Reform

[dauer]

Poh,

I've been trying my best to follow these dialogues and now I am really lost. I tried to chart everything on a grid from left to right (left = liberal right = conservative) and then tried to list all the primary tenents of each. But when I started seeing reform-renewal, conservative-renewal, renewal-renewal, plan old renewal I knew this started to look like a fractal of some sort (probably not a good reference, but that is what comes to mind).

I think that one of the difficulties with this type of discussion is that we're witnessing a transition within the Jewish community away from denominationalism. I don't think this means that the denominations are going to disappear but that the lines that divide are becoming much fuzzier and what we're left with will feel much less institutionalized. But my sense of the community is that most people don't strongly identify with a denomination anymore. They might identify with a community and that community may identify with a denomination but that is a different matter.

what do you see as the common denominator in all of the various forms of Judiasm.

That's a very good and very difficult question. We could say that the mitzvot are central, but the mitzvot are understood differently in different communities and are related to in different ways. The central things seem to me to be the Jewish cycles of the week, month and year, Torah study and a willingness to wrestle with the meaning and relevance of tradition. I'm not sure there's any movement whose ideals exclude any of the above. Conclusions and methodologies however may vary.

 

[wil]

As an outsider to me the commonality of all Judaism is the traditions...they may vary some but to me there are certain things Jewish families do...

Now on the high holy days what exactly that looks like may vary greatly, but something is done, something that has a commonality, prayers, traditions, stories that you know that when you run into another Jew that they had similar events happen in their homes.

To me the commanality is that you know that their mother told them very similar things to what your mother told you....over and over again...year after year.

 

[Avi]

To add a little to the discussion... I stop by a congregation occasionally and they call themselves liberal/independent. Depending on the Friday night it seems to me you can encounter anything from Renewal to Reconstruction to Reform service... For more description:
JIRS: Bethesda Jewish Congregation
Bethesda Jewish Congregation - An Independent Liberal Synagogue - Home

What a neat thing to do !! That is true interfaith spirit !!

 

[Avi]

Another interesting Google book by Borowitz:

Explaining Reform Judaism - Google Books

 

[wil]

What a neat thing to do !! That is true interfaith spirit !!

Oh more than that, they started by sharing space in a Presbytarian Church, eventually had an agreement to share the 'lobby' and build their own building adjacent so they have their own synagogue, but they are still attached... and in the lobby/narthex/gathering area whatever you call it is the Ketubah, the marriage contract between the Christian and Jewish congregations. They also have have been nurturing a relationship with a Mosque and the three groups spend each others holy days in celebration together....

Now to me...this is the 'Reform' we need.

 

[Avi]

Oh more than that, they started by sharing space in a Presbytarian Church, eventually had an agreement to share the 'lobby' and build their own building adjacent so they have their own synagogue, but they are still attached... and in the lobby/narthex/gathering area whatever you call it is the Ketubah, the marriage contract between the Christian and Jewish congregations. They also have have been nurturing a relationship with a Mosque and the three groups spend each others holy days in celebration together....

Now to me...this is the 'Reform' we need.

Wil, this is a very unique situation. Although I am aware of trans-denominational synogogues forming all over the country, I have not heard of them taking adjacent space with churches. This is very novel idea, indeed.

Dauer is more up on these type of developments, especially on the East Coast. I will be interested in his perspective of this development.

 

[dauer]

I don't have much of a perspective on it. Wil's mentioned it before. Sounds cool, nothing I've heard of happening in other places.

 

[bananabrain]

I think that one of the difficulties with this type of discussion is that we're witnessing a transition within the Jewish community away from denominationalism. I don't think this means that the denominations are going to disappear but that the lines that divide are becoming much fuzzier and what we're left with will feel much less institutionalized. But my sense of the community is that most people don't strongly identify with a denomination anymore. They might identify with a community and that community may identify with a denomination but that is a different matter.

exactly. the people i daven with are not the people i learn with, who are not the people where my wife takes the kids, who are not the people i hang out with, because you can't get all of this in one place and frankly so much the better.

