Table Of ContentRESPONSE TO MODERNITY
This page intentionally left blank
RESPONSE
TO MODERNITY
A History of the Reform
Movement in Judaism
MICHAEL A. MEYER
W
Wayne State University Press Detroit
Copyright © 1988 by Michael A. Meyer. First published in 1988 by Oxford University
Press, Inc. First issued as an Oxford University Press paperback in 1990. Reprinted in
1995 by Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan 48201. All rights are reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced without formal permission. Manufactured in
the United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Meyer, Michael A.
Response to modernity : a history of the Reform Movement in Judaism / Michael
A. Meyer,
p. cm.
Previously published: New York : Oxford University Press, 1988, in series: Studies
in Jewish history.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8143-2555-6
1. Reform Judaism—History. I. Title.
BM197.M48 1995
296.8'346'09—dc20 94-45560
Illustrations are from the following sources: Mendelssohn, Frankel, Geiger, I. M. Wise,
Einhorn, Wise Temple, Kohler, E. G. Hirsch, CCAR, HUC, Freehof, Silver, S. S. Wise,
Mattuck-Montagu-Baeck, Emanu-El, UAHC, Eisendrath, Glueck—courtesy of Ameri-
can Jewish Archives, Cincinnati; Jacobson, S. R. Hirsch, Sulzer, Synod—courtesy of
Leo Baeck Institute Archives, New York (originals of Jacobson in Osterreichische
Nationalbibliothek, of Sulzer in HUC-JIR Library, !X[ew York); Yahel—courtesy of
UAHC Archives, New York; Gamoran—courtesy of Rabbi Hillel Gamoran; Seesen
Temple—Bau-und Kunstdenkmaler des Herzogtums Braunschweig, 1910; Holdheim—
Liberal Judaism, Fed. 1946; Berlin Reform Congregation Board—Arthur Galliner,
Sigismund Stern, Mannheimer—Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, 1961 (original in Oster-
reichische Nationalbibliothek); Vienna Synagogue—Menorah, 1926, p. 133; Monte-
fiore—CCAR Year Book, 1938; Yom Kippur Worship—American Jewess, Oct. 1895.
ISBN-13: 978-0-8143-2555-1 (paper) ISBN-10: 0-8143-2555-6 (pape
To Margie the Rabbi,
Daniel in Israel
Jonathan and Rebecca
This page intentionally left blank
Preface: Considerations
of Historiography
Well over a million Jews in the world today identify themselves religiously as Reform,
Liberal, or Progressive. Although the vast majority live in the United States, some can
be found in almost every major Diaspora community and also in the state of Israel.
They represent that branch of Judaism which has been most hospitable to the modern
critical temper while still endeavoring to maintain continuity of faith and practice
with Jewish religious tradition.
A great Jewish historian of the nineteenth century, Heinrich Graetz, early in his
career pointed out that Judaism could not be understood by philosophical analysis of
its beliefs, but only by the study of its history. And indeed, Judaism has repeatedly
lent itself to divergent, even contradictory intellectual systems; in modern times it has
also been subject to a variety of definitions, sometimes straining, though seldom rup-
turing its sense of continuity. Similarly, Reform Judaism can scarcely be compre-
hended by reference only to its current spectrum of beliefs and practices. As a move-
ment within Judaism which has prided itself on openness to the challenges that
historical change poses for tradition, it especially requires the specific skills of the his-
torian. In the space of two centuries the social and intellectual contours of Reform
Judaism have been altered radically. In its present situation it embraces contradictory
tendencies, and its very ideology of integrating tradition with a changing modern life
posits that its character in the future will evolve in unforeseen ways.
Surprisingly, no full-scale history of Reform Judaism has been published since the
first decade of this century. Those studies that we possess are woefully outdated,
biased, and polemical, or—in the case of more recent works—deal only with a seg-
ment or an aspect of the subject. The prolonged reluctance to attempt an encompass-
viii Preface: Considerations of Historiography
ing history is perhaps best explained by the formidable methodological problems dis-
cussed below. But an additional significant factor is the relative paucity of more
narrowly focused studies on which a broad synthesis might be built. The historian of
Reform Judaism soon discovers that in most instances there is little secondary liter-
ature on which to rely, no choice but to grapple with a sometimes overwhelming mass
of printed and archival primary sources. It may well be that Jewish scholars of the
next generation will be better equipped to undertake the broader task of synthesis. Yet
neither Jewish history nor Reform Judaism is well served by having to rely on the
general works currently at hand. The synthesis attempted here is scarcely definitive,
but it does, I believe, advance our present state of knowledge and conception.
The methodological difficulties that confront the historian of Reform Judaism
begin with the name itself. "Reform Judaism" designates a particular position on the
contemporary Jewish religious spectrum represented by a broad consensus of beliefs
and practices and a set of integrated institutions. While suited to the present, the term
tends to limit and obscure its subject when it is employed historically. Not all Jews
who advocated significant religious reforms during the last two centuries identified
their position as Reform Judaism. In Germany the radicals took possession of the
term as a self-designation; in England it identifies the more conservative movement.
