LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON. N. J. PRESENTED BY Vhe Jewish Tmatitute of Religion. BM 197 .W57 1924 c.1 Wise, James Waterman, 1901- | Liberalizing liberal Judais Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library httos://archive.org/details/liberalizinglibeOOwise vb Ves ie 7 7 : G4 ™* v - : A ee eo ee LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK « BOSTON + CHICAGO - DALLAS ATLANTA + SAN FRANCISCO MACMILLAN & CO., LimITtED LONDON + BOMBAY - CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Lt. TORONTO LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM BY JAMES WATERMAN WISE JQew Pork THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1924, All rights reserved CopryricHt, 1924, By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. Set up and printed. Published September, 1924. Printed in the United States of America by J. J. LITTLE AND IVES COMPANY, NEW YORK TO MY MOTHER AND FATHER IN REVERENCE AND LOVE yeti ‘a Weak ; hhh ae FOREWORD Liberal Judaism, for years a pariah, anathematized. by traditional Jewry, has in the last decades clothed itself in the vestments of religious respectability. It is. no longer thought of as a “Movement,” for a move- ment implies progress of one sort or another, and Lib- eral Judaism has ceased to advance. I do not imply that individuals within its ranks have abandoned their search for religious truth, but that it has definitely lost its character as an insurgent force, vitalized by the necessity of securing and justifying its own existence. The fate of all successful reform movements has overtaken Liberal Judaism. In its turn it has be- come an established religion. Those doctrines of the older Judaism which the founders rejected, trouble their successors no more, while the positive beliefs which these pioneers championed are become the very stuff of which Liberal Judaism is fashioned. Yet these beliefs and doctrines are no longer what they were. A change has taken place. When we say that the earth revolves about the sun, we state a com- monplace. Some centuries ago Galileo very nearly 7 8 FOREWORD died for saying the same thing. The truth is the same to-day as it was then. The difference lies in the psy- chology of the enunciator. Something very similar has happened in Liberal Judaism. The beliefs which were so vital to Einhorn and Hirsch and Wise that they found it necessary to expatriate themselves in order to establish them, we breathe cheaply in the common air. They are no longer a driving power; they have lost their edge. And beliefs without an edge cannot evoke that devotion which alone is able to give them life and meaning. Nor is this subjective criticism all. Liberal Juda- ism in itself is full of faults, faults to be found in doctrine and practice alike. And no sorrier comment could be made on the intelligence of Liberal Jews than that they are content with the achievements, in- tellectual and spiritual, of the forties and fifties and sixties of the nineteenth century. The last word in Judaism has not been said. There are no “last words” in the realm of the spirit. Our faith must be re-examined. Reverently and with love we must search into the truths of our fathers, but re- solved that where they are for us no-truths, we must deny them; where they are half-truths, we must alter them; and where ourselves can catch a glimpse of yet unseen truths we must not fail to follow the gleam. A wise teacher of another faith has said that re- ligion lives through the death of religions. I believe FOREWORD 9 that he is right, and that the end of our searchings and strivings will be not a lesser but a greater faith, which in its turn will call forth, as did the faith of our fathers, loyalty and love and devotion. J. W. W. Cambridge, England. March, 1924. P eh ap Wii , - CONTENTS TOREWORD Microtek alice tla ees 7 CHAPTER DRELINDAMENTALS( 0ic5) eeniiigh oh ah desta yitie tia RR od itiaiGd PEPBRWELY CLUDATSM Cie leer et Cea ACM MMe abhi til ase Lie WHAT LIBERAL JUDAISM 1S...) cy Ua el ee bo UV Se HE QUESTION, OF ATTITUDES 35. Cu eh oser ici Go V. Wuat or “THe Mission oF ISRAEL”? . . . 58 VI. Reticious EpucaTIoNn For JEWIsH CHILDREN . 74 PLU NCERMR MARRIAGE hfe Url unig ied iaehls) diets al sua hee th ao VIN. THe Puace or Jesus 1n Mopern Jupaism. . 112 IX. Tue Function or tHe Munistry . . . . 135 ROSTSCRIPT (iti: red opal euutnres ty 9). | reek ltenht se Rane a LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM CHAPTER I FUNDAMENTALS Judaism is of course a religion. But as a neces- sary corollary the fact must be added that it is the religion of a particular group of people. There is more than the grammatical criticism to be made of the statement oft repeated by Jews, “We are a re- ligion, not a race.” Judaism is a religion, but beyond Judaism there is the fact of Jews and Jewishness. Nor does this fact depend upon the assertion or denial of belief in a monotheistic creed. True it is that Jews do not form a race or nation in the literal or scientific use of those terms. But on the other hand the unique bond between them can- not be explained, or explained away, as a purely re- ligious one. Many great men are Jews in the eyes of the world as in the eyes of their fellow-Jews, although their theological and religious beliefs have no affinity with the principles of Judaism. Neither adherence to nor neglect of Judaism can alter the 15 16 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM conception in the mind of others that they are Jews.” If then his religion is not the only, nor even the chief, sign and token of the Jew, the question arises as to what is that peculiar allocative characteristic of certain people, which I have chosen to call their Jew- ishness. Definitions and descriptions are beyond num- ber, but the essence of it is so simple that it seems to have escaped detection. Does it not lie in this? Jews are primarily the descendants of believers in Judaism, and their Jewishness consists of the quali- ties, customs, beliefs and mannerisms which in greater or less degree and in common with other Jews, they have inherited.” ? How they will view their Jewish- ness,—whether it will seem a curse and a disability, or a privilege and a blessing, is a matter for indi- vidual decision; as is the acceptance or rejection of Judaism the religion. The unalterable fact, the fact of their Jewishness, remains in any case. Like mind and matter it can neither be created nor destroyed! ® * Examples may be found in all lands and times, and I mention but a few outstanding names. Spinoza, Heine, Disraeli, and Bergson, are figures centuries apart in time, and are claimed by four different lands. And all four are known throughout the world as Jews despite complete disassociation from the faith of Judaism. * This definition is not meant to be a permanent one. A hun- dred years ago it would have had little meaning. A hundred years hence it may have even less. All the characteristics which mark the Jew to-day may in the course of time disappear and he may once again be known only as the adherent of a certain faith. But whether this event occur or not, (and in Western Europe and America it is not at all unlikely that it will) the definition given above seems to me true at the present time. *In pointing out the fact of Jewishness as distinct from the belief in Judaism I do not refer to Political Zionism or the philosophy underlying it. Zionism accepts the fact of Jewish- FUNDAMENTALS 17 My subject is however Judaism the religion, and if it be necessary to define what Judaism is and is not, it is even more important to explain just what I mean when I use the term religion. Many writers have pointed out in recent years the utter futility of attempting any brief comprehensive description of the phenomena of religion. They have shown that its manifestations are infinite, and infinitely varying, and I shall not defend my failure to essay a defini- tion. James in his “Varieties of Religious Expe- rience,” * dealing with this problem of definition, says: “The field of religion being as wide as this, it is manifestly impossible that I should pretend to cover it. My lectures must be limited to a fraction of the subject—yet this need not prevent me from taking my own narrow view of what religion shall consist in for the purpose of these lectures, or out of the many meanings of the word, from choosing the one meaning in which I wish to interest you particu- larly, and proclaiming arbitrarily that when I say ‘religion’ I mean that.” Religion, however as a problem for objective study and scientific research, and as such requiring a “meaning” does not concern us here. But as a vital ness and advances from that position to the belief that the duty of Jewry is to preserve and to develop, in Palestine at all events, its inherited national and racial characteristics. Whether such an inference is justified or not, and what the implications of this position are, do not affect this problem. Here I am dealing only with the fact from which they have arisen. 4Page 28 “Varieties of Religious Experience.” (The Italics are James’.) 18 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM force, as a living agent affecting the lives of those who touch and are touched by it, with this sort of religion we have to do. And religion in this form is not so much concerned with an academic definition, as with a statement of its aim or purpose. I shall not, there- fore, even choose a ‘meaning.’ Instead I lay down as my basic principle, arbitrarily chosen, that, what- ever its meaning or definition may be, the purpose of religion is: To help man to live well. This I term the fundamental purpose of religion. It is necessary to point out two consequences, im- mediately resultant from this conception, for they directly affect the problems to be discussed. (1) If the purpose of religion be to help man to live well, (and by the word well I refer here to the things of the spirit as distinct from, perhaps opposed to, the things of the material world), it follows that religion must include far more than any doctrinal definition would allow. It must recognize that influences, other than itself, in the development of character, are on a parity with it in aim, and often above it in achieve- ment. Education of the right kind, a home which seeks to evoke the best from its members, and friend- ships which are definitely formed and firmly kept on a spiritual level, all these have a part in teaching man to live well. While it is possible arbitrarily to circumscribe religion in order to define it as distinct from the other influences which go to make up character, such de- limitation ought not to be made. Intolerable to those FUNDAMENTALS 19 who feel that religion might be a vital force is the chasm, grown almost so great as to be unbridgeable, between faith and life. The two must be brought together, welded into one. It is as though religion had so long been placed in a compartment, closed and sealed against what have been considered the cor- roding influences of life and experience, that it has withered and shrunk in its seclusion, through lack of the very contacts, which, it was feared, would de- stroy it. And the logical consequence of this method of preservation is now apparent. What it was sought to preserve has so dwindled in dignity, that it is but a shadow of its former greatness. The spirit has dis- appeared. And until the spirit return, the form and garb of it are less than nothing. Many remedies for this living death have been pre- scribed, but the only one that bids fair to be suc- cessful lies in interrelation, conscious and deter- mined, between religion and the other forces that affect human life. Religion must be made once more to relate itself vitally to life. Its “noli me tangere’ attitude must be abandoned. It must stand upon its own feet. It must make a