From: Robert Shuster Subject: Fwd: Reform focus on Family THE JEWISH FAMILY TODAY opening remarks by Rabbi. Dow Marmur at the Conference on the Family held at Holy Blossom Temple on Sunday June 7, 1987. The Nature of Reform Since its inception Reform Judaism has been justifiably proud of its endeavours to bridge the gap between the dictates of tradition and the demands of contemporary life. in this way it has sought to make Judaism possible for a considerable sector of the Jewish population, particularly in emancipated Diaspora. Reform has sought to build the bridge between past and present on solid interpretation of the Bible, the Talmud and the Codes. However, when that proved insufficient or inconclusive, it has not been afraid to disregard the past for the sake of the future, i.e. it has been prepared - paradoxically - to go against tradition for the sake of continuity; it has courageously disregarded accepted norms and standards for the sake of enabling Jews to stay within the fold and thus transmit the basic tenets of their religious heritage to future generations. It is helpful to look at Reform variations and innovations in the realm of observance from this perspective. To mention one example only: the revolutionary changes that Reform has initiated with regard to the status of women. Jewish tradition is consistently patriarchal; contemporary reality is forcefully egalitarian; in order to bridge the gap between them, Reform has instituted a whole range of reforms, some based on new interpretations of tradition, others in open rebellion against established Jewish practice. In its effort to combine reverence with courage, Reform has come to revolutionize Judaism. We have every reason to be grateful for this. Judaism has survived precisely because previous generations have been prepared to re-interpret the sources when possible, and to disregard them or to institute new enactments on other occasions. The result has given us a dynamic living religion, not an antiquated museum-piece. Reform Judaism considers itself to follow the same line. Institutions However, Reform has not always been consistent. Thus despite its insistence on drastic changes to accommodate the new reality of equality between the sexes, it has been reluctant to introduce similar changes in the realm of Jewish family life. The presuppositions of most Reform congregations to this very day are those of a traditional bourgeois, patriarchal family. it is, for example, as difficult to belong to a Reform congregation, as it is to any other Jewish group, unless you have a spouse, children, a car and enough of an income to pay the dues. The fact that these criteria exclude a considerable proportion of the Jewish community is often conveniently forgotten, even when our official statements profess commitment to k'lal Israel, the whole community. Look only at Synagogue programming much of our work with children has the implicit purpose of affirming the conventional middle-class family. Our youth work is often centered around the prospect of Jewish boys meeting Jewish girls for the purpose of early marriage, and much of the present criticism of our youth work concentrates on our failure to supply children and grandchildren with suitable spouses. Our work with adult singles has the same aim. Our chavurot almost invariably consist of married couples. The most persistent complaint of those who, for one reason or another, have no family is that this fact also excludes them from the community, for it usually loses interest in them at the time when they need it most. Even our famed outreach programme is primarily directed to Jewish people about to get married to non-Jews; it does not pay equal attention to Jewish people who live outside the conventional family. It is, of course, possible to identify this inconsistency in Reform as a manifestation of its Victorian origins.There is much to suggest that Reform reticence in matters of the Jewish family has its roots in 19th century mores. One of my earlist surprises after coming to Toronto was that my wife, who had lost her surname in favour of mine some thirty years earlier when we were married, was now also to lose her first name other than for informal use. The letters she got from the Temple were not to Fredzia Marmur but to Mrs. Dow Marmur. It is not exactly a manifestation of professed Reform egalitarianism. However, there may be other reasons for this inconsistency than mere old-fashioned practice. Indeed, the refusal to submit to the Zeitgeist, the -spirit of the time, may have been a conscious effort not to jump on the bandwagon which would threaten the dissolution of the traditional family, characterized by such modern "givens" as promiscuity, the high rate of divorce,. homosexuality etc. After all, the task of every religious movement, however modernist,, is not only to bridge the gap between past and present but, at the same time, to act as a corrective to the present. In a world of free love, serial marriage, extra-marital sex and sexual experimentation it was important to have institutions which espoused traditional values and refused to fall victim to every Californian fad. In this way many Reform Jews were grateful for the Synagogue which enabled them to be selectively modern and, at the same time, selectively old-fashioned. Their leaders were proud of Rabbis who would officiate at mixed marriages in open violation of Jewish tradition, yet they would have been horrified had any of the same male Rabbis worn an earring, or lived with a woman without being married to her, or had a child with a woman