and in the lobby/narthex/gathering area whatever you call it is the Ketubah, the marriage contract between the Christian and Jewish congregations. They also have have been nurturing a relationship with a Mosque and the three groups spend each others holy days in celebration together....Now to me...this is the 'Reform' we need.

that might be a bit radical for some tastes, but i can see what they're doing. i believe the ketubah part would be way too big a step for me - and i'm pretty liberal when it comes to interfaith stuff - anything that smacks of, as avi calls it, "trans-denominational synagogues" starts to get far too close to syncretism for my liking.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

exactly. the people i daven with are not the people i learn with, who are not the people where my wife takes the kids, who are not the people i hang out with, because you can't get all of this in one place and frankly so much the better.

There was some quote I saw on an old friend's FB kinda like that. Lemme see...

Here it is:

"It is my personal tragedy that the people I daven with, I cannot talk to, and the people I talk to I cannot daven with. However, when the chips are down, I will always side with the people I daven with for I can live without talking. I cannot live without davening."

Attributed to David Weiss-HaLivni and sometimes Ernst Simon. Bit of a diff vibe. He's at YU currently at RIETS. The vibe of the quote seems more or less, davennen trumps everything else, so those are the people I go to, as opposed to, I go here for this, there for that, and it works out better that way.

i believe the ketubah part would be way too big a step for me - and i'm pretty liberal when it comes to interfaith stuff - anything that smacks of, as avi calls it, "trans-denominational synagogues" starts to get far too close to syncretism for my liking.

Well if it were transdenom, as the term is usually used, we're just talking about the intra-faith stuffs. What they'd doing isn't trans-denom. It's trans-religion, very UU-ish. Actually, while I probably am not nearly as bothered by their activities as you are, I do think that the language of the ketubah for this is a bit weird and might turn off some folks who would otherwise support their activities. However, I think the use of the word ketubah must be largely figurative because the language of the ketubah would make little sense to refer to two religious communities sharing the same roof.

 

[wil]

I'll have to see the language of their ketubah, I know the contract is hanging on the wall, all dressed up nicely....I don't know if they have an electronic version I could provide.

When they first formed the Jewish congregation used the sanctuary on Friday nights and Saturday mornings and shared some office space. I've seen that in a couple places...recently heard of one where the synagogue was in money trouble folks moving out as neighborhood evolved. But the ones that reamained did not want to move or give up their place of worship...so it is reverse, they rent it out to a Christian congregation on Sundays.

But the one I've attended now has seperate places of worship, a number of interfaith couples, and they let goy like me in, but on some occasions still use the church due to size restrictions...

 

[Raksha]

To answer the original question: Yes, there's another Reform Jew here. My religious education was at an American Reform temple. There wasn't nearly enough of it, but it made a deep impression on me and it stuck, even through long periods of alienation from Judaism.

Reform Judaism is still my "mainstream" affiliation, although left to my own devices I prefer cutting-edge Jewish Renewal, preferably of the Jewiccan variety. But considering my transportation problems and the spread-out geography of Southern California, it's ALL a matter of what I can physically get to. Nowadays Reform Judaism is the most conservative brand of religion I will tolerate at all, so lately I've started showing up at the local Reform temple because it's right up the street from me. After some very heavy involvement with a Christian Gnostic group years ago, I find I really enjoy being among my own people again. It's such a relief not having to constantly explain myself, or worse yet defend myself for simply being who I am.

Which is not to say I reject the Gnostic group or Gnosticism itself. It still has great meaning for me, and I'd still participate in the group if I could get there. Although I think nowadays I'd be more critical of the heavily Christian emphasis of that particular group, which was always a bad fit for me. I have since learned that it isn't even necessary, considering that Gnosticism originally developed among the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria. In the beginning it wasn't Christian AT ALL--and couldn't be, because its essential features evolved before there was such a thing as Christianity. It only took on its Christian coloring later on.

So yeah, I guess I'd have to say that Reform Judaism is my spiritual "home base." It's where I started from and where I returned.

--Linda

 

[Avi]

Reform Judaism is still my "mainstream" affiliation, although left to my own devices I prefer cutting-edge Jewish Renewal, preferably of the Jewiccan variety.