place for itself. Religion must no longer be circumscribed or set apart, but must be included among (perhaps ulti- mately to include), all the influences which help men to live well. (2) From the statement of the purpose of religion made above, it follows that its aim must not be to per- petuate itself. It is needful to make mention of this, 20 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM for established religion is too prone to assume that its customs and teachings are necessarily good and valid, and that one of its highest functions is to pre- serve itself unaltered. As a result of this attitude established religion looks with pious horror on any tendency toward change as affecting itself. The ar- gument (usually left unspoken) for any established religion is that its own form embodies high moral teaching, and presents a way of life that is good. It teaches truths that have been tested by time. It is the faith by which have been lived countless noble lives. It is founded not on dogma but on experience, and the task of the established religion is to pass on its body of religious truths, unchanged, in order that future generations may in their turn rejoice in and profit by them. The conclusion is plausible enough but the argu- ment from which it is derived fails to consider two fundamental facts. The first is a fact of history, the second of psychology. The first deals with the founding of every powerful established religion, the second with its future. Yet in reality, the two facts are one. The history of every established faith was orig- inally the history of one great soul, or of a small company of souls, dissatisfied with the established religion of their own day. This dissatisfaction coupled with spiritual insight and resistless deter- mination supplied the impetus to overthrow the old and to attempt to bring a better order in its place. FUNDAMENTALS 21 Now established religions of our own day do not seek to minimize these facts. They stress them. The great advance, the new light, as seen by the founders of their religion, is made much of. ‘The established religion is admittedly the result of religious progress. But these very religions repudiate the principle of progress when it affects themselves. The advance on which they are based is conceived by them to be the last advance. The word of truth which they preach is preached as the last word in truth! And here we meet the second fact, the psychological factor, which established religion fails to take into account. Just as in the days of Hebrew prophecy, just as at the beginning of the Christian era, just as during the Reformation of the sixteenth century, there are those today who are dissatisfied with what religion is. They see errors and feel incompleteness in the teachings of established religions quite as truly as did the founders of those religions in the faiths of their own day. The great advance which the founders made beyond the beliefs and practises of bygone eras no longer satisfies these men.® They perceive the good in the faith of their day, but they see even more clearly that its good is not sufficient for them, will be even less sufficient for their children. And though they respect the work of the old masters in religion, 5For one thing the advance seems to be in name only. It is adopted in creed but that is all. Belief and works are still dis- tinct and disparate. The question arises whether or not they can ever be made one, and whether the profound ethical insights of great religious teachers do not serve largely to make more marked in most men the difference between conduct and creed. 22 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM they feel even more strongly that “God fulfills him- self in many ways, lest one good custom should cor- rupt the world.” The spirit still seems to them to be imprisoned by the letter, and they hold it their highest duty to liberate the spirit though they destroy the walls that shut it in. Such men become in name rebels and betrayers of their fathers’ faiths, but in fact they are the true descendants,—the children of the spirit,—of the great teachers whose work as it now stands they would seem to destroy. I have said that the purpose of religion is to help man to live well, and religion with such an aim must take account of and give due recognition to those who are dissatisfied with what it advocates. Dissatisfac- tion when turned to account is a powerful force in character building. Spiritual striving is always en- nobling. Religion must not see in these things dan- gers to be avoided, but allies to be welcomed. They are the vital part, the inward part of faith. Religion ignores them to its peril. And by the effort to per- petuate itself, to keep itself unchanged, religion does ignore them. When religion discovers that it is out of harmony with the strivings of the spirit, that it no longer satis- fies the spiritual longings of men, it is time for re- ligion to question itself. Honest self-examination must be the first step, and if such examination reveal weakness and failure, religion must be brave enough to admit them and big enough to seek to remedy them. ‘The attitude to be assumed must be one of FUNDAMENTALS 23 self-forgetfulness. Such an attitude, firmly main- tained, will make impossible the attempts at self- perpetuation which serve only to bring into merited disrepute that which it is sought to glorify. A re- ligion, the purpose of which is to help man to live well, cannot and must not itself remain unchanged, when change is needed. Summing up those concepts which I hold to be fundamental for the purpose of this enquiry, and which have been dealt with in this chapter, it appears that Judaism is a religion, the religion of a particular group of people; that the purpose of religion is to help man to live well; that to achieve this end re- ligion must consciously seek to relate itself to all of life; that it is inconsistent for religion to aim at self- preservation, and that if occasion arise it must be prepared to lose itself in order to find itself more fully. CHAPTER II WHY JUDAISM? The answer to the question “Why Judaism?” is neither simple nor self-apparent. To say that it is the duty of Jews to preserve their religion is not enough. Judaism for its own sake is not enough. Nor is the argument valid that those who are born Jews owe allegiance only for that reason to Judaism. They do not. Religion is a personal matter—the rela- tion of the individual to whatever he conceives to be ennobling, and no religion has a claim on any indi- vidual purely because of circumstances of birth, of tradition or of environment. Only insofar as a religion is spiritually compelling may it rightfully hope to enlist the loyalty of the individual. The preservation of the religion of the Jew for its own sake cannot then answer the question “Why Judaism?”. But the very fact of its inadequacy to *This religious philosophy is directly opposed to that which insists that Judaism for its own sake is worth serving and say- ing, and that it is the first duty of the Jew to preserve it for the good of all Jews. Such a position places the Jew as Jew first and as individual afterwards. I place the individual as individual first and as Jew afterwards, contending that it is impossible to speak of any duty which the Jew owes to Judaism, except that feeling of duty which comes as an inevitable result of the love of the individual Jew for his religion. 24 WHY JUDAISM? 25 do so suggests the province in which the answer, if answer there be, must be sought. It is in the province of the individual. The individual supplies the only criterion by which the question “Why Judaism?” can be answered. Rephrasing the question, then, I would ask: Is Judaism worth while, or worthful ? enough for the individual to will to make it a vital part of his life? Can it satisfy the spiritual needs of the individual? Can it help him to attain the end of living well? ° I have spoken of the individual so far without qualifications but it must be clear that I do not mean all individuals or even most individuals. We shall consider later whether Judaism ever can appeal to the world in general, whether it is likely ever to be ac- cepted by the world at large. But in speaking of individuals here I am speaking of those individuals who will have Judaism presented to them as the logical religion for them to choose, in other words, descendants of believers in Judaism. And to qualify the term individual still further, I am considering 21 use “Worth” in its spiritual sense; that is worthful which contributes to the upbuilding of character, to the strengthening of the moral fibre; the things which delight without making demands upon us being often of less worth than the things which exact and call forth service and sacrifice. * As the purpose of this book is to examine into what Judaism is or may become, it might be objected that this question is out of place here and should be reserved until the end. My answer is that the present question does not deal with the ultimate worth of Judaism but rather with its prima facie value. Is there enough of spiritual value in Judaism as it first comes into the horizon of the individual to make it worth his while to accept it even pro- visionally ? 26 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM primarily Jews who dwell in Western Europe or America, and of such Jews only those who are so far removed from rigid orthodoxy that the choice between Judaism and other religions stands as a genuine and vital option for them. With unquestioning Orthodox Judaism I cannot deal here. The problem with which I shall deal is the prob- lem of the individual of Jewish parentage, living in a land in which he faces the same duties and enjoys the same privileges as all other citizens. In such a land he is in continual contact with non-Jews, he comes to know externally at least their religious life and customs. He sees that there are good and true, as well as bad, persons adhering to faiths different from his own. Those faiths may even, when he comes to know them, appeal to him strongly, and seem to him to contain many elements of worth which his own faith, as he knows it, has never shown him. Yet one must not imagine that the problem of such an individual is as simple as an intellectual choice between two or more forms of faith. Although I have spoken of the civic equality which Jews enjoy in certain lands, it would be folly to ignore the fact that even in these lands the Jew is marked off in greater or in less degree, but always to some degree, from his non-Jewish neighbor. The habit of twenty centuries is not overcome in a generation! Where the Jew is not met with prejudice and contempt and hostility, where these cruder forms of discrimination have vanished, there still remains that sense of difference, WHY JUDAISM? Xt of fundamental unlikeness of background and tradi- tion, which is only in rarest instances overcome. And this feeling of difference at all events the individual Jew must be prepared to meet. This is the individual whose problem must be considered.* How can his spiritual nature best be developed? Can the religion of Judaism satisfy his spiritual needs? Can it be of real service to him in teaching him how to face life? Or will he be better served by dissociation from the faith of his fathers? It is at this point that the gravest objection to Juda- ism and especially to Liberal Judaism appears. It is the implicit objection of such faiths as Theosophy and such groups as that of the Ethical Culture Move- ment. And much of.their objection is valid. Let us examine it. KEclecticism, as represented by the groups I have mentioned and by others, offers itself as the logical outcome of liberalism in religion.’ If, so its argument runs, all religions are agreed that the even- tual brotherhood of man is desirable and that the end to be sought is a religiously undifferentiated com- ‘Although the number of individuals to be considered has by these qualifications been greatly reduced, it must not be imagined that that number is a small one. In the United States practically all the descendants of German Jews and ever increasing numbers of East Kuropean Jewry come within this category. And while the number is less in Western European lands it is nevertheless in proportion to the number of Jewish inhabitants. °In designating these religious groups as eclectic I do not imply that that is their only or their chief characteristic. It is not. But it is the one which stands opposed to the theory of the survival of special religious groups, whether Jewish, Christian or of any other kind. 28 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM munity of spirits, is it not the duty of those who no longer believe that right living and salvation are a matter of church or creed, boldly to abandon their various little ‘‘isms’’? Is it not their duty to take the best from each, and to seek and find religious life in the service of the good, in ethical development (both of themselves and others), and in spiritual achievement? Such an appeal is not lightly to be ignored, and out of hand attempts at refutation of the philosophy behind it are not likely to prosper. Nor do they serve any worthwhile purpose. Let us face the fact frankly; Eclecticism in religion is appealing and es- pecially to Jews. The very sweep of its universalism, similar, it is true, to the universalism preached in the Old and New Testaments, but made a more vital and central teaching, touches responsive chords in the hearts of many Jews. To them this form of religion suffices. It answers their spiritual needs. It fulfills the purpose of religion; it helps them to live well. And because of the attraction of these faiths (the more attractive because there is absent in regard to them the ingrained antagonism of the Jew to the ac- ceptance of Christianity), there are “lost” to Judaism goodly numbers. I put the word “lost” in quotation marks for it is the common term, but in truth it ex- presses ill what has occurred. We have seen that a religion has no claim to survival for its own sake. And if the descendants of Jews can truly find the life of the spirit through a faith other than that of WHY JUDAISM? 29 Judaism, and if they feel more deeply compelled to grasp the new faith than to cling to the old, I count them well lost. Only the event can show how much of an impression these faiths will make upon the numbers of those who might otherwise accept Judaism. But be it great or small we shall not fear the event.® I have said that some Jews are deeply moved by the appeal of such groups, but it must be made equally clear that their numbers are negligible (at present at all events). The great problem remains, the problem of the mass of Jewish individuals. What of their spiritual life? How shall they learn to live well? Shall they drift along waiting for some religion to claim them as its own, or, as is more probable, shall they lose all religious interest and aim? It is not necessary to spend more than a passing paragraph on the point of view that the individual needs no religion, that his natural goodness and in- nate sense of right will suffice him as far as his spiritual education is concerned; and that all re- ligions are but gaudy trappings which show off to poor advantage that which they seek to beautify. This theory is far less common to-day than it has been in the past. Were the facts on which it is based true, the conclusions would indeed make it difficult to defend religion from the point of view °The criticism has been made, and justly, that ethical philos- ophies and eclectic morality do not appeal to the mass of man- kind. They require too much intellection, and are too neutral and abstract to grip thesouls of the many. And they lack the warmth, the impulsiveness of religions like Judaism and Christianity. 30 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM of its value for the individual. But history and psychology and the science of education all show it to be false. What we call the ethical attitude and the spiritual point of view we now know to be no in- alienable possession of every individual. These are the hard-won achievements of centuries of effort, and must be won afresh by each generation. They are no more to be looked for as a matter of course in the individual, than a natural appreciation of the best in music or art or literature can be expected without training in those fields. Even though cer- tain negative attitudes as regards wrong doing may, by contact with the world, be forced upon the in- dividual, yet the knowledge of how to live well, the spiritual point of view, must be as truly inculcated in the individual as any other branch of education. And this, the most important branch of all, is the province of religion. It is a matter of record that the moral, the ethical, the spiritual have all been inextricably interwoven with the religious in the history of the life of man. I do not imply that they have advanced pari passu. At times certainly they have been bitterly opposed to each other. But the strife has always been internal. They have parted company in one form, only to be more firmly reunited in another. And while the life of the spirit and religion are by no means inter- changeable terms, we nearly always find the most perfect examples of the one closely connected with the other. For religion sets out to enhance the spir- WHY JUDAISM? 31 itual, while the spiritual on its side seems to find ulti- mate satisfaction in one form or another of the religious. In the case of most individuals the knowledge of how to live well, when attained, is in one way or another the outcome of religious training. It is the religious side of education that stresses right living. And though there are countless men and women who have learned to live well quite unaided by religion in any form, yet the vast majority of noble lives have been and are being influenced by the religious spirit. Thus the answer to the problem I have presented, the problem of the Jew in relation to the life of the spirit, is to be found in his religion. Jews just as all other individuals must get their first spiritual in- struction, the rough draft of their life’s plan, from religion. They may fill in the details as they will, and bring added adornments from whatever place they choose, and so they may erect a lovely structure. But first of all come foundations, and foundations which are principles they will find in the teachings of religion. Here also lies the answer to the question, “Why Judaism?” For religion to be foundational must be rooted in the depths of the consciousness of the in- dividual. It must be one of those impressions which through primacy and vividness become an integral part of the individual’s being. Thus only Judaism can answer these basic religious needs of him who is 32 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM born a Jew. Only Judaism can furnish him with a religious background. Only in Judaism can the roots of his spiritual consciousness find soil which may be fruitful. And this is inevitable because in the begin- ning at all events it is only to the religion of Judaism that the Jew has access. I shall consider later whether Judaism offers a complete education of the spirit, whether it does or should satisfy ultimate spiritual longings. But what is of vital importance, what cannot be emphasized too strongly, is that the Jew at the outset of his life (or if his spiritual development be delayed beyond the years of childhood, at the outset of his spiritual career), needs as an individual, needs terribly, the all- underlying moral strength which he can get, and can only get from Judaism. It matters not what the end of that spiritual career. It may be the complete abandonment of the beliefs with which he set out. It may be that experience will show him that through those beliefs there is made possible the fullest, the most perfect and satisfying way of life. But no mat- ter what be the final judgment, the point of departure must be Judaism. Judaism, at the outset at all events, is for the Jew the sine qua non of the spiritual life. CHAPTER III WHAT LIBERAL JUDAISM IS We have seen that individuals of Jewish antece- dents, born or living in Western lands, need Judaism to furnish at least the foundations of their spiritual growth. Judaism on its side derives its raison d étre, at least in respect to these individuals, from the value which it possesses for them. Jews need Judaism it is true, but Judaism must be able to satisfy their needs. The question then to be answered by those interested in the life of Jews living in Western lands, is whether or not Judaism as presented to such individuals is performing its essential function. Is it helping them to live well? And if not, why not? In speaking of Judaism as it is presented to Jews living in Western lands, I am referring to Liberal, or as it is sometimes called, Reform Judaism. For it is Liberal Judaism with which they come into contact, which for the most part it is expected they will pro- fess. And by great numbers of such Jews it has been accepted and is being observed. Were this the whole story there would be little need to continue this book, save perhaps as an exposition of the present prin- ciples of Liberal Judaism. But this is not the whole story. 33 34 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM Liberal Judaism does appeal to many “emanci- pated” Jews. But there are many, many more, whom it fails completely to interest or to hold. Increasing indifference on the part of Jews and especially of young Jews * is incessantly complained of by Liberal Jewish teachers and preachers. And the failure of Liberal Judaism to interest them is, for the most part, unhesitatingly laid at the door of these young Jews or of their parents. In reality, however, the failure cannot be ascribed to them but arises from either one or the other of two quite different causes. Either (1) Liberal Judaism has no access to these young people, has no avenue by which it can approach them, and is therefore unable to present itself to their notice or (2) where Liberal Judaism has been pre- sented to them and has failed to hold them, only itself is to blame. “When Duty whispers low, ‘Thou must,’ The youth replies, ‘I can.’ ” The poet’s insight was sound. The eternal readiness to respond to a summons which is compelling is an unchanging characteristic of youth. But the sum- mons must be compelling. The duty must make itself heard and felt. If it does not there is little good *The failure to gain and hold the interest of young Jews, and the necessity for averting such failure in the future, were key- notes of the recent Golden Jubilee convention of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, held in New York during the winter of 1923. Speaker after speaker gave evidence of the gray- ity of the situation, and the main addresses of the occasion were devoted to discussions of the problem and suggestions as to how to meet it. For further reference see “Report on the Golden Jubilee Convention of the U. A. H. C.” WHAT LIBERAL JUDAISM IS 30 to be gained by cavilling at the unresponsiveness of youth, or at the evil of the times. The heart of youth is ever ready. And religion which fails to evoke a response from youth does ill to blame aught but itself for the failure. In all probability it is a no-religion. With the problem of Liberal Judaism and those Jews to whom because of external causes it has not been able to present itself, I shall not deal. The prob- lem with which I shall deal is the problem of Liberal Judaism and those Jews to whom it has been offered, but in vain. Why is Liberal Judaism not a compelling faith to these many Jews? What has it lost that is of value, that it no longer grips men? What has been added to it that should not have been added? Thus the matter of responsibility is shifted, as in the main it must be, from a consideration of the faults and virtues of the individual to a consideration of the faults and virtues of the religion. The individual is the constant factor; the religion is the variable. And rightly to adjust the relation of the individual to his religion, when they appear to be out of harmony with each other, it is necessary to inquire how far the variable must be changed. This can be done in the case of Liberal Judaism only by a critical examin- ation into its present principles and into the practises or lack of practise to which they give rise. And I shall attempt to state just what Liberal Judaism is and teaches at the present time, and then to inquire into the validity and serviceableness of its character and teachings. 