other than his wife, or had a male lover, despite the fact that tradition may have been less harsh on some such behaviour than it is on conducting mixed marriages. But mixed marriages affirm the family, whereas the other behaviour threatens it, and we all know where our priorities are. I suggest that much of current Reform behaviour makes sense when viewed from this perspective: it is prepared to disregard tradition when it believes such disregard to further family life; it becomes remarkably traditional and conventional when it perceives family life to be in jeopardy. Does It Make Sense? Does it make sense? Are we really entitled to be unconventional in one context and conformist in another? I am not at all sure, and that is why I look forward to our gathering today. I know that our Key Note Address will offer us a basis for discussion and I hope that our discussion groups will be able to focus on specific issues of concern. To make myself absolutely clear: Judaism is consistently patriarchal and strongly family-based. After the destruction of the Second Temple, the home became the sanctuary and the parents - particularly the father - its priests. To have children is considered to be a very great mitsvah. To have any kind of physical contact with persons of the opposite sex, especially after marriage and specifically for married women and with married women, is considered to be a cardinal and a carnal sin. This system of values and practices does, of course, exclude many manifestations of contemporary sexual mores. The traditional way may have had its problems and hypocrisies, but it is not at all sure that the modern way is without its burdens and without its pretenses. And, as we now know, it can also be lethal because of AIDS. Yet, we must ask ourselves- whether the traditional norm can be maintained, or whether we have to accommodate ourselves to new conditions. If accommodation is necessary, it is, of course, only Reform Judaism that is capable of it; orthodoxy is not, and Conservative Judaism will only follow once Reform has blazed the trail. In being ready to reconsider old practices in the face of current needs, we do not necessarily have to hail modernity as superior to the old system. Thus when the early Reformers declared that kashrut was not essential for Jewish observance, they did not thereby declare trefa food to be superior. All they said was that, in the light of present circumstances, dietary observance is burdensome and that to continue to insist on it will prove more detrimental to Jewish life than to ignore it. I believe the same to have been the case with Sabbath observance and a whole range of other mitsvot. And should you tell me that this is indicative of the lack of conviction and backbone in Reform, I would respond by suggesting that such adaptability is characteristic of normative Judaism since its inception and that rigidity is a relatively new, and inauthentic, phenomenon in Judaism. To be adaptable and untraditional may turn out to be more in keeping with Jewish tradition than our opponents suggest. I am leading up to the obvious set of questions: in the light of what is happening around us today, should we not as a congregation consider some fundamental changes in our attitudes and our teachings? I desperately want to maintain the traditional. structure of Jewish family life, but I am no longer sure that consistency and integrity allows me to do so. I need your input to help me in my struggle, which I will try to put to good use in my work in and for Holy Blossom. Some Suggestions Shortly before I left Britain I had completed my task as the Chairman of a Working Party on the Family sponsored by the Reform Synagogues of Great Britain. Let me quote some of its recommendations, they may help to focus our deliberations: "Rabbinic and lay leaders should develop a philosophy which will acknowledge the reality of the diversity of family patterns in our midst, and the overall changes that have taken place in recent decades, while affirming our commitment to Jewish tradition and Halacha. The Reform movement should initiate a wide-ranging programme of education in human relationships and Jewish home life in general and marriage in particular. *Congregations'should make full use of suitably qualified people in their communities and of the services available in their localities. *Congregations should pay special attention to the needs of those who are outside the conventional family structure. This means that appropriate activities should form an integral part of every community's life. *The administrative machinery in each congregation should respond more fully to the needs of single people, one-parent families and others, thereby allowing them to be full and accepted members of the community. *Communities should recognise their responsibilities to members of families who -live under the strain of an unhappy marriage and, without meddling or judging, offer support to all concerned. *Congregations should make greater efforts to integrate would-be converts to Judaism, as well as those who have been recently converted, so that they do not feel strange and unwanted by the community. *Congregations should encourage Jews married to non-Jews to feel part of the community and bring their spouses to Synagogue services and other congregational activities." It is not the last word on the subject. In fact, the American Reform movement has created a Task Force to deal with similar issues. our aim today is to put the subject on the agenda of this congregation. I wish you success as I appeal for your input.