| Rabbi Arnold Gluck Moral relativism is anathema to Judaism. The Torah begins with God creating a morally grounded universe in which human beings are created in the Divine image knowing right from wrong and capable of fulfilling God's demand that we "do what is good and right in the eyes of God (Deuteronomy 12:28)." God condemns Cain for killing Abel (Genesis 4:8-12), sends the great flood to destroy the world because of human lawlessness (Genesis 6-7), and calls Abraham to enter into a covenant with the expectation that Abraham would "instruct his descendents to keep the way of God by doing what is just and right (Genesis 18:19)."
We humans often struggle to understand what is right and what God expects of us in a given situation, but our faith tells us that some things are right and some are wrong, and something—namely, God—makes it that way. To embrace moral relativism is to grant legitimacy to the perpetrators of unspeakable evil. For if all truth is relative, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? What makes the incineration of garbage different from the burning of human flesh in the crematoria? In a morally neutral universe there is no basis other than the preponderance of human opinion. Rabbi Sternfield may disagree with the Pope's condemnation of moral relativism; I do not.
Religious relativism, like moral relativism, is also incompatible with Judaism. The core Jewish concept of "covenant" means that we have entered into a relationship with God. Like all true relationships, be they marital, communal, or ecclesiastical, this covenant makes demands upon us that we must accept in order to maintain the relationship. We cannot do whatever we want. We have covenantal responsibilities, otherwise known as mitzvot, that define the nature and boundaries of our lives as husbands and wives, as members of communities, and as Jews.
This does not mean that we relinquish our individuality or cede our conscience. By definition, a covenant must be mutual, and thus cannot be absolutist. This is why, in Genesis 18, God informs Abraham of the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorra. God expects Abraham and his descendents to practice justice and righteousness, so God invites Abraham to examine God's justice. And Abraham does not disappoint. He challenges God, demanding that the innocent be spared: "Shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly? (Genesis 18:25)"
To be a religious person means to willingly constrain our autonomy, our will, to enter into a relationship with God. To be a religious Jew means to accept God's will as binding upon us by embracing the mitzvotas part of the covenant of Israel.
In the context of Reform Judaism, this explains why the Union for Reform Judaism rejected an application for membership from a secular humanist congregation some years ago. Reform is pluralistic; it allows for a variety of understandings of our religious duty. But as a form of religious Judaism, denial of God is beyond the ken. Were Reform relativistic, the URJ's ruling in this case would have been indefensible.
It is equally wrong to characterize halachic Judaism as absolutist. The very name of this forum, Eilu V'eilu, comes from a protracted Talmudic debate between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, which ends when a voice from heaven declares, "Eilu v'eilu divrei Elohim chaim." "These and these are both the words of the living God, but the law is according to Hillel. (Babylonian Talmud Eruvin 13b)" If the law is according to Hillel, why declare both positions to be the word of God? Jewish law is filled with nuance; the Talmud records both majority and minority opinions because Judaism is a multi-vocal tradition. It is open to a range of legitimate interpretations, and today's minority might become tomorrow's majority.
Rabbinic Judaism, of which Reform is a liberal variety, has always had a dynamic quality. It has been able to evolve and change with the needs of different times and circumstances. If this were not the case, Judaism would never have survived the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 CE. It did survive, thanks to the bold creativity of the Sages who taught the Oral Law (which became the Mishnahand theTalmud), replaced sacrifice with prayer, and crafted the Passover seder. They found ways to revitalize Judaism that were neither absolutist nor relativist, and so can we.
I believe that Judaism in our day is diminished by absolutism at both ends of the religious spectrum. On the liberal side is what Rabbi Sternfield calls "relativism." This approach to Judaism elevates individual autonomy to a degree that leaves little if any room for a sense of covenantal obligation. When neither God, nor tradition, nor community make any compelling claim upon us—when we "make things up and call them Judaism"—we have turned away from our religious heritage. On the far right side of the spectrum are forms of Jewish fundamentalism that stifle the pluralistic dynamic of rabbinic Judaism. I disagree with Rabbi Sternfield when he paints all forms of Orthodoxy with this brush, but I believe he is right in characterizing some of them as absolutist.