36 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM Liberal Judaism first arose as a protest against religion, and more particularly Judaism, conceived of as law. Its aim was the enfranchisement of the spirit from those customs and traditions of Rabbinic or Orthodox Judaism which had ceased to have mean- ing and purpose. Its leaders were for the most part as Dr. Israel Abrahams puts it, “the intellectually and socially ‘emancipated’ ”’* and the real struggle for reform came about because of their belief, first championed by Abraham Geiger, that thought and religion must be “‘syncretized, not put into separate compartments.” I shall not give the history of this struggle, nor trace the evolution of the religious phi- losophy of Liberal Judaism, a philosophy which took definite form during the last decades of the nineteenth century. This evolution is as noble a chapter as any that the history of religious development affords, being the record of the struggles of men utterly de- voted to Judaism, yet firmly determined to place it in a position in which it could command the intellectual respect as well as the purely emotional devotion of its adherents. But it is the result, the final stage in this evolu- tion, with which I am here concerned. And the fact that there was a final stage must be emphasized. Lib- eral Judaism gradually developed a number of dis- tinct and separate dogmas of its own. It came in time, both in its own eyes and in the eyes of Ortho- Si Se ea on Liberal Judaism, Encyclopedia of Religion and ‘thics. WHAT LIBERAL JUDAISM IS vt dox Judaism and of the world, to be thought of as the expression of a definite religious point of view.* What was for years a chaos of varying opinions and doc- trines held by different and differing Liberal Jews, emerged before the end of the nineteenth century into an orderly and clearly connected whole. The stage of controversy over what the beliefs and teachings of Liberal Judaism were came to an end. ‘The era of common creed, varied only in the details of expound- ing it, set in. It is necessary therefore to turn to Liberal Judaism, or to the redaction of it accepted by almost all Liberal Jews, and to state its beliefs, its teachings, and its religious philosophy. The positive affirmations of Liberal Judaism arise, as is not unnatural, out of its denial of the funda- mental conception of Rabbinic Judaism, the concep- tion of religion, interpreted as law. Rabbinic Judaism holds that observance of the law, written and oral, beginning with every detail of the Mosaic code, and ending with the precepts of the final au- thoritative compilation known as the “Shulchan Aruch” is the first duty and privilege of every Jew. It draws no distinction between the moral and the cere- monial command. It considers them, in theory at least, of equal importance. Directly opposed to this position is that of Liberal Judaism which holds that the ceremonial and moral laws are not of equal im- *This viewpoint is perhaps most clearly and succinctly set forth in what is known as the Pittsburgh Platform, a statement issued in that city in 1885 by a large and representative group of Reform Rabbis. 38 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM portance. It insists that the moral law and only the moral law, whether found in the Bible or in post- Biblical literature, is eternally binding. The cere- monial law is to be observed and valued only insofar as it strengthens and supports the moral law. And when it ceases to do so, and becomes an obstruction and hindrance to the moral law, it is to be abandoned as a garment once serviceable and necessary, but like all garments made of perishable stuff. I can- not do better here than to quote from Dr. Philipson’s admirable work, “The Reform Movement in Juda- ism.” He says: * ‘“‘No ceremonial law can be eternally binding. No generation can legislate for all future ages. Man- kind grows. The Biblical books and the Talmudical collections, when approached in this spirit, yield wonderful results. The stream of change and devel- opment is perceptible throughout. The universal commands implanted in the heart of man, and de- pendent on neither time nor place, are the essentials which never change, as Abraham Ibn Ezra puts it; the special laws, however, which arise from temporary and local conditions, are not written indelibly in the eternal scheme of things. This test reform Juda- ism applies to the traditions, and in all its develop- ment this has been the guiding principle. Not that Reform Judaism repudiates tradition or has broken with Jewish development as is often charged erro- ‘The Reform Movement in Judaism” by David Philipson (1907), pp. 6-7. WHAT LIBERAL JUDAISM IS 39 neously; it lays as great stress upon the principle of tradition as does Rabbinical Judaism, but it discrim- inates between separate traditions as these have be- come actualized in forms, ceremonies, customs and beliefs, accepting or rejecting them in accordance with the modern religious need and outlook, while Rabbinical Judaism makes no such discrimination. In a word, Reform Judaism differentiates between tradition and the traditions; it considers itself, too, a link in the chain of Jewish tradition. . . .” But while the central point of Liberal Judaism is its championing of the religion of the spirit as dis- tinct from, and even opposed to, that of the letter, the position which it took in regard to certain tradi- tional beliefs and dogmas of Judaism is perhaps even more original. It is well to note that its atti- tude toward them is made possible only because of its fundamental viewpoint that Judaism is a re- ligion unchanging in basic moral principles, but varying from age to age in the practises to which it adheres. Holding this view Liberal Judaism ‘re- verses almost entirely the position of Rabbinic Juda- ism in regard to such important matters as: (1) The Messianic Nationalism of Judaism, to use the phrase of Emil Hirsch, the conception of Israel as a nation, and the expectation of its return to Palestine. (2) The supposed mission of Israel. (3) The advent of a personal Messiah. (4) The Resurrection of the Body. (5) The relative importance of the Mosaic and the prophetic portions of the Bible. 40 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM I refer again to Dr. Philipson’s work.° “The burden of the thought of Rabbinical Judaism is na- tional. The hope expressed in the traditional prayer is that the Jews will return to Palestine, again be- come a nation under the rule of a scion of the house of David, reinstitute the sacrifices under the minis- tration of the descendants of Aaron, and worship in the temple rebuilt on the ruins of the temple of old. The Jews, in their dispersion among the na- tions are in a state of exile; their century-long suf- ferings are a punishment for the sins committed by the fathers while living in Palestine; when the meas- ure of the expiation will be full, the restoration will take place. Agains: this doctrine reform Judaism protests. It contends that the national existence of the Jews ceased when the Romans set the temple aflame and destroyed Jerusalem. The career in Pal- estine was but a preparation for Israel’s work in all portions of the world. As the early home of the faith, . . . Palestine is a precious memory of the past, but it is not a hope of the future. With the dis- persion of the Jews all over the world, the universal mission of Judaism began. The Jews are citizens and faithful sons of the lands of their birth or adoption. They are a religious community, not a nation.” In addition to its definite exposition of the doctrine of Liberal Judaism in regard to Palestine and the conception of Israel as a religious community, the passage quoted above alludes to the Messianic hope °“The Reform Movement in Judaism” (1907), pp. 7 and 8. WHAT LIBERAL JUDAISM IS Al and to the Mission of Israel. On these questions, too, Liberal Judaism has a distinct doctrine of its own. It rejects completely the teaching of the coming of a personal Messiah. His function in Jewish tradi- tion was to have been the redemption of all the Jews scattered throughout the world, and the effecting of a return to Palestine of all of them, there to estab- lish the Kingdom of God upon earth. The desirability as well as the likelihood of such an occurrence Liberal Judaism denies, and partly as the result of this denial, partly because of its objec- tion to the theory behind the conception, it rejects the doctrine of the coming of a Messiah. But though it foregoes the hope of a Messiah, Lib- eral Judaism offers in its place what it terms the Messianic hope for the final establishment of Truth, Justice and Peace among all men. In 1869 at the first important conference of Liberal Jews held in America it was laid down as fundamental that ““The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of the Old Jewish state under a descendant of David, .. . but the union of all the children of God in the con- fession of the unity of God... .” From these newer conceptions of Israel as “‘re- ligious community” and not as nation, and of an approaching Messianic state of affairs, rather than a state, over the affairs of which a personal Messiah is to rule, arose this most important doctrine of Lib- eral Judaism, its doctrine of the mission of Israel. The unity of God, the prophetic ideal of Justice and 42 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM Righteousness, the era of peace and good-will, these are the great teachings entrusted to Israel by God, who sought out and trained Israel that it in turn might carry His message to all the peoples of the world. This mission is not to be thought of so much as a privilege or a favor, as it is to be regarded as a duty and a responsibility. As Emil Hirsch put it: “Israel is itself the Messianic People, appointed to spread by its fortitude and loyalty the monotheistic truth over all the earth, to be an example of recti- tude toward all others.” ° And until its mission is accomplished, until the far-off divine event comes to pass, Israel is God’s witness upon earth. Mr. Claude Montefiore writes: “The word of the prophet, ‘Ye are my witnesses’ is still accepted and believed by us. Sometimes wit- nesses through silence, sometimes through speech and teaching, at all times witnesses by our lives and ex- perience, ‘we have to remain true to what we believe to be the ordinance and will of God.” * This belief in the all-importance of Israel’s mission conditions in its turn the point of view of Liberal Judaism concerning its practises and observances. Only those which are in keeping with the spirit of its nature and mission must be adhered to. Prayers for the reéstablishment of the sacrificial offerings are not in keeping with that spirit. They are abolished. Diet- ary laws are held to be no longer of any importance. * Article on Reform Judaism in the