, but the movement has always had, and still has, a central core of thought, inner strength, balance and civility, as well as the good sense to find the way toward essential unity. . . .

In its early days in America, Reform was divided by the rift between the moderate Isaac Mayer Wise group and the more extreme David Einhorn group, yet the movement eventually reached a consensus. If Reform, in its early period of development and search for identity, could survive the fierce Wise-Einhorn battles and grow in strength and unity, certainly it can survive and be strengthened by the less deeply rooted differences of today.

In his approval of conformity and ideology, Mr. Weinberg seems not to understand the very essence of Judaism over its long history. It survived creatively precisely because it was not ideological. It encompassed, in many periods, wide varieties of thought and practice and did change . . . to meet the specific needs of different times. . . .

Space does not permit detailing the many battles within Judaism from its early days; priests and prophets, Sadducees and Pharisees, and many others up until our very time with the need to adjust in some way to modern nationalism, the age of Enlightenment, the Holocaust, Israel and the Arabs, and other problems of our day. But in each period, Judaism shifted its emphasis effectively, sometimes toward liberalism, sometimes toward traditionalism, and therefore was able to survive creatively.

And so it happened in America.

It is impossible here to examine fully the whole course of American Judaism. I am attempting to do this in a book, almost finished, on the growth and varieties of American Judaism. Suffice it to say: American Judaism has had four fairly definite periods: the Colonial Sephardic, the German Jewish, the East European, and now what many call the American period. In each period there were varieties of thought and practice, yet in the main, in each period, there emerged a fairly clear, dominant, and effective pattern of Judaism, depending on the background of the Jews who came here, the America to which they came, and the world in which they lived.

Mr. Weinberg castigates Classical Reform Judaism for its “now bankrupt ideological assumptions” including rationality, the goodness of man, and the belief in progress. He might just as well have attacked the Sephardic establishment for its autocracy, the East European period for the alienation of many Jews, and so on. It is not good history to prophesy after the event. Each period of history must be judged in terms of the effectiveness of its response to the prevailing times.

In the period in which American Reform grew and expanded, starting about 1850 and continuing into the early 20th century, the spirit of the age, especially in America, was precisely a profound belief in rationality, goodness, and progress. By responding affirmatively to the times, Reform not only did not serve as a halfway house to assimilation (a grossly misunderstood word) or apostasy, but actually saved Judaism in America. If it had not emphasized these attitudes, also inherent in Judaism as a whole, American Jews would have left Judaism in droves. For without such an emphasis, Judaism would not have met their need to live honestly and proudly as Jews and Americans in an environment which seemed to prove, almost daily, the virtue and validity of reason and education, economic progress and expansion, and a growing kinship of all Americans. Nor was Reform Judaism alone in these assumptions. The writings, sermons, and religious textbooks of some Conservative and even moderate Orthodox leaders reflected the same views.

A perusal of the minutes of most Reform congregations discloses that they moved slowly and at their own pace in changing traditional customs. There was a brief period, known as Classical Reform, when observance was at a minimum. But this was only a part of the process of ongoing Reform and the situation began to change, starting as early as the 1930′s, when a different world atmosphere was dawning. This was revealed in the Columbus platform of 1937. . . .

It is not true that Reform is losing out in competition with Conservatism and Orthodoxy. A recent study by Bernard Lazerwitz of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, Past and Future Trends in the Size of American Jewish Denominations, reveals that, as more American Jews are born in this country, more of their children tend to move into the Reform camp. He states that when both the parents are native born, “The Conservative and Reform members are running neck and neck. However, the Reform group has just about a two-to-one advantage among those who identify with either denomination, but are not synagogue members. In short, the Reform denomination appears to have the greater number of ‘reserves.’”

Another recent study, by the American Association for Jewish Education, further discloses that the Reform movement educates more American Jewish students than any other Jewish religious group, has grown the fastest since 1974, and has shown the most dramatic increase in hours of instruction since 1962.

The facts are that the organized Reform movement today numbers some one million Jews. Although Reform was begun primarily by German Jews here, it must be pointed out that only some 200,000 such Jews came to America as compared to, approximately, two million East European Jews, who immigrated generally after 1880. Reform could not be so large today if it had not successfully won over many Jews of East European origin. And, obviously, the studies just mentioned reveal that the process is continuing.

I report these facts simply as facts. I am not disturbed that Orthodoxy and Conservatism have become strong. To the contrary, I am quite pleased, for this situation, with its opportunity for dialogue, is indicative of the increased vitality of American Judaism.

To sum up, Reform today is not only not in danger of splitting apart, but has again reached a general consensus. . . . In fact, the conflicts within Reform are less severe and bitter than those in the other movements. Nevertheless, it is my feeling that the other movements will weather their differences and that, for the foreseeable future, all these major groups in America will continue vigorously and creatively.

