Reform Reflections: Impressionists and Realists

Earlier last week history was made in Jerusalem. In a city in which history has been a cottage industry for three millennia, this is in itself not too much of a surprise. But the kind of history I am referring to is worthy of note in any case.

The first ever serious academic conference on Reform Judaism in Israel took place. The Van Leer Institute, a highly prestigious center of research and public debate, initiated and hosted the conference, which attracted leading scholars from around the world - or at least from Israel and from the United States (the next conference of this kind will need to spend more time on the local varieties of this species to be found in South America, South Africa, Australasia, and Europe. And by the end of the century, we will no doubt be holding interplanetary seminars).

This was not a conference of the Reform Movement, like the 5,000-strong Biennial of the Union of Reform Judaism, which was held just a few days earlier in San Diego. True, there were a number of leading intellectuals, academics and institutional leaders from our Movement there - the presence of Rabbi Eric Yoffie and his speech in good Hebrew were both particularly impressive. Scholars from the Hebrew Union College like Prof. Michael Meyer, a leading light in modern Jewish history and the premier historian of the movement; Prof. Mark Washofsky, a pioneer in the field of Reform Halakha, and others clearly identified with the Movement were involved.

Alongside them, however, and for the first time in this country, was a high-ranking group of scholars in a variety of fields and from a variety of religious backgrounds, all dedicated to exploring the phenomenon of Reform Judaism in Israel and in North America. This was neither a rally in favor of Reform, nor a demonstration against us: instead, it started from the premise that a people as small as ours cannot afford to ignore one of the most vibrant and massive groups within it. You might believe that it's a major contribution to the health of the Jewish people, or perhaps that it is itself the disease. In either case, ignoring it and pretending it will go away doesn't sound like much of a plan.

There were, broadly speaking, three fields or disciplines which were most prominent during the two days of deliberations: sociology, history and theology. The first tribe presented the audience (who were in the room, but thanks to the wonders of Internet, spread out around the world) with a sometimes dizzying array of statistics, as well as other forms of qualitative research. Some of the talks were hard for Reform Jews to hear: as Rabbi Yoffie said in his remarks at the end of the conference, on occasion this discomfort was caused by the fact that the criticisms and warning signs were accurate, and on occasion because they were not. In the main, the picture presented by the sociologists was of a mass movement with a hard core much smaller than the enormous periphery. Some interpreted this as a worrying dilution of the Movement's message and practice, while others celebrated the strength of a movement in Judaism capable of reaching populations others find it more difficult to reach. Discussing the condition of Reform Judaism in Israel, the sociologists grappled with the potential for our kind of Judaism to make significant inroads here. Again, for some present at the conference this is a fond dream, and for others something of a nightmare (or at least an undesirable outcome). But that did not stop us talking, researching, learning, and thinking together.

The historians helped put into perspective the changing trends within the Movement over the last two centuries, while the theologians raised challenging questions about the quest of the Reform Movement for authenticity and relevance.

I had the honour (I don't know as a Brit if I should insist that this word be written the way the Queen would understand) of responding to a fascinating session in which the question of how Orthodoxy, Conservative, and Israeli secular expressions of Judaism have interacted and been influenced by Reform. A number of important, difficult and challenging things were said, and it was a joy to participate in a discussion which was neither saccharine nor cyanide.

One of the most fascinating papers at the conference had used examples taken from the visual arts to discuss Reform theology and liturgy, and I returned to this metaphor in my remarks. I said that if Reform Judaism is a picture, then some regard it simply as a fake: it is a bad copy of the genuine article, its rabbis are imposters, it is devoid of value. Others regard it, somewhat patronizingly, as a kind of primitive art: an honest but clumsy attempt to express some of the eternal truths of Judaism.Yet others would brand it as kitsch, a gaudy and cheap representation of Torah truths.

We see ourselves in a different way. We believe that our effort to understand and live out Judaism is like an impressionistic painting. And Compared to realist art, it is not less true: it just aims to express that truth in a different way, using a different medium. At a time of crisis in Jewish life and in the world (when has there not been a crisis?), we cannot afford to spend our time which Art is Right and which is Wrong. This is not about winning, but rather about acting in the world to promote Jewish teaching, Jewish doing and Jewish being.

The conference this week was a great start: now we need to continue to explore the good, the bad, and the ugly of Reform Judaism. Criticism and self-criticism, after all, are usually the best guarantee of Great Art.