Jewish Encyclopedia. *“Outlines of Liberal Judaism,” 1912, p. 170, WHAT LIBERAL JUDAISM IS 43 They are declared null and void. And whatever of tradition does harmonize with present day life and thought is to be impregnated with the relation which it bears not only to the past but to the future. All the festivals and observances of Liberal Judaism are closely bound up with its hope for the coming of the day when to the one God “every knee will bend and every tongue give homage. When all men shall rec- ognize that they are brethren, so that one in spirit and one in fellowship they may be forever united.” For to the furtherance of these ends Liberal Judaism is unequivocally committed. The only other important doctrine which Liberal Judaism holds is its assertion of the immortality of the soul. This in itself is not new to Judaism; it is an old belief; but it is particularly emphasized by Liberal Judaism because of its concomitant denial of the bodily resurrection. We find in Rabbinic Judaism the two doctrines held together. In accord- ance with the fundamental principles stated above, Liberal Judaism asserts its right and duty to empha- size the one, while abandoning the other. In concluding this rapid examination of the main principles of Liberal Judaism it is not amiss to state, as so many of its leaders have done, that it is in es- sence a return to prophetic Judaism—not to the letter but to the spirit of the Hebrew Prophets. Their uni- versalism, their love of justice, their insistence on the importance of ethical principles rather than out- ward forms of religion; all these teachings adapted 44. LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM to the needs of the age Liberal Judaism has accepted. It is based, it is true, on the Mosaic law as found in part or in parts of the Pentateuch. But its surest sanction, the bulwark of its strength is its oneness with the teachings and with the spirit of the prophets. It is this Liberal Judaism which I now propose critically to examine. CHAPTER IV THE QUESTION OF ATTITUDE The beliefs and teachings of Liberal Judaism were briefly stated in the last chapter. No comment was there made, however, either on their validity or value; and no criticism either adverse or favorable was offered, except such criticism as was implicit in pointing out that for some reason or reasons this body of teaching no longer exerted as vital an influ- ence as once it did. Yet the fact that Liberal Judaism does not influ- ence men and women as it should do, furnishes the basis for this chapter, and indirectly for all the rest of this volume. If Liberal Judaism has been pre- sented to “emancipated” Jews and has failed to win devotion and loyalty from them to any considerable extent, it is necessary to inquire just where the trouble lies. An answer must be found to the question, What shall be presented to these Jews in the name of re- ligion? What is presented is Liberal Judaism. And in large degree Liberal Judaism has failed. What can be done to remedy that failure? What is needed and wanted by men and women to-day, particularly by younger men and women, is 45 46 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM aid in solving the many problems which life presents. What they desire is counsel, thoughtful counsel which will help them to solve, not the riddle of the uni- verse, but the problems great and small of their daily lives. First there is the problem of values. What are the things in life which are worth while? What is worth striving for, worth achieving, worth pos- sessing? What standards are to be followed or is standardlessness a perfectly justifiable way of life? What if anything can “impart to man’s fleeting days an abiding value?” Is there anything to which man can hold with certainty, and yet not blindly, and which will not in the end prove to be vanity of vani- ties? These are some among the problems of values. In the less philosophical matters of life men and women are perhaps even more in need of thoughtful aid. For in the province of action they are met with what seem to be even graver questions. What is to be the measure of their Jewishness, their humani- tarianism, their honesty? What is to be their atti- tude toward the very real problems which are met with constantly in the realms of business, of politics, of the home, in the relations between the sexes? Now these problems are the problems of religion. They are its reasons for existence, and most religions to-day realize and recognize this fact. Liberal Juda- ism is among them. It admits the existence of these problems and asserts its complete competency to meet with and to solve them. It finds however that its solutions are constantly rejected and its aid no longer THE QUESTION OF ATTITUDE 4.7 sought. And it wonders what is the reason for its failure. Yet the reason ought to be very clear. The funda- mental attitude of Liberal Judaism is wrong.’ For Liberal Judaism like all religions is essentially an attitude of mind, not a body of teachings and beliefs. Teachings and beliefs are little more than the result, the outgrowth of the attitude which is taken. And I maintain that the attitude taken to-day by Liberal Judaism is in essence wrong! It is not this or that belief or teaching which is at fault. What is imper- atively necessary is a sweeping change in the whole conception of the purpose, the scope and the sanction of Liberal Judaism, a fundamental change in outlook and in attitude. And the task to which this book is bound, is to make clear in outline at least the direc- tion in which the change must be made and to sug- gest at least some ways in which that change may be effected. (1) The attitude of Liberal Judaism to-day (and when I refer to Liberal Judaism in this connection I refer to Liberal Jewish leaders, particularly Rabbis and teachers, for they determine its attitude), is first of all unconscionably dogmatic. Liberal Judaism arose, it is true, as a protest against certain kinds *It is perhaps only fair to add that the attitude of Liberal Judaism is not more wrong than that of Orthodox or even Liberal Christianity. In fact as far as its underlying attitude is concerned Liberal Judaism is identical with Christianity. The difference is in the minutiz, important though these may be, of dogma and ceremonial. 48 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM of dogma, particularly ceremonial and _ liturgical dogma, bit it has retained as much theological dogma (though of a different kind in detail) as Orthodox Judaism ever had, and in addition it has emphasized what may be called ethical or spiritual dogma. By theological dogma I mean the ultra-positive assertion of the existence of God and of the immortal- ity of the soul. Liberal Judaism asserts these things as sure, teaches them as facts established beyond the question of a doubt. And this, it seems to me, is wrong. It would be the sheerest folly not to admit the intense, one might almost say universally intense human longing for some supernatural being, who may be worshipped, the longing which in the Judaism of old evolved into the belief in an entirely personal God. And perhaps with even more persistence the human mind and heart have longed and hoped and dreamed for assurance that there is to be a life after death, a life beyond life, the life eternal. These are matters which, whether we like it or not, concern every one of us. But they are not matters upon which we may speak with certainty, and surely not dogmatically. They are problems which affect every- one; they are not problems for which anyone or anything can provide a final solution. That is their majesty. That is the secret of the age-long hold that they have kept upon the minds and hearts of men. They are forever insoluble, forever inscrutable, and THE QUESTION OF ATTITUDE 49 the finite minds of men will never fully comprehend them. Yet Liberal Judaism claims by the attitude which it assumes to have plucked out the heart of their mys- tery. Liberal Judaism tells us unhesitatingly that God does exist, that all depends on his existence, and that there is and must be a life after death. And then it wonders why it fails to hold the youth of to-day with its teachings! ? It does not understand that the very certainty of its attitude touching these certainly insoluble problems is enough to repel. Men and women in this age who think, know that these are things of which no man, nor age, nor faith can be sure. They realize that every individual, in every age who earnestly strives to understand, to know, concerning God and the future life must walk often if not always through the valley of the shadow of doubt, and they can neither respect nor honor a religion which as- serts dogmatically and finally conclusions concerning matters which they feel to be essentially and eter- nally problematic. So that when Liberal Judaism promulgates as dogmas its beliefs in the existence of God and in the immortality of the soul, it loses, as it deserves to lose, the confidence of those among its followers who ?'With the attitude, the state of mind, and the teachings, of Liberal Judaism it is no wonder that it is rejected as unservice- able and worthless in solving such problems as those which have been indicated above. The wonder would be if it were widely accepted. The wonder, to my mind, at least, is that it is accepted even as much as it is! 90 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM think for themselves. It is its attitude which is at fault; it is its outlook which must be changed. (2) Liberal Judaism is based on the past, the his- torical, the religious past of the Jewish people. This is inevitable. But that its attitude toward the present should be one of interpretation solely or even chiefly on the basis of past teachings is neither inevitable nor right nor wise. It must be made perfectly clear that I do not underestimate the tremendous value of the religious life of the past for the religious life of the present. But Liberal Judaism places a wrong em- phasis upon the relation of the present to the past, Assuming the validity of the ethical and spiritual teachings of the past, it invokes them as the answer to the questions of the present.