Reform

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Avi

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,399
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Hi, are there any Reform Jews that participate in this forum ?

Thanks, Avi
 
Good question Phyllis, what are the differences ? Is the British called Liberal Judaism ?
 
bananabrain can explain the differences far better, but from what I little I understand, British Reform is closer to American Conservative. Again, bananabrain is far more knowledgeable on the subject.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
 
That makes sense. In that case I guess I mean American Reform.
 
I don't think anyone is. I'm liberal but not Reform. I know quite a bit about American Reform though. What's up? And welcome to the forums.
 
although i'm traditional sephardi-iraqi, i was brought up in british reform and was highly active in its youth movement, so generally i'm pretty well informed about it, plus i maintain a wide acquaintance across the entire religious spectrum from secular to ultra-orthodox and, as my uncle said recently, there aren't a lot of people that can say that.

what do you want to know? to my way of understanding, "british reform" covers quite a spectrum, from the left which is closer to "american reform" all the way over to the right which is closer to the left-wing of "american conservative". the right-wing of "american conservative" is covered in the UK by the "masorti" movement, which is remarkably traditionally minded except theologically speaking. except of course they'd argue that they were being traditionally minded there as well, i'm not even going to get into that. suffice it to say that in terms of observance of mitzvot, they are indistinguishable from the mainstream modern orthodox.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Hi Dauer and bb,

Thanks for the welcome. It looks like this is a very nice forum to share diverse ideas about Judaism.

But my question is specficially related to forum which might have Reform perspective. There are several forum on the internet which have Orthodox perspective, but I have not seen one yet which focuses on Reform. This is surprising because my understanding is that Reform are the greatest number. Please let me know if you are aware of any of these forum ?

In the meantime, I look forward to reading more interfaith discussion.

Thanks.
 
i'm not aware of such forums but i'd be surprised if they didn't exist. try the websites of the synagogual bodies concerned. if i was being cheeky, i'd say it might be because the reform are less interested!

*ducks to avoid flying bricks*

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
I haven't seen anything specifically Reform either. I've seen sites, with discussion, that tend to have a pretty liberal slant, but none that are specifically Reform. We still might be able to provide the Reform perspective on your question.
 
Ok guys, thanks. I actually did not connect with a specific question. But since you ask, can you please tell me whether you believe that interfaith dialogue could have a role in solving the problems in the Middle East ?

I have been participating in some interfaith dialogues in my community. And they are very interesting discussions. But I am not sure whether they will serve any useful function. On the other hand, not talking has to be worse.

What do you think ?

I am sure there has been lots written about this in this forum, but I have not read it yet.

Thanks again.
 
Avi1223 said:
can you please tell me whether you believe that interfaith dialogue could have a role in solving the problems in the Middle East?
Click to expand...
interfaith dialogue is already having a role in solving the problems in the middle east - heard of the alexandria process? what this is about is providing a channel for religious communities to interface and dialogue so they're contributing to religious solutions which would be insoluble politically. in israel this is mostly the bailiwick of (surprisingly enough considering their political affiliations) the sephardi chief rabbinate and, from the american side, the eminent interfaith activist and ex-chief rabbi of ireland, david rosen. there are various other people involved at that kind of level.

certainly, however, interfaith dialogue is not a comprehensive solution, nor is it a process of negotiation like politics. without it, however, there will be no overall solution, so it's more of an enabler. so the real question is what is the point of it both locally and internationally?

on the ground, there are a number of grass-roots organisations, mainly consisting of bereaved relatives of israeli and palestinian victims of the conflict of the "enough is enough, let's talk rather than fight" variety. these, however morally credible, are not very politically powerful. however, they are still really important.

internationally, there is basically nothing that i am aware of in the islamic world, because there aren't really many jews left there and the discourse is as extreme as you would imagine - you can get a flavour of it on the recent threads here by the intense hostility demonstrated by several of our regular posters, in particular farhan and friend, who i think are both arabs. there are also a number of regular pakistani posters who tend to be slightly less confrontational and also a few more considerate and moderate people like c0de and muslimwoman.

there is plenty in the western world, ranging from the ceremonial (basically people like various philanthropists and chief rabbis and imams giving speeches and awards to each other) via the professional (theology students engaging at conferences, or ministers working together for hospital visits or chaplaincy) down to the grass-roots, real people encountering each other on the ground, in the workplace and in the community.