Hi Linda, how have you been ? I did not know Renewal had a Jewiccan variety. Can you please tell us more about what this means ??

I apologize if we discussed some of this before, it seems like we did so. I remember you saying your daughter was Wiccan (I think). I tried to find it in the earlier thread, but could not.

After some very heavy involvement with a Christian Gnostic group years ago,..

Which is not to say I reject the Gnostic group or Gnosticism itself. It still has great meaning for me, and I'd still participate in the group if I could get there.

Although I think nowadays I'd be more critical of the heavily Christian emphasis of that particular group, which was always a bad fit for me. I have since learned that it isn't even necessary, considering that Gnosticism originally developed among the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria. In the beginning it wasn't Christian AT ALL--and couldn't be, because its essential features evolved before there was such a thing as Christianity. It only took on its Christian coloring later on.

It sounds like you have had an interesting spiritual journey. If Gnosticism was a "bad fit because of its heavily Christian emphasis", what motivated your "heavy involvement" ?

 

[Raksha]

It sounds like you have had an interesting spiritual journey. If Gnosticism was a "bad fit because of its heavily Christian emphasis", what motivated your "heavy involvement" ?

Avi,

It wasn't Gnosticism that was a bad fit for me. I have totally internalized the Gnostic mythos and it's very much a part of me now. I said it was the Christian emphasis of that particular group that was such a bad fit for me. It wasn't even the Christian symbolism that bothered me, but the dualism and the emphasis on transcendence, which I consider characteristic of Christianity. I KNOW a lot of people say dualism entered Christianity through the Gnostic influence, but I don't see it as being necessary at all. I was always most drawn to the monistic Valentinian school and not to Manichaeanism and its offshoots. Although Catharism (for the short time it was allowed to exist) seems to have worked out a lot better in practice than in theory, which is more than you can say for most religions.

What motivated my heavy involvement was my devotion to the "lost goddess," whose Greek name is Sophia and whose Hebrew name is Chokmah...among other things. I'm finally reading The Hebrew Goddess by Raoul Patai. Better late than never, huh?

--Linda

 

[Avi]

Some interesting thoughts, Linda.

I am getting ready for a trip, will check back shortly.

 

[dauer]

Linda,

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts when you finish The Hebrew Goddess.

 

[Raksha]

Dauer,

Be careful what you wish for!

You're very likely to hear my thoughts BEFORE I finish it, because I'm only in the first chapter (about Asherah) and I have some very strong opinions about it already. My first impression is that I've been HAD, and we've all been had by traditional Jewish education (all denominations). This book was first published in 1967, and its thesis is totally supported by the archaeological record. So why is it not required reading in all confirmation classes, or at least post-confirmation classes? Why are we being sold the same old bill of goods about so-called "idolatry"? I mean...well over 30 years since the first woman was ordained to the rabbinate, and they are STILL trying to make us believe our ancestors didn't worship goddesses? WHY???

I have some very definite opinions about all that, as you well imagine.

--Linda

 

[dauer]

Linda,

it gets interesting later in the book when Patai tries to show how goddess worship could never be entirely squashed. Also, when he discusses the Divine feminine in kabbalah and the archetypal ways in which she's represented, he suggests that she has more in common with ancient near eastern goddesses than some of the more familiar western models. I should stop talking though because I know you'll get there eventually and probably have a lot more to say.

 

[bananabrain]

I mean...well over 30 years since the first woman was ordained to the rabbinate, and they are STILL trying to make us believe our ancestors didn't worship goddesses? WHY???

i don't quite understand. as a bit of a fan of this book, there was very little in there that surprised me - surely the point about idolatry is that it is pretty well established that the biblical israelites were totally prone to indulge in that sort of thing at the drop of a stone tablet. the sources are very clear that all sorts of unsavoury pagan stuff used to go on and it wasn't till at least the end of the first Temple period that monotheism really got the upper hand given the continuing presence of the seven nations in canaan. of course, there seems from what i remember very little to suggest that the archaeological evidence is "the real story the Big Beardy Patriarchal Types don't want you to hear" as opposed to confirming precisely what the Tanakh says, namely that the land was completely chock-full of idolatry and idol-worshippers. of course our ancestors used to worship goddesses and just about anything else. what you should be asking is "was that a 'bad' thing and, if so, why? how is it different from the 'good' stuff? what, fundamentally, does the normative tradition actually object to?" now, given the extremely important and strong female aspects of the G!DHead (if that's the word i want) at all points during the development of the religion, at what point did we either do such a stupid thing as to split G!D in two, or start thinking of G!D as "male"? what is bolstering this sort of silliness in all denominations of judaism nowadays?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Raksha]