® These teachings include what is best in the Bible, particularly the prophetic portions of the Bible, and in addition some later Jewish teachings, which are really amplifications and interpretations of the earlier point of view. This is the equipment with which for the most part Liberal Judaism offers to grapple with the problems which search men’s souls to-day. And talk as we may about eternal veri- * Basing itself on these teachings, it can, it is true, hardly do less. For if they are invalid or even insufficient the religious form which embodies them no longer deserves to live. The con- ception which Liberal Judaism seems to have of its mission, namely the administering and conserving of the truths of the past, might be likened to that of a group of trustees whose sole or chief business function was the administering and safeguarding of a large inheritance or trust fund. Should the securities of which the fund consisted prove to have deteriorated in value in the course of time, would it be honest for the trustees to act as if the securities had remained unchanged in value? THE QUESTION OF ATTITUDE ol ties and unchanging realities, this equipment, while not obsolete, is woefully insufficient. Just as men and women to-day refuse to accept dog- matic assertion of theological beliefs, so they refuse to accept dogmatic assertion of moral and ethical - teachings, especially when such teachings are based upon a past which is no longer thought of as the world’s golden age of the spirit. Men and women no longer believe that all virtue belongs to the past and that the spiritual insights of the Hebrew prophets are ultimate and all-inclusive. Most important of all, they deny that, however valid and true those insights may have been and still are, they are sufficient to meet the problems of the present. No past however glorious can serve as the key to the future. Present problems can only be intelligently solved by decisions fashioned under the impact of contemporaneous forces; they become compelling solutions, moreover, only through the consciousness that it is a present impact which produces them. Men and women no longer value a religious opinion because of historic primogeni- ture; on the contrary, they are inclined to look askance at that which offers itself as the solution of a problem, when its chief qualification for that function is its relation to the past. The problems of to-day must evoke the solutions of to-day. The indignant cry of Liberal Judaism will be raised. “What! Deny the past, cut ourselves off from all the age-long, painfully acquired, wisdom of tradi- tion? Lose the strength which has sustained us so 52 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM long?” Certainly not! Cherish the past. Honor it. Reverence it. But not blindly! Use the teachings of the past to help solve the problems of the present, but do not offer them as the solution. ‘That is the mistake, that is the offense. For offering the past as the solution has only the unhappy effect of alienating from it the present which is prepared to recognize its virtues, but which will not close its eyes to its defects. The past may help solve the problems of the present; knowledge of it will undoubtedly throw much light upon them; but that is all. Nothing but the present light can meet the present’s need. Nothing but cur own solution is vital enough, whether it be correct enough or not, to satisfy ourselves. Again it is a question of attitude. (3) The third criticism to be made of Liberal Judaism arises indirectly from its attitude of seek- ing to interpret the present by means of the past. Such an attitude leads inevitably toward moral stand- ardization and ethical uniformity. And shaping its viewpoint concerning problems of the present accord- ing to the teachings of the past, Liberal Judaism naturally insists that this viewpoint be accepted, at least by all those who call themselves Liberal Jews. If the premise be allowed, one can hardly hope to object to the perfectly logical conclusion. If the teachings of the past rightly interpreted can solve the problems of the present, and if the vast majority of Liberal Jewish teachers interpret them similarly, it follows that the thing for all individual Jews to do THE QUESTION OF ATTITUDE o3 is to attempt fully to grasp these interpretations and to apply them to their own lives. But the premise as I have said is false. Just as the past cannot furnish the key to the future, so the interpretations and judgments of one individual can- not and ought not be expected to furnish standards for other individuals. The problems of any given individual are different from the problems of any other individual, or of all individuals, and the aim of religion ought not be to provide one solution for many diverse problems, as Liberal Judaism too often does, but to stimulate each individual to think through and solve his own problems for himself. The func- tion of religion must not be to erect a universal stand- ard of action, but to present in clearest fashion various possibilities and viewpoints to the individual, with the purpose of aiding him as an individual in choosing those which will be in fullest accord with his own highest nature, and which therefore will be of greatest service to him in meeting his particular prob- lems. Thus religion is not to provide an example for the individual to copy but is to stimulate him, as a wise teacher of ethics has put it, to express his own nature in his own way. Summing up the present attitude of Liberal Juda- ism, it appears that it offers to the Jew a distinct teach- ing of its own. This teaching is based first on certain theological dogmas. These it holds to be eternally true and valid, and these condition its existence. Its teachings are further based on the religious ideals of 54 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM the Hebrew prophets as reinterpreted in the light of the present, and from these teachings it constructs a way of life which it offers for acceptance to its ad- herents. This is the attitude of Liberal Judaism,— in each phase, it seems to me, a wrong attitude. And although in dealing with each phase of it, I have at- tempted to show why it is a wrong attitude, and in doing so have hinted at what the attitude ought in each case to be, it is not amiss here to make a more coherent and inclusive statement of the positive aspect of what I term the problem of attitude. Life presents itself as the problem of all problems to each individual. He must meet it, come to grips with it, seek to read its riddle. In this effort he will make use of any aid or instrument which lies at hand. Such aid is to be found for some individuals in the belief in and worship of a supreme being whom they designate as God. For others strength is derived from the belief in a life after death, a coming to- gether once more with the loved ones of earth. Still others find help in allying themselves to a past whether religious or political and in trying to live in com- munion with the spirit of that past. And finally large numbers of individuals gain strength to live their lives well from the wisdom and inspiration which great spiritual teachers have given to the world.* *It ought to be explained here that these different aids are not conceived of as being used, one by one individual, another by another individual. In almost all individuals there will be found a combination of all of them or most of them, though some one or two are likely to predominate in any one indi- THE QUESTION OF ATTITUDE DO These are some of the aids by which individuals seek to grapple with life. The business of religion is to help them. And the business of Liberal Judaism is to help those among them who are Jews. The question is how best to help. Dogmatism, whether theological or ethical, is not the answer, and having renounced that broad and easy path there must be found another way. The idea of God and of the immortality of the soul must not be preached as cer- tainties, but pondered over and dealt with as vital pos- sibilities. Liberal Jewish teachers, instead of giving more or less scholastic proofs of the truth of these things, must admit frankly that these are definitely personal matters, and offer only the testimony of their own personal experience for what it may be worth. And they must learn to invite, not to discountenance, serious disagreement. Instead of offering general solutions for present- day problems based on the teachings of the past, Lib- eral Judaism must make perfectly clear that the solu- tion of these problems can at best be only indirectly aided by the teachings of the past, that present prob- lems must be approached with what in any age may be called the impulse of the present point of view, and must be dealt with in a different manner by every individual. It must emphasize and not minimize the vidual’s experience. And it might be further stated that there are great numbers of individuals who do not find aid in any of these ways. Hither their training or their personal peculiarities may lead them to seek aid in entirely other and even unrelated fields. 56 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM importance of diverse opinions, of differing points of view. Up to this point I have deal with the attitude of religion gua religion and I have purposely made no reference to what may be termed the distinctly Jew- ish elements of Liberal Judaism. How can they be retained or is there any need of retaining them if the attitude of religion is to be thus abruptly changed? The answer is almost the same as that given at the end of the chapter which dealt with the problem, “Why Judaism?” Judaism must serve as the founda- tion, the cornerstone of spiritual development. The individual Jew, to meet adequately the many prob- lems which life presents to him, must have a spir- itual background, and this background Judaism fur- nishes. His past, the belief of his fathers, was Judaism. It served them well, but his problems are not their problems and he must examine whether or not what was true for them remains true for him. Yet with Judaism he must commence. He must first of all learn what the teachings of his past and the history of his people were. For these will assist him in fashioning his own life whether he accept or reject them ultimately. Liberal Jewish teachers must present Judaism to the Jew as his spiritual her- itage. But they must not insist upon it as his final spiritual home. They must first instruct him con- cerning the customs, beliefs, traditions of the past and then with him examine into their value and truth. In this examination’ Liberal Judaism must be THE QUESTION OF ATTITUDE od strong and fearless, applying to the problems with which Judaism attempts to deal any help which it may find outside its own particular sphere. Socrates, Jesus, Emerson, Kant, the spirit and the word of any or all of these as well as of countless other teachers, must be invoked by Liberal Judaism when the need arises, to complete its teachings, perhaps at times, even to supersede them. And if the objection be raised that this may in the end take the Jew away from Judaism, rather than strengthen his love for it, the answer may perhaps best be given in the word of the psalmist. “Who shall dwell in thy holy hill? . . . He that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not’! If the principles which lead to such an attitude and viewpoint as that which I have out- lined are valid, Judaism dare not shrink from apply- ing them when they affect itself. True it may be that this attitude will cause some, perhaps many, to find spiritual light and life else- where, but Judaism will obtain the more than compen- sating joy of knowing that the faith of those who, having known and heard all, have yet chosen Judaism as the deepest and clearest of all spiritual faiths, is founded as upon a rock. Liberal Judaism must dare to liberalize itself. 5 Any religion which is unable to stand a searching scrutiny can hardly expect to retain its influence. A refusal to be exam- ined in the light of the knowledge of the present would be tanta- mount to an admission that it possessed intrinsic defects. If, on the other hand, a religion be sure of itself, it will welcome testing, secure in its own opinion of itself at least. And in any case if these or any tests which are justifiable prove it to be worthless, it cannot in conscience be preserved. CHAPTER V WHAT OF “‘THE MISSION OF ISRAEL’? I have said that religion, the purpose of which is to help men to live well, must be characterized by an attitude very different from that of Liberal Judaism to-day. The difference has been shown to be three- fold. It lies, first of all, in abandoning dogmatic assertion relating to matters of theological belief, and in substituting for such dogmatic assertion open- minded and intelligent consideration of viewpoints quite dissimilar, and even conflicting. In the next place, a change in attitude was shown to be necessary in the emphasis placed upon the re- lation between the ethical teachings of the past and those of the present. The past is not to be employed as an index to the problems of the present, but is to be consulted rather as a supplementary and secondary help in dealing with them. Finally the attitude of Judaism is not to be one of seeking to discover and to teach the right or the good way of life; Judaism must recognize and act upon the fact that it cannot find any one way which can be commended to all individuals. Judaism must realize that the right and good way of life for any 58 WHAT OF “THE MISSION OF ISRAEL”? 