the work to be done, i believe, is on the ground in your regular community. it is the easiest thing in the world to condemn and dehumanise a group of whom you know nothing and this is clearly done both by jews and muslims and everyone else. on the other hand, you have to take people more seriously when you know them, you know their names and you are confronted with a real person, not a representative of a group. you cannot directly stop a suicide bomber from blowing people up, but you can influence people not to donate money to people who will eventually donate money to fund terrorism. similarly, you can't stop a settler tearing up an olive orchard, but you can engage within your own community to explain to people why it's wrong. the big enemy here is ignorance. most muslims don't know any jews - and vice-versa - so it's easy to demonise, project conspiracy theories and engage in group victimhood. talking about the reality of your lives destroys this tribal behaviour and enables us to move beyond simple in-group loyalty.

think about this - how many tables have you sat round and heard people talking about "the muslims this" or "the arabs that"? have you had the knowledge to be able to challenge ignorance and bigotry? can you turn round and say, well, does that apply to my friends muhammad and rania? are you telling me you know them better than i do? do i have to distrust them? do i have to give them up as friends? that is your challenge - and you want to be confident that when muslims are sitting around a dinner table discussing israeli "atrocities" and the perfidy and influence of the jews, that someone will stand up and go "hang on a moment, my friend avi's not like that!"

until every conversation like that can be challenged, each side will go on funding its "brothers" to engage in proxy war. it is that where interfaith dialogue can help. there are a number of organisations (i presume you're in the states) which assist dialogue groups to get set up, provided bernie madoff hasn't destroyed their funding. my challenge to you is this: what are you doing personally and in your community?

i can say that the reform community in the UK is at the forefront of interfaith work and mostly puts the more traditional movements to shame, however, this is unfortunately mostly conducted at professional level. one thing i realised, however, when dialoguing with muslims, is that if you want to get involved, you need to know who you are and how to answer questions about your religion. sadly, most reform people simply don't have the knowledge, which is why it tends to be the professionals. in fact, it was this lack of knowledge that pushed me to learn more about my own religion - with the unexpected result that i became more traditional. i wouldn't say this is always what happens, incidentally, but i think that where i have ended up has benefited from my presence!

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bb, thanks for your thoughts about the value of dialogue.

interfaith dialogue is already having a role in solving the problems in the middle east - heard of the alexandria process? what this is about is providing a channel for religious communities to interface and dialogue so they're contributing to religious solutions which would be insoluble politically. in israel this is mostly the bailiwick of (surprisingly enough considering their political affiliations) the sephardi chief rabbinate and, from the american side, the eminent interfaith activist and ex-chief rabbi of ireland, david rosen. there are various other people involved at that kind of level.
Click to expand...

I have heard of Alexandria but do not know much about it. From what I have read it is a great process.

my challenge to you is this: what are you doing personally and in your community?
Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier, I have been involved in interfaith dialogue for the past several months. Although quite interesting, I have my personal doubts about its impact. I think the greatest potential is to get our children involved, so they do not form the same stereotypes in their minds that we have.

one thing i realised, however, when dialoguing with muslims, is that if you want to get involved, you need to know who you are and how to answer questions about your religion.
Click to expand...

You are right about this.

sadly, most reform people simply don't have the knowledge, which is why it tends to be the professionals.
Click to expand...

There is large variation in the knowledge of Reform Jews, so I do not agree with your generalization.

Back to the value of dialogue, I have to wonder if the soldiers that entered Gaza had participated in interfaith dialogue, would they have been able to do that ?
 
Avi1223 said:
There is large variation in the knowledge of Reform Jews, so I do not agree with your generalization.
Click to expand...
i agree that there's large variation, indeed, but interfaith dialogue necessarily gets pretty technical sometimes, with people wanting to know about traditional judaism - it is knowledge of stuff like that that reform people sometimes lack. you see, after a while people tend to get curious about why you're not so bothered about kashrut, or shabbat, or keeping mitzvot - when you're dialoguing with muslims who take *observance* very seriously, they start to wonder (in my experience) why none of the jews they know are very "religious" - again, this is a perception and actually it's an implied criticism of traditional jews who don't spend enough time engaging with this issue. if it's a generalisation, it's simply one from observation of reform jews engaged in dialogue, not of reform jews in general. besides, i didn't dispute that the professionals (usually rabbis and rabbinical students) have knowledge, so please don't think i'm having a go.

