The Theological Roots of Reform Judaism’s Woes

I found this article in Forward. 

I thought that it brought up a fundamental issue with the broader idea's inherent in liberal, multiculturalistic philosophies in general i.e. to stand for 'everything' is to stand for nothing.' For me personally that idea was always troubling and it lead me down the path of a more fundamentalistic thinking. I used to think that fundamentalism was inherently bad, now I see things differently, fundamentalism is wrong only when it causes people to become hateful and bigoted towards those who are not identical to them, but adhering to more conservative ideology as Mr. Kaplan points out below can be a source for real comfort and can form stronger more tightly knit communities. In any event, food for thought. 

Enjoy

The root of the problem facing liberal Judaism is theological. The pluralistic theologies of Reform Judaism make it difficult to reach consensus on what we Reform Jews believe on any given issue. The liberal approach to observance makes it impossible to set and maintain high expectations in terms of communal participation… As members focus on what they want rather than what they can contribute, it becomes increasingly difficult to build committed religious communities…The sociologist Rodney Stark has popularized the thesis that religious groups need a strict theology in order to make serious demands on their adherents and that these demands, in turn, make a religion more compelling.

Since a liberal theology leads to an emphasis on the autonomy of the individual, personal choice is inevitably promoted at the expense of the authority of God. In the absence of a strong theological basis for making religious demands, the members lose interest and wander off.

One might think that most people would prefer a congregation that allows each member to find his or her own comfort level rather than one that requires all sorts of obligations, theological as well as ritualistic. That is not necessarily true.

Yes, many potential members are deterred by high upfront demands. But for those who join, the commitment is much greater. Since most of the members in a demanding congregation are deeply committed and religiously active, the collective religious experience is much more fulfilling.

As the Reform movement has increasingly emphasized religious autonomy and the importance of choosing what each person finds spiritually meaningful, it has become impossible to compel members to come to services regularly, study Torah seriously and contribute to the vibrant well-being of their congregation.

R. Dana Evan Kaplan

Thinking outside of the box

Is it possible to be both ‘liberal’ and ‘frum’, I’m asking this question not because its incredibly original but because one of my best friends from yeshiva and I often have this conversation. It’s a tired subject in many ways but for those of us who have spent time learning Torah, who have made difficult and often painful changes to our lives in response to what we’ve learned it’s a pertinent question.

The short answer is yes it is possible, the easiest way to do it when someone asks about a controversial issue like gay marriage, or evolution or anything else is to say I don’t personally agree with it but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Its how I’ve managed to reconcile the opposition to many decisions I’ve made, you don’t have to agree you just have to accept that I’m making a valid choice for myself and I’m not asking you to make the same decision or to agree with me, just to accept me.

So again I ask the question is it possible to believe in the Torah, to accept it as truth, to live by it and still accept people who live in ways that are against it?

For this I’d like to point to a few sources first is Dov Bear, a wonderful writer who is both a god fearing Jew and a liberal, to quote:

Rav Sa'adya Gaon states in Emunot v'Deyot 7:2 there are four conditions under which the Torah is not to be taken according to its literal meaning (1) When the plain meaning is rejected by common experience, or your senses; (2) When it is repudiated by obvious logic; (3) When it is contradicted by scripture; or (4) When it is opposed by tradition.

My next source is Rabbi Schmuley Botach in is most recent article title “No Holds Barred: The Jewish view of homosexuality” he writes:

People of faith insist that homosexuality is the most serious of sins because the Bible calls it an abomination.

But the word appears approximately 122 times in the Bible. Eating nonkosher food is an abomination (Deuteronomy 14:3). A woman returning to her first husband after being married in the interim is an abomination (Deut. 24:4). And bringing a blemished sacrifice on God’s altar is an abomination (Deut. 17:1.). Proverbs goes so far as to label envy, lying and gossip as that which “the Lord hates and are an abomination to Him” (3:32, 16:22).

As an Orthodox rabbi who reveres the Bible, I do not deny the biblical prohibition on male same-sex relationships. Rather, I simply place it in context.

There are 613 commandments in the Torah. One is to refrain from gay sex. Another is for men and women to marry and have children. So when Jewish gay couples come to me for counselling and tell me they have never been attracted to the opposite sex in their entire lives and are desperately alone, I tell them, “You have 611 commandments left. That should keep you busy. Now, go create a kosher home with a mezuza on the door. Turn off the TV on the Sabbath and share your festive meal with many guests. Put on tefillin and pray to God three times a day, for you are His beloved children. He desires you and seeks you out.”

The mistake of so many well-meaning people of faith is to believe that homosexuality is a moral rather than a religious sin. A moral sin involves injury to an innocent party. But who is being harmed when two, unattached, consenting adults are in a relationship? Rather, homosexuality is akin to the prohibition of lighting fire on the Sabbath or eating bread during Passover. There is nothing immoral about it, but it violates the divine will.

Next up is the Rationalist Jew who quotes Rav Hirsh on the theory of evolution:

Even if this notion were ever to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Jewish thought, unlike the reasoning of the high priest of that nation (probably a reference to Thomas Huxley, who advocated Darwinism with missionary fervor—N.S.), would nonetheless never summon us to revere a still extant representative of this primal form (an ape—N.S.) as the supposed ancestor of us all. Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus, and one single law of “adaptation and heredity” in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures. (“The Educational Value of Judaism,” Collected Writings, vol. VII, p. 264)

To wrap this up, does one have to be a conservative to be an observant Jew? Absolutely not, all one must do it accept gods sovereignty, accept the Torah’s law as binding, and do their best to live their life accordingly, the rest is commentary.