59 person is, and must be, quite different from that of any or all other persons, and that its own sphere of effort must lie, first in preparing the individual to find the way which is best for him, and then in stim- ulating and encouraging him to persist in that way. It may be charged that such fundamental changes in attitude as are here suggested, would, if adopted, quite. vitiate the character of Judaism. The adoption of such an attitude by a religious movement which is in the formative stages to-day might (it may be added) not be amiss. But in a religion whose place and purpose are as old and well-established as are Judaism’s, the introduction of such changes would do little but bring about confusion, and the service that they might render would be infinitely less than the harm which they would probably do. I believe, however, that the changes which the adoption of this attitude would necessitate, will prove neither danger- ous nor destructive in character but will act, rather, as a needed corrective and stimulant. And I be- lieve that it is the business of those who hold that this attitude is a right and necessary one, to bend all their energies to an attempt which they consider not only justifiable but imperative. Feelings of appre- hension and doubt concerning the outcome of such sweeping changes, real as they * must be, vanish be- 1'When the fundamental point of view concerning any religion which was laid down in the first chapter is recalled, i.e., that its aim must not be to perpetuate or to preserve itself, but that when occasion arise it must be prepared to sacrifice itself, it will appear clearly that nothing bars the way to such an attempt. 60 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM fore the possibility of progress and development which such a course presents. Judaism must be reborn. It will be necessary in the course of the following chapters to deal with certain aspects of the life of Jews living in Western lands, which Liberal Juda- ism, as it exists at present, has not touched. It will be necessary to relate the principles of religion, and therefore of Judaism, to questions which have not hitherto been considered as lying within its province. But the most important changes which the new Juda- ism, at which I have hinted, will inaugurate, must affect the fundamental teachings of Liberal Judaism. It is the doctrines and beliefs of Liberal Judaism which will undergo the most marked changes. For the changes in them will condition further advance. Such questions as what the “Mission of Israel” is, whether intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews is a practise to be discountenanced, as it has been in the past, and what the relation of Judaism to other faiths and teachings, particularly the faith and teach- ings of Christianity, is to be, are questions upon which Liberal Judaism now holds a very definite point of view. And if the attitude of Liberal Juda- ism be in great part altered, its teachings concerning these matters must necessarily undergo the same change. Perhaps the pivotal conception of the social and religious philosophy of Judaism has been its belief in the Messianic character of the Jewish people, the WHAT OF “THE MISSION OF ISRAEL”? 61 belief that Israel was a nation burdened and ex: alted by a particular mission. In Rabbinic Judaism this belief was at first not dissimilar from that which Liberal Judaism now holds. Israel was conceived of as the messenger people, the bearer of the truth of the one God to all the nations of the earth. But as the second dispersion proved to be a lasting one, and as century after century of intolerance and perse- cution went by, and the world gave no sign of being anxious or even willing to accept the message which Israel offered, Jews everywhere came gradually to place less emphasis on the importance of their mis- sion. Instead of longing for the day when they themselves should enlighten the world, they began to concentrate their hope on the coming of a Messiah who should first of all (for this was far more urgently needed) relieve the oppression of Israel. The desire to fulfill its mission, although it never vanished from Judaism, grew less keen. That mission became asso- ciated in a rather hazy way with the return to Pales- tine under the leadership of the Messiah. Simul- taneouly with that occurrence the eyes of all men would, it was believed, be miraculously opened, all would unite to adore the one true God, and the mission of Israel would automatically be accomplished. When Liberal Judaism arose it rejected utterly, as we have seen, the doctrine of the personal Messiah, with which doctrine the conception of the mission of Israel was bound up. But the belief in a mission it clung to firmly. It went further. It emphasized and 62 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM magnified that belief. It went so far as to associate all of Jewish history from earliest times, even the tragedies of that history, with the missionary concep- tion, and to interpret them in its terms. In an era of universalism, the universal message of Israel to the world was seized on, and made the cornerstone of the new movement.” In 1869 the first representative body of reform Jews to make any responsible public state- ment declared: “We look upon the destruction of the second Jewish commonwealth not as a punishment for the sinfulness of Israel but as the result of the divine purpose . . . which . . . consists in the dis- persion of the Jews to all parts of the earth, for the realization of their high priestly mission to lead the nations to the true knowledge and worship of God.” And forty years later I find in Montefiore’s Out- lines of Liberal Judaism the following passage: “More and more in the modern world Israel is becom- ing conscious of its religious mission. . . . And the wider conviction of the mission together with the de- velopment and growth of Liberal Judaism, and a gradual change in external circumstances, may all work together for the better carrying out and accom- ? Liberal Judaism clung to the belief in the mission of Israel because its early teachers were firmly convinced that such a mission really did exist for their people. But it is interesting to note that this conception of a mission served two purposes. Not only did it furnish Liberal Judaism with an aim, a purpose toward the accomplishment of which it could strive, but the missionary conception was offered also as the chief reason for the preservation of the Jewish identity when once the conception of Israel as a nation had been abandoned. WHAT OF “THE MISSION OF ISRAEL”? 63 plishment of the Jewish mission in many quarters of the civilized world.” But it is hardly necessary to adduce proofs that this belief exists. It is the very heart of the teachings of Liberal Judaism. Although almost all Liberal Jews are united in the belief that Israel has a certain mission, it is necessary to note that there is no such universal agreement as to its character, and if there were differences as to the details of the mission only, it would hardly be necessary to point them out. But the differences in the viewpoints concerning Israel’s mission are so marked that it will be necessary to deal with them separately first, in order to deal ultimately with the whole missionary conception. It is possible to find however in the various shades of belief two outstand- ing points of view which include many others. Ac- cording to the first, the mission of Israel is primarily religious—the propagation throughout the world of the belief in God’s unity. The other view is that Israel’s mission is social, and consists in establishing Justice and Peace upon earth. These conceptions must now be analyzed.° The belief in what I have called a religious mission for Israel has arisen from the doctrines that Israel stood and still stands in a peculiar relation to God, It must be made clear that these two conceptions of Israel’s mission are often held together. But I deal with them separately because they touch entirely different fields of belief and action, and beause, even where they are avowedly held together, one finds for the most part that either one or the other conception pre- dominates to a very large extent. 64 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM that he has imparted to Israel his highest teachings and that the greatest degree of truth to be found in any faith lies in the faith of Judaism. Even Liberal Jews, while they are willing for the most part to admit that their non-Jewish neighbors may possess a certain amount of religious truth, still claim with undimin- ished assurance that the purest, the highest form of this truth is possessed by them. The religious mis- sion is held to be the ultimate winning over of all the world to see and to acknowledge that this is so. The fact that the world has shown no inclination in the past to be so won over, and gives little promise of doing so in the future, has not shaken the belief of Judaism in its mission. That there has been no sign of the attainment of Israel’s aim would in itself be no reason for abandoning that aim. It is the aim itself, the conception underlying the belief in Israel’s mission which I would question. Is it a true and a good one? Or is it the result of persecution without and prejudice within, and out of harmony with the spirit of enlightenment which religion to-day must fearlessly invoke? Can we still intelligently hold that any one religion or any large group, even our own, is possessed of deeper religious knowledge and higher religious truth than all the other peoples of the world? I firmly believe that we can not. The whole trend of modern religious and philosophical thinking is away from the belief, held through so many centuries, that there is or can be one truth or one religion which, WHAT OF “THE MISSION OF ISRAEL”? 65 above all others, is worthy to be adopted and cher- ished by all men. Even the backwash of the reaction against the comparative standard in the study of re- ligion and ethics has failed to engulf the conviction that no one set of truths is so constituted as to be fit for the use of all mankind. The fact has been firmly established that the beliefs which are the heritage of any religious group bear on them not the stamp of universal truth, but are, and by their nature can be, true only for that group whose spiritual heritage and possession they are. Every group evolves the beliefs which are best for it, and this fact is recog- nized by all the leaders of religious life and thought who allow themselves to see life steadily and see it whole. Such leaders if they be Christians admit frankly that Christianity cannot claim to be the one religion fitted for all men. They know that Christianity can only hope to serve the religious needs of those men and women who, either through education or because of certain individual religious tendencies, are likely to be influenced by it. And the same is true of Juda- ism. Few among its religious teachers have faced the fact that the belief in a best and highest form of spiritual truth, one that is destined to be univer- sally accepted, must in the light of modern thought and feeling be abandoned. But more and more Jewish men and women are coming to realize and to accept that fact. Moreover, religious truths are achieved but slowly, 66 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM and the efforts which go into the discovery and secur- ing of these truths play so important a part that with- out the psychological reinforcement which their mem- ory brings, the truths themselves lose much of their value. “For God fulfills himself in many ways,” and in any particular instance, background and his- tory are a most important element in the fulfillment. Thus Judaism and the truths which it teaches are infinitely more true for Jews because of their Jewish background, and the history and teachings of Chris- tianity are of far greater worth to Christians because of the specifically Christian memories that are bound up with them. To long for the day when Christendom will accept the truths of Judaism, or vice versa, is to lose sight of the very inmost character of those truths. The words ““The Lord is our God, the Lord is one” (quite apart from their philosophic truth) are vital and true to the Jew because he is a Jew and to no other race or group or religious brotherhood, can they ever be so vital and so true. Just as the Chris- tian “Pater Noster’ and the Moslem creed are far more true for those who utter them than the Jewish confession of the unity of God could ever be. It is not as if Judaism existed in a savage or un- tutored world, a world of primitive peoples without any religious life save that which might be found in tribal superstitions. When the Jewish conception of God first came into being such a state of affairs may have existed. But it exists no longer. Since that time the world has changed. Great religions have WHAT OF “THE MISSION OF ISRAEL”? 