Back to the value of dialogue, I have to wonder if the soldiers that entered Gaza had participated in interfaith dialogue, would they have been able to do that ?
Click to expand...
do what, be in the army? it depends if you believe that seeing people from other religions as real human beings worthy of compassion is incompatible with engaging in military activity. personally, i think that shortchanges all the military people i've ever known, both israeli and other nationalities. i do see your point and there can indeed be a conflict - and, so it should; the point of dialogue ultimately is to make war unnecessary. but it's kind of the same argument that says that engaging in community relations makes the police less effective crimefighters. the sophisticated view understands that both types of engagement are necessary; dialogue is, ultimately, a security issue. i compare it to vaccination as opposed to cure.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
i agree that there's large variation, indeed, but interfaith dialogue necessarily gets pretty technical sometimes, with people wanting to know about traditional judaism - it is knowledge of stuff like that that reform people sometimes lack.
Click to expand...
bb, another generalization, but I do not disagree. Many Reform Jews are most interested in cultural interaction with other Jews. I do not think that is a bad thing, do you ? Most people do not believe it is their role to educate others about their faith. But I can see why that would be important in interfaith discussion.


you see, after a while people tend to get curious about why you're not so bothered about kashrut, or shabbat, or keeping mitzvot - when you're dialoguing with muslims who take *observance* very seriously, they start to wonder (in my experience) why none of the jews they know are very "religious" - again, this is a perception and actually it's an implied criticism of traditional jews who don't spend enough time engaging with this issue.
Click to expand...
Why is it a problem if I am not concerned about kashrut ? Having read some of the postings on this board, the spectrum of beliefs ranges from atheist to observant, not being concerned with kashrut fits well within this spectrum.

Actually, as a Reform Jew, I think one of the most important things is mitzvot. And I try to keep what I believe is the essence of Shabbat. I try to study and think more globally during Shabbat.

Avi - Back to the value of dialogue, I have to wonder if the soldiers that entered Gaza had participated in interfaith dialogue, would they have been able to do that ?
Click to expand...


bb - do what, be in the army?

Click to expand...

Actually, what I meant is that I think it would be more difficult for a soldier who participated in interfaith dialogue to get in his tank and drive into a region with civilians and women and children and kill them. That is what I think is a possible advantage of interfaith dialogue.

it depends if you believe that seeing people from other religions as real human beings worthy of compassion is incompatible with engaging in military activity. personally, i think that shortchanges all the military people i've ever known, both israeli and other nationalities.
Click to expand...
That is not what I am saying. Although I think the goal should be peace and the most likely way to get there is pacifisim, we cannot speak in simple terms. Sometimes wars and fighting is necessary. But if long term peace is the goal, restraint is often needed.

i do see your point and there can indeed be a conflict - and, so it should; the point of dialogue ultimately is to make war unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Agreed !!

but it's kind of the same argument that says that engaging in community relations makes the police less effective crimefighters.
Click to expand...
Not true, the best crime fighters are the professionals who best understand how people behave. Community relations helps improve crime fighters.

the sophisticated view understands that both types of engagement are necessary; dialogue is, ultimately, a security issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed again !!
 
Avi1223 said:
Many Reform Jews are most interested in cultural interaction with other Jews. I do not think that is a bad thing, do you ? Most people do not believe it is their role to educate others about their faith. But I can see why that would be important in interfaith discussion.
Click to expand...
actually, avi, i'd say the same is true of traditional jews (albeit "culture" is seen far too narrowly, simply through the prism of learning in many cases) and i think it becomes a bad thing for everyone concerned if jews thereby become ignorant of other cultures and vice-versa. it is our responsibility to be a "light to the nations", i don't see how we're going to do that if we won't ever spend any time interacting with them. it is our job to educate the world about Torah by example - not to convert them, but to be living exemplars of what we believe to be the Divine Image. without some familiarity with the technical side of that, it's quite hard to get people to take you seriously.

Why is it a problem if I am not concerned about kashrut? Having read some of the postings on this board, the spectrum of beliefs ranges from atheist to observant, not being concerned with kashrut fits well within this spectrum.
Click to expand...
yes, of course there's a spectrum, but my point is this - it need not be a problem if you're not concerned about kashrut, but people will expect you to be able to explain why it's important and what it's all about, it could be hard to maintain credibility without a personal commitment: think of the sentence "well, you're telling me you're jewish and that's important, but you don't take your own religion very seriously if you don't keep kosher..." now, i am sure you and i would agree that such perceptions are based upon a lack of knowledge of what reform is, why it came about and why the enlightenment was so controversial and, arguably, important, but, nonetheless, you must concede that when you are dealing with very committed, passionate and well-informed adherents of other traditions, they might struggle to understand where you're coming from. i appreciate that this is yet another generalisation, but it is solidly based in experience. equally arguably, what we need just as much is reform people who are learned and i don't think reform people are going to argue with that!

Actually, as a Reform Jew, I think one of the most important things is mitzvot. And I try to keep what I believe is the essence of Shabbat. I try to study and think more globally during Shabbat.
Click to expand...
you will understand why i'd consider that a somewhat vague commitment which can be more or less post-hoc rationalised. Shabbat involves rest; it involves refraining, it involves not-doing. what do you not-do? i think dauer's thoughts on reb zalman and "psycho-halakhah" are important things for you to consider, if you fancy a trawl through past discussions.