I don't quite understand. as a bit of a fan of this book, there was very little in there that surprised me - surely the point about idolatry is that it is pretty well established that the biblical israelites were totally prone to indulge in that sort of thing at the drop of a stone tablet.

BB,

One question: How do you define "idolatry"? Do you equate idolatry with goddess worship?

This isn't a real answer to your post, and it isn't a further commentary on The Hebrew Goddess either. I find I can't do either of those things because I'm PO'd at you. A few weeks ago, I was lurking on this board (I didn't post at that time) and I became aware (again) of the extreme contrast between the way you relate to Dauer and the way you relate to me. It's painfully obvious that you consider him an equal, but with me you're patronizing and sarcastic. And it's NOT like you don't disagree with him, because you disagree with him quite often but you still never take that tone with him.

What I really mean is that certain arguments and certain examples simply would never come up with Dauer because you'd know you could never get them past him. An example: There is one particular post of yours that I haven't been able to get out of my head since I started reading The Hebrew Goddess. It may have been on the Abrahamic Religions topic and not on the Judaism topic. I'll see if I can find it so you can see exactly what I'm talking about.

I remember that I had said something about the female judges and prophetesses of the pre-monarchical period, the few that are recorded in the Tanakh. I had Deborah in mind especially, although I may not have mentioned that. Anyway, I said something to the effect that we have no reason to believe the female judges condemned goddess worship. And you answered, "Why not, if it was wrong?"

Yesterday I read over the story of Deborah from the book of Judges, from my antiquated JPS translation of the Tanakh, keeping in mind everything I had been reading in The Hebrew Goddess especially about Astarte, who was a goddess of love and war. Fortunately, the story doesn't show much evidence of patriachal revisionism or rewriting (as far as I can tell anyway) so it isn't hard to figure out that she was a very influential person, and not only a judge and prophetess but most likely a priestess of Astarte--possibly Asherah but most likely Astarte in her character as war goddess.

I am 95% sure of it, and just because the Tanakh doesn't mention it doesn't mean it wasn't so. Whoever did the final editing was not about to admit that any Israelite woman was a priestess of any Canaanite goddess. But it would certainly explain why Barak insisted on her presence in a critical battle...which was her idea in the first place!

The point I'm making here is that looking at the story in the actual historical context as far as we can reconstruct it, there is just NO WAY any Israelite of the period (male or female) would have considered goddess worship "wrong," least of all a highly influential priestess.

I'm not just saying that I utterly reject your argument, because it's beyond that. I'm saying that you should not have used that argument with me AT ALL, and the fact that you did shows a very basic lack of respect for me. You were taking advantage of my ignorance, and the fact I had not YET read The Hebrew Goddess.

of course our ancestors used to worship goddesses and just about anything else. what you should be asking is "was that a 'bad' thing and, if so, why? how is it different from the 'good' stuff? what, fundamentally, does the normative tradition actually object to?"

That's precisely what I *AM* asking! But don't go using arguments from authority with me again unless you can back them up from outside sources. I don't claim to have the kind of solid background in Judaism that you and Dauer do. I don't read Hebrew and my Jewish education was spotty and incomplete, as I'm the first to admit. Most of what I've learned since my teens has been through reading on my own. But when you use these arguments from authority with me when you already know I reject them, you are simply insulting my intelligence. I can see you starting to do it all over again, and that's why I'm calling you on it.

--Linda

 

[iBrian]

with me you're patronizing and sarcastic.

Oh, he's like that with everyone.

But he carries it with a dry humour, that if you recognise and work with, makes his posts both intelligent and entertaining, rather than challenging.

I think.