Those whom Rabbi Sternfield labels as "traditionalists" in the Reform movement are neither absolutists nor relativists. Neither do we have any interest in becoming Orthodox or Conservative Jews. We are pluralists who seek to live committed Jewish lives in vibrant Jewish communities where Jewish observance is valued, Jewish learning is passionate, and Jewish values guide our daily lives. | Rabbi Michael Sternfield I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my respected colleague, Rabbi Gluck. His essay concerning the matter of standards for Reform Judaism is an excellent reflection of current mainstream Reform Judaism. He is correct that our movement, through the responsa of its rabbis and the documents of the Union for Reform Judaism, attempts to bring some order to the undeniably diverse observances of both individuals and congregations. However, unlike in other religious groups that take their orders from the top down, Reform Jews are a free-thinking lot. Even the most revered Reform schlolar's responsum would be unlikely to carry the day, strictly on "say-so." Incidentally, this is the way it has always been throughout Judaism. Jewish practice evolves over a long period of time. The rabbis offer their learned opinions, but in the long run, the people decide.
Rabbi Gluck's states: "I would argue that the disparity between Reform Jewish vision and practice is far too great, for both our movement and the Jewish people as a whole." He is correct, but perhaps not exactly for the reasons he suggests. He postulates:"Too many of our members join our ranks because of the perception that Reform requires very little Jewish commitment." I see it differently. It is my view that many people identify with Reform Judaism because it closely parallels both their mind-set and their lifestyle. Reform Judaism's emphasis on liberal Jewish values, its commitment to rational faith, the primacy of social justice over ritual, and perhaps most important of all, the right of each Reform Jew to decide for himself/herself in matters of religious practice: these are what have made Reform Judaism into the dynamic faith community that it is.
Reform Judaism's great strength, and also its admitted weakness, is that we are pro-choice, to borrow an overused phrase. If there are overarching standards for Reform Judaism, it is that each of us is obligated to choose, based both on knowledge and personal preference. Certainly, it is the responsibility of the rabbis and the institutions of Reform Judaism to educate our people about Jewish values and traditional observances. It is then the responsibility of the individual to make an informed choice. Rabbi Gluck is correct when he states; "Even those who feel bound to live out our covenantal relationship with God by observing the mitzvot must decide which mitzvot are incumbent upon us and which are not." However, the very way in which he expresses this principle is very telling. If the mitzvot really are religious obligations as conveyed by God in the Torah, then there should be no matter of deciding. However, Reform Judaism has never accepted that all 613 commandments in the Torah are God-given, let alone that halachah also is of Divine origin. He adds: "The time has come for a shift in Reform religious consciousness to place a higher value on Jewish observance as mitzvah, as personal religious obligation." In stating this, Rabbi Gluck makes a gigantic leap into the past, along with many of today's Reform rabbis and leaders. In my opinion, the neo-traditionalism that has been embraced by much of the Reform movement is out of synch with the lives and minds of many Reform Jews. The bifurcation between home and synagogue is undeniable. Rabbi Gluck acknowledges this. The synagogues are embracing greater tradition, as evidenced by the new Reform siddur "Mishkan T'filah," while home observance continues to erode.
We have all heard various Jews describe themselves as "very Reformed," [sic.] meaning that they are almost completely non-observant. This cliché is likely to be repeated even more frequently as the Reform movement attempts to impose more and more traditional standards, which are unlikely to be followed in private.
I must add this: To tell today's Reform Jews that they should observe this or that because it is tradition is really no answer at all. Traditions are various practices that people do because they have been done in the past. However, just because certain practices were done in years past is no justification for their continuation or reinstatement. I will provide only a single example. Reform Judaism, since its inception, has stressed the importance of worshiping in the language which we understand. In the United States, Reform services have been predominantly in English. And yet, with every passing year, the services offered in many Reform congregations are more and more in Hebrew, a language sacred to all Jews, but understood by very few Reform Jews. The rationale often provided for the trend back to Hebrew is tradition, which I regard as a non-reason. Apparently, our movement has decided to dispense with thoughtful worship in favor of traditionalism. In doing so, it has discarded one of the most important principles of our movement. We certainly should have no objection to rabbis and congregations attempting to raise the bar on personal and public observance. However, these attempts need to be expressed as options, not as obligations and must always be accompanied by answering the question "why?" To say that certain practices are to be embraced because they are more traditional does not answer the question. There is no easy solution, but I believe we are most true to the cherished values of Reform Judaism by stressing both knowledge AND the right of the individual to decide. |
No comments:
Post a Comment