I think it would be more difficult for a soldier who participated in interfaith dialogue to get in his tank and drive into a region with civilians and women and children and kill them. That is what I think is a possible advantage of interfaith dialogue.
Click to expand...
that assumes that the bit i have highlighted above is actually the mission of the soldier concerned. i'm not aware of any professional soldier, israeli or otherwise, who would agree with you that this was either his explicit or implicit duty. to ignore "collateral damage" (yuk) - that you might make a case for, but for the assumption you make here, interfaith dialogue is not a consideration for someone who is not even concerned with the geneva conventions or basic morality. it sounds to me like you don't know many people in the military.

Sometimes wars and fighting is necessary. But if long term peace is the goal, restraint is often needed.
Click to expand...
agreed.

the best crime fighters are the professionals who best understand how people behave. Community relations helps improve crime fighters.
Click to expand...
exactly my point! actually, it is hard to see how it is not the case for intelligent non-traditional warfare as well....

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
i think dauer's thoughts on reb zalman and "psycho-halakhah" are important things for you to consider, if you fancy a trawl through past discussions.
Click to expand...
Or just read my condensed summary: Deconstruct current practice, the halachic arguments behind it and theological associations to get to the underlying intention of the practice (I would argue we're not fully capable of identifying the original intention but that, if we connect what we're doing back to G!d, any inaccuracies in our sincere interpretation are l'shem shamayim) and reconstruct in line with those intentions informed by tradition and where you find yourself today, whilst consciously including G!d in the process. Take into account who is influenced by your method of practicing that particular mitzvah (it may only be you, may also effect family, the local Jewish community, the larger Jewish community or future generations.) Accept the arrived at form of practice as b'rit for you with the included proviso that, should it stop working well for you consistently, you can reevaluate using the same methods. That way there is a systematic foundation for one's actions that fits within the underlying framework of Jewish practice (even if it doesn't always conform to contemporary modes of practice) rather than willy-nilly do-what-I-feel-like meh-ness (not that you engage in such meh-nadik practices.)

ter ya go. Integral halachah in a nutshell. "Help! My halachic process is in a nutshell!"

That explanation given, for some people that's not so important. But if you're talking to someone of another tradition about what you do then you'll be coming from a more versed and defensible position re: the relationship between your practice and Jewish tradition. Then again, if you're really well educated in Reform ideology you might not do so bad for urself in those types of convos either.

Forgive the shorthand. I'm in a playful mood.
 
dauer,

however did your halakhic process get into this nutshell? actually, integral stuff has come up for me separately today - you seem to know a bit about it, fancy starting a thread on it, or is it covered by the psycho-halakhah conversation?

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
BB,

however did your halakhic process get into this nutshell?
Click to expand...

It's a reference to Austin Powers.

actually, integral stuff has come up for me separately today - you seem to know a bit about it, fancy starting a thread on it, or is it covered by the psycho-halakhah conversation?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Some friends and colleagues advised Reb Zalman to change the name from psycho-halachic process to something else. He consulted a number of people and the independent, unanimous consensus was for integral halachah as a new name. A book was published called Integral Halachah which is probably the most thorough description of integral halachah including how it connects with traditional halachah, how it can be applied and Reb Zalman justifies that shift. Integral halachah is simply a re-branding of psycho-halachic process.

On the other hand, there are some people who have been strongly taken by Ken Wilber's integral philosophy. They've tried to apply his maps and ideas surrounding them to Judaism. That approach has been called integral Judaism and while the names are similar (and indeed, the people involved tend to have some connection to Reb Zalman) the two are separate. You'll probably remember I had a conversation with Gabbai Seth Fishman a while back. He has worked very closely with Reb Zalman and stated that the 'integral' in 'integral halachah' isn't a reference to Ken Wilber's work. Whether or not that's true, I can say that I don't see much concrete connection between descriptions of integral halacha and Ken's work. Reb Zalman does borrow some of Ken's frequent language (e.g. holon which a rabbi with an interest in integral judaism once told me is also dealt with by R' Kook) but then he tends to borrow language from a lot of different sources, either explicitly or implicitly, such as the concept of upaya or the NA teaching that one should consider the effects of decisions on the following seven generations. So I think the two probably deserve individual treatment. I don't know which you'd come across recently. I know a bit about integral halachah and I know a bit about wilber, but I'm not as versed in the way wilber has been applied to Judaism. I do have information on it at my apartment though that I could give a look over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top