Initially, religious reformers aimed at effecting changes that would eventually be
acceptable to all Jews, and only in the course of time did they make peace with the
realization that they spoke for a mere segment of the community. Only gradually did
a denominational entity emerge out of a larger, less crystallized religious movement.
Clearly another term than "Reform Judaism" is therefore preferable, one which
broadly encompasses the modern effort to bring about Jewish religious reform and is
not limited by self-designation or institutional boundaries. To go to the other extreme,
however, and deal generically with all religious reforms in modern Jewry is to ignore
the coherence of effort that did exist, the growing sense of common identity, and the
gradual self-exclusion and separate institutionalization of more conservative posi-
tions. It therefore seems most adequate to speak of a "Reform movement," which
eventually produced Reform Judaism. The capital "R" in this case does not at the
beginning represent institutional identity, but simply a unity of purpose.
To designate the subject of this history as a movement is, of course, to associate it
with other movements both outside and inside Judaism. Generally, movements set
clear goals, which they either achieve or fail to reach. In American history, the Abo-
litionist movement and the Woman's Suffrage movement attained their objectives.
Their development can be traced relatively easily and reaches a ^distinct climax with
the passage of constitutional amendments. But other movements are less clearly
focused, less consistent internally, and undergo basic changes in self-definition. The
Zionist movement achieved only a portion of its original aims: it established a Jewish
state but was unable to gather in most of the Diaspora. Throughout its history, adher-
ents of Zionism have differed with regard to ultimate objectives, some setting social-
ism or theocracy alongside the national goal. Though occasionally still calling itself a
movement, world Zionism in the past generation changed fundamentally; outside of
Israel those who consider themselves Zionists mostly define that identification merely
as being friends and supporters of the Jewish state.
The term movement is used less frequently in the religious than in the sociopolit-
ical sphere, perhaps because the goals here are more diffuse. Yet religious movements
do possess a sense of direction and, at least initially, a dynamism which makes "move-
Preface: Considerations of Historiography ix
ment" more appropriate than any other designation. Protestantism was in its begin-
nings clearly a movement, setting itself apart from prevailing Christianity and seeking
the restoration of an earlier, purer form. Later, as it became internally fragmented by
denominationalism and unable to impose its views on Christendom as a whole,
Protestantism was transformed into a branch of Christianity bent primarily on per-
petuating itself within the basic framework laid down by the Reformation. This pat-
tern seems to fit the Jewish Reform movement fairly well. It too intended initially to
bring about changes that would affect all of Jewry within its sphere: it hoped to reform
Judaism as a whole, to tear down much of the old and create a distinctly modified
structure. Like Zionism and Protestantism, it succeeded only partially, giving up—or
relegating to empty oratory—its ambition to win over all Jews. Yet, like Conservative
Judaism (though not Orthodoxy), it has continued to use the term "movement" to
convey a sense of dynamism. I have called it a movement in Judaism, rather than in
Jewry, to emphasize its essentially religious character. However, this indicates no
intent to neglect its social foundations. It was not merely a movement for doctrinal
or liturgical reform unrelated to the realities of Jewish existence, and therefore its his-
tory cannot be adequately studied using only the tools of the history of ideas or the
history of religions. It was a movement among Jews whose individual and collective
motivations transcended the purely religious, even though they cannot be explained
by simple reference to a fixed class orientation or to an overriding political purpose.
It is only by attention to the interplay of idea and social situation that the Reform
movement becomes fully comprehensible.
It is not possible to isolate a doctrinal essence of the Reform movement. While
certain teachings, such as the historical nature of Judaism, progressive revelation, and
universalized messianism, take firm hold once they appear, only the last is present
from the start. Some tenets prominent at an early stage lose their significance or are
even rejected in the course of time. The negative attitude toward the national com-
ponent of Jewish identity is the best example. At times, especially among the laity, the
rejection of Jewish national identity seems to have been the principal distinguishing
feature of Reform or Liberal Judaism. But the turnabout on this issue in recent years
has not significantly disturbed the continuity of the movement. One is thus required
to trace the separate strands which at different times are woven into the movement,
some of them eventually to change their hue or to be excised altogether. One cannot
presuppose even a relatively uniform complexion for the entire history of the
movement.
Instead of seeking its essence, it is perhaps more helpful to understand the move-
ment in terms of dynamic tensions created by specific sets of polarities. Any list of
such polarities is necessarily arbitrary and incomplete. Yet some of them are obvious.
Perhaps the most basic set for the Reform movement involves its self-definition: Is
the movement wholly continuous with Jewish tradition, a mere variant of earlier
forms, or does it constitute a sharp break with the past, a radically new configuration?
For it to stress only the elements of continuity has meant running the risk of losing
separate identity, whereas strongly emphasizing the breaks has meant to flirt with sec-
tarianism. A second set of polarities counterpoises authority (represented by revela-
tion, tradition, and the institutions of the movement) with freedom of individual con-
science. While a dialectical shift to the side of authority brings the Reform movement
closer to orthodox religion, a powerful thrust in the opposite direction approaches
anarchy. There have also been the ongoing tensions between universalism and partic-
