PITTSBURGH — The Reform movement’s controversial “Statement of Principles” — new guidelines recommending that congregants follow more Jewish traditions, keep Shabbat and learn Hebrew — was adopted Wednesday by a huge margin of the movement’s rabbis.
“I’m very happy for all Reform Jews,” said Rabbi Martin Weiner of San Francisco’s Reform Congregation Sherith Israel.
Speaking by phone from Pittsburgh, where the Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis approved the document, Weiner said “the ‘Principles’ sets a very positive course for the future of Reform Judaism. I think it already captures the spirit of where most Reform Jews are.”
The much-anticipated “Statement of Principles” is not explicitly maintain that Jews should wear kippot and keep kosher
.The two-page statement, which seeks to spell out just exactly what Reform Judaism is about, was discussed for nearly two years, underwent six drafts, garnered more than 30 amendments, and sparked heated debate among Reform rabbis and their congregants.
After further 11th-hour wrangling, the CCAR passed the document at its annual convention in Pittsburgh by a vote of 324-68, with nine abstentions.
The statement seeks to reverse the movement’s 1885 Pittsburgh Platform, which stridently rejected Jewish tradition and rituals. The last time the CCAR’s platform was modified was 1976.
The latest revision aims to redefine Reform Judaism for the coming years: celebrating the movement’s growing acceptance of tradition and spirituality while reaffirming its longtime commitment to inclusion, social action and diversity of thought.
Among other things, the document:
*Affirms the importance of studying Hebrew.
*Promotes lifelong Jewish learning.
*Calls for observance of commandments “that address us as individuals and as a community.”
*Urges observance in some form of Shabbat and holidays.
*Encourages tikkun olam, which the Reform movement emphasizes as social action, and tzedakah, or charitable giving.
Earlier drafts of the principles, including a version that appeared in Reform Judaism magazine six months ago, specified other mitzvot, such as observing kashrut and wearing kippot and tallitot “in the presence of God.”
In the end, a document very different from the original was adopted by the Reform rabbis; many rabbis at the Pittsburgh gathering believed it had been diluted too much.
The seemingly endless revisions made for a “pareve” document with little energy or inspiration, critics said.
But Rabbi Richard Levy, outgoing president of the CCAR, called the adoption of the principles a “wonderful moment for Reform Jews.”
Levy, who had authored the Reform Judaism magazine piece and had been pictured on the cover wearing a kippah and tallit, said the document “will liberate Reform Jews to say there is nothing in the Torah which is barred to me.”
When asked to respond to critics who said it was watered down from his original version, Levy said, “What was passed was a statement that reflected the large number of Reform Jews.”
Weiner applauded the revision process, saying it created “a moderate and honest statement developed by a democratic process. There is nothing here that my members will be troubled by.”
Rabbi Steven Chester of Temple Sinai, Oakland’s Reform synagogue, heartily welcomed the passage of the principles. “Some people were afraid we are becoming more traditional,” Chester said by phone from Pittsburgh. “But I think all the principles do is give ‘permission’ for Reform Jews to be more traditional if they choose.”
Since the publication of Levy’s article, the principles had sparked debates about the identity of Reform Judaism, which claims more American Jews than any other movement.
As rabbis and lay leaders discussed and revised the principles at official meetings, rank-and-file Reform Jews sounded off on the Internet.
In response to its request for feedback, the Reform Judaism magazine Web site received approximately 70 pages of comments from Reform Jews throughout North America.
Some respondents were supportive.
“I think without some kind of standards Reform Judaism will lose its standing in the world Jewish community and either break off as its own religion or eventually disappear,” Ellen Lerner of Rochester, N.Y., wrote.
But the majority were critical, voicing fears that encouraging traditional mitzvot would soon give way to coercion and blur the lines between Reform and Conservative Judaism.
“If I wanted this much dogma, I’d be a Conservative Jew,” wrote Don Rothschild of Denver.
“I feel disenfranchised by my own religion,” wrote Barbara Stern of Winchester, Va. “It is beginning to feel like the only option that will be open to classical Reform Jews is the Unitarian Church, an option that will not be spiritually satisfying for many reasons.”
Jean Hecht of Binghamton, N.Y., wrote: “Such principles, while they may have lofty goals, will only serve to turn off potential members. All the CCAR leadership is doing is to create a controversy where none existed before.”
The board of one Reform temple, Lakeside Congregation in suburban Chicago, even passed a resolution urging the CCAR not to vote on any statement of principles.
Many rabbis in Pittsburgh expressed disappointment with the way the platform had been changed.
“The principles now are not particularly substantive,” said Rabbi Richard Kirschen, assistant director of the University of Michigan Hillel in Ann Arbor.
“I want a document that reflects who I am as a Reform rabbi, and this doesn’t.”
While both supporters and opponents complained of the statement’s blandness, many acknowledged that insipidness is the fate of any committee-written document.
They also said that the Reform movement’s rank-and-file members might not yet be ready for something stronger and that the statement should be viewed as a beginning, rather than the last word on Reform Judaism.
The movement’s commitment to diversity of thought was highlighted during Tuesday night’s lively — if prolonged — discussion on proposed amendments at the CCAR convention.
One of the most heated discussions surrounded an amendment involving the intermarried.
The amendment, which initially implied openness to all intermarried families, was changed — after much debate — to a carefully worded statement saying, “We are an inclusive community, opening doors to Jewish life to people of all ages, to varied kinds of families, to all regardless of their sexual orientation, to gerim, those who have converted to Judaism, and to all individuals and families, including the intermarried, who strive to create a Jewish home.”
Throughout the debate, shouts, ayes and nays alternated with laughter and applause. Exasperated by requests for new amendments and re-votes, Levy, the author of the statement’s original draft called out, “People, we cannot keep changing our minds!”
There also was discord on whether “encouraging” immigration to Israel would render American Judaism extinct. The rabbis voted that it would not.
Although the debate was initially allotted a modest two hours, it quickly became clear Tuesday that the discussion on the statement would spill over. At 5:30 p.m., with only a handful of the proposed amendments discussed, the rabbis voted — after much squabbling on details — to adjourn until 8 p.m.
Even the document’s detractors praised the lengthy process, with many noting it had served as a catalyst for much-needed soul searching.
“I’m glad the gravity is being taken seriously and it’s not just being rammed through,” said Rabbi Lance Sussman, who had sent numerous e-mails on the CCAR’s Internet discussion group arguing against the “Statement of Principles.
A professor of Jewish history at the State University of New York-Binghamton, Sussman said he opposed the document because he was “bothered by the fact that it was brought here to Pittsburgh in essence to repudiate what a former generation did under different circumstances.
“It’s like being angry at a deceased grandparent,” said Sussman. “This is too much too fast for too many people in the movement.”
But in the end, Sussman was a minority voice.
The vote, which occurred at Temple Rodeph Shalom, the largest Reform temple in Pittsburgh, reflected a consensus view among the rabbis that some statement was necessary, even if it wasn’t everyone’s ideal.
“If compromises weren’t made, a lot of lay people would have been turned off,” said Chester.
“I would never want anyone to feel they don’t belong in the movement. The purpose of the principles is to include and not exclude.”