[Rabbi] Allan Tarshish
Glencoe, Illinois

_____________

Julius Weinberg writes:

I am gratified to learn that Jakob J. Petuchowski, a member of the Hebrew Union College faculty and author of a number of monographs on the history of Reform Judaism, finds himself in “substantial agreement” with much of what I had to say about the current state of the movement. Let me hasten to assure him that I did not intend to label him an anti-intellectual. There is no disagreement between us concerning his contention that the concept of Revelation is central to his theology and that, hence, his views on Jewish belief and practice are independent of whatever may be the findings of scholarly research. It should be noted, however, that this concept, the supremacy of Revelation, marks a considerable departure from the motifs of religious rationalism and naturalism that characterized the thinking of the Classical Reformers before and after the turn of the century and that characterizes the antinomian wing of the movement today. As for my assertion that Rabbi Petuchowski rejects the evolutionary anthropology and literary criticism of the now discredited scholarship of the 19th-century biblical scholars, I based my observation on an essay of his, published in a 1967 anthology on Reform theology, in which he attacked much of this literature and concluded that “inasmuch . . . as Reform’s lack of traditional Jewish practice is justified, or, better, rationalized in terms of primitive origins, Wissenschaft, and the higher criticism of the Bible, we have seen that Reform is moving in the realm of fallacies.”

Michael A. Meyer and Charles S. Liebman suggest that my view of Reform Judaism is the product of my “prejudices”: Mr. Liebman contends that my essay is a reflection of my “impressions” and Mr. Meyer sees even darker psychological forces at work. Yet at no point in their letters, essentially ad hominem attacks on my perspective and motives, do these scholars cite a single instance of where I misconstrued, misused, or misquoted my principal sources—Mr. Meyer’s own history of Hebrew Union College, the Fein and Lenn reports, the Centenary Perspectives, and Eugene B. Borowitz’s three volumes, Reform Judaism Today. To level charges of “prejudice” against an author is an easy way out; an even-tempered response to my piece would have required chapter-and-verse citations of precisely which documents I misinterpreted or which sources I abused.

Regarding Sh’ma, both Messrs. Liebman and Meyer feel that this publication plays a positive role on the American Jewish scene. I obviously disagree, and my reasons are clearly set forth in the article.

There is a distinctly déjà vu quality to the tone of Rabbi Jan Bresky’s letter, reminiscent of the 1950′s, when families with young children sought membership in the newly-founded synagogues and temples of another frontier—suburbia. The test will come, as the Lenn study makes amply clear, when those youngsters are confirmed and married, and their parents conclude that the family no longer needs the temple for social identity or immediately urgent rites of passage.

To Richard I. Wallsh: while some Reform leaders may be happy to learn that, in addition to converts to Judaism from mixed marriages, there is yet another “potential reservoir” of membership for Reform Judaism—i.e., nonobservant Conservative Jews—others may conclude that an influx into the Reform ranks of backsliding Conservative Jews will diminish rather than enhance the quality—and the sense of purpose and direction—of the Reform movement in this country.

The letter from Rabbi Allan Tarshish demonstrates that he is a true believer in the intellectual dogmas and ideological clichés that suffuse the thinking of some in the Reform movement. Among these is the belief that the durability of Judaism is the consequence of religious tolerance and pluralism; that philosophical and ritualistic division is a positive good and a source of institutional strength; and that the American Jewish experience is essentially a spiritual progression, going, as it is said by the rabbis, “from strength to strength.” Rabbi Tarshish concludes that Reform is in a state of “continued vitality and creativity.” I do not share this view, and little in the evidence presented by Rabbi Tarshish would lead me to change my mind.

For example, the Lazerwitz study he cites as a sign of Reform’s vitality demonstrates nothing of the kind. Bernard Lazerwitz simply concludes that: (a) third-generation American Jews tend to identify themselves as Reform or Conservative rather than Orthodox; and (b) nonaffiliated third-generation Jews—those, I would suggest, who have minimal affiliation, practice, or identity—label themselves Reform.

Regarding the study of the American Association for Jewish Education, here, too, the conclusions are less sanguine than Rabbi Tarshish would have it. According to the Association’s most recent Information Bulletin, the one-day-aweek school is still typical of Reform education and consequently attracts the largest enrollment in the nation. While the AAJE study finds that “Reform education has become more intensified”—a drop in one-day-a-week enrollment and an ever-so-slight increase in day-school enrollment—it also states that “the proportionate enrollment in schools with Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform ideology has remained about the same.”

A final word: the “trouble” with Reform Judaism cannot and should not be divorced from the “trouble” of the larger Jewish community of which it is an integral part. The increasing distance of the American Jewish community from its European roots of literacy, piety, and culture, combined with the phenomenal socioeconomic mobility and acculturation of American Jews, is clearly exacting a toll which is now being borne most heavily by the Reform sector of the community (with Conservative Judaism, one would suspect, soon to follow).

The disturbing inability of American and, indeed, Western Jewry to enjoy the best of both worlds is not a new phenomenon, but a conundrum that historians have traced to the generation of Moses Mendelssohn two hundred years ago. In his monograph, The Origins of the Modern Jew: Jewish Identity and European Culture in Germany, 1749-1824, Michael A. Meyer sums up the verdict of historians—that Mendelssohn’s generation failed to find an answer to the question, “Why should a man of European culture remain a Jew?” Mr. Meyer writes: “Two centuries have passed, . . . but the problem today remains essentially the same—except that America has been substituted for Europe. The American Jew, desiring to be as much a part of American culture as Mendelssohn and his successors did of European, is engaged in the same quest for Jewish self-definition. . . . It remains to be seen whether he will be able to draw significant content from the Jewish tradition to shape a uniquely Jewish identity. If not, Jewish consciousness will gradually dissipate and dissolve into the free American milieu, leaving only the religious heritage to live on . . . ‘as the current lives on in the ocean.’ ”