67 arisen. Profound systems of religious thought have been developed by minds as able and far-seeing as those which fashioned the religion of Israel. And these religions have evolved through the course of centuries. They embody, as does Judaism, the re- sults of the efforts of countless thousands of devoted men and women to find truth. These facts Liberal Judaism cannot ignore. To continue to hold that the struggles for truth of these men and women, and the visions which they caught, are unequal to those which Judaism has achieved, would be to brand our faith as bigoted and unenlightened. Each of the great religious faiths has at its best caught a high glimpse of truth, and none of them possesses so much of her as to be worthy of replacing all the rest. It is evident then that the truths embodied in one religion cannot take the place of truths cherished by another. But even were it possible I do not believe that it would be a desirable end. I have said that for members within a group, religion ought not to lay down any one theological belief or moral law, but that it must seek to stimulate every individual to find what is for him the best way of life and to help him to go in that way. Now if a religion is not to formulate one moral law or one theological creed for acceptance by individuals within its group, it cer- tainly ought not attempt to do so for members out- side its own group. On the contrary its aim in re- gard to the adherents of differing faiths ought be to 68 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM stimulate them to develop their own religious con- sciousness in their own way! The aim of Judaism, for example, must not be to win Christendom away from its belief in the triune character of the deity. In consonance rather with the principles laid down in Chapters I and IV, the aim of Judaism in relation to Christianity ought to be to help it in every way possible to develop to the fullest its trinitarian doctrine. Judaism must look forward, not to the day when Christendom shall recognize that God is, and can be, but one, but to the coming of the time when the religion which believes in the union of the person of the Christ with God and the Holy Spirit, shall hold that belief in the broadest and fullest possible manner. Just as Judaism has the right to insist on the opportunity of maintaining and developing itself for the Jew, so there is laid upon it the duty of helping, if, and whenever it can, to make Christendom fully and perfectly Christian. Thus the conception of a religious mission for Israel in the sense of bringing the peoples of the world to admit the unity of God is untenable. In effect this conception has already been aban- doned for there are no efforts made to win converts to Judaism.* Yet in any but a fatalistic religion, if *This was not however always the case, and it is true that external causes rather than a change of viewpoint put an end to the missionary activities of Judaism, since after the rise to power of the Christian church it became too dangerous for Jews to proselytize. But in recent years in lands where the Jew is quite free to win adherents to Judaism practically no efforts to do so have been recorded. WHAT OF “THE MISSION OF ISRAEL”? 69 it were seriously believed that certain of its truths were destined to be accepted throughout the world, an attempt would certainly be made to begin at least the active propagation of those truths. Judaism’s failure to make such an attempt to-day shows quite clearly that it does not really believe that the truths which it so cherishes will ever be accepted by man- kind. Judaism may, though I believe it ought not, regret that fact. But it does recognize it. And hav- ing recognized it, the thing to do is not to avert its gaze in order to shut out what it has seen, but to begin taking stock of its truths anew, and of the new rela- tion in which they must be thought of as being bound, to the other peoples of the world. The religious mis- sion of Israel must be renounced in name. It has already been renounced in fact. The second conception of Israel’s mission is of a social character. The service to be rendered is thought of in social terms. Justice, peace, universal brotherhood, these are the boons which Israel has been elected to bestow upon the world. These great ideals were the burden of prophetic teaching. Their realization is the most urgent need of the present era. And Liberal Judaism, basing itself on the prophetic teachings, holds it to be the function of Israel to bring them to pass. Not even the wildest imagina- tion however would dream that Israel alone is to accomplish this great task. Nor does the Liberal Jewish belief in its social mission contemplate such a possibility. All the peoples of the earth are to 70 = LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM play a part in the world transformation, but to Israel is reserved the mission of leading and guiding the rest.” Dr. Abrahams has put it: ““The Messianic idea now means to many Jews a belief in human develop- ment and progress, with the Jews filling the réle of the Messianic people, but only as primus inter pares.” The question again arises as to whether this concep- tion of the mission of Israel is a valid one. Or is it, like the belief in a religious mission for Israel, at variance with the finer purposes and ideals of our times? Certainly the same criticism cannot be made of it as was made of the conception of a religious mis- sion. For the social ideals of the Hebrew prophets, unlike the religious teachings of Judaism, are no longer the subject of difference of opinion and belief. Their validity is no longer questioned. They have long since been accepted, in theory at least, by the civilized world. In practise however they seem little nearer realization than when they were first enunci- ated. So that if Jews everywhere were to attempt to bring about that order of things foretold and de- manded by the prophets, they could not be accused of imposing alien beliefs and customs on the other peoples of the earth. They would only be doing the very important work of accepting, and of causing others to accept, in deed what has long since been accepted in creed. The attempt would be wholly laudable. ®“Religions Ancient and Modern”; “Judaism,” p. 94. WHAT OF “THE MISSION OF ISRAEL”? 71 But this work can no longer be conceived of as the particular and peculiar mission of Israel. The desire to establish justice in the gate is no longer an exclu- sively Jewish desire, and the hope of an abiding and universal peace is no longer a particularly Jew- ish one. They were, but they have ceased to be. Non-Jews are quite as strenuous in their efforts to bring these things to pass as are Jews, and the realiza- tion of the prophetic ideals is as intense a longing of many Christians as it is of many Jews.° The finest and noblest spirits of all peoples and faiths are now uniting to bring about that which the Hebrew prophets first demanded. To continue to say that the fulfill- ment of their prophecies is particularly or even primarily the function of the Jew is to lose sight of the truth that they have become the property of all mankind, and that not Jews alone but the more en- lightened among Jews and non-Jews alike must share the high mission of bringing them to pass. The great social ideals of justice, peace, and the brotherhood of men were Jewish in origin. But they have been caught up by eager spirits everywhere, and the children of men now engaged in the struggle *It is impossible when we think or speak of the efforts being made in recent years to bring about an order of justice and peace to ignore or to minimize the fact that so much is being done toward this end by non-Jews. And while the Jew may do and should do his share in building a world order that shall be good, he must recognize that figures such as Tolstoy and Henry George, Lord Robert Cecil and General Smuts, none of whom are Jews, are quite as deeply imbued with the sense of a social duty and mission as are any members of the Jewish group. CaN as much as ours is the cause of justice and peace upon eart 72 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM for their achievement are to be found in every re- ligious camp throughout our world. Israel can no longer be thought of as “primus inter pares.” There can be no one Messiah people, no one savior people to redeem mankind. All the world struggling to- gether and with neither first nor last must unite to save itself. The social, like the religious conception of the mission of Israel, proves to be one which can no longer be retained. Yet the belief in a mission for Israel has in the past played an important part in the religious con- sciousness of many Jews. ‘To take it away and to offer nothing in its place would be to impoverish spiritually those who cherished it, and it may justly be asked, what can be offered to replace that which will be lost. Can some other conception which will not be out of harmony with the basic principles of re- ligion be found to take the place in Judaism of the belief which it now cherishes in regard to the char- acter of its mission? I believe that it can, and although I shall not here develop the conception in full, I must point out the direction in which the new trend of belief will lie. That trend will lie away from a hazy and uncon- sidered notion that Israel’s mission is somehow to bring about the acceptance of the truth of God’s unity by all mankind, and that Judaism must keep that truth pure and unchanged until the coming of the longed-for event. The end to be achieved will not be thought of as the preserving, one might almost WHAT OF “THE MISSION OF ISRAEL”? 73 say, embalming of the religious truths, which Israel has attained. But realizing that they are, and must ever be, its alone, Judaism will press forward to their further development. And instead of passively waiting for other religious groups to abandon their distinctive beliefs and to accept those of Judaism, an active effort will be made to stimulate those other groups to religious self-development, similar to that which Judaism will itself attempt. Instead of the belief that Israel has a mission as guide and leader in the achievement of the great ideals of civilization, a far finer and nobler concep- tion will arise. Israel’s task will be thought of as fitting itself to take its place not before, but among the other peoples of the world, not as guide but as comrade, not as having priority over other peoples, even in the field of service, but as peer and equal having a work to do, not superior or greater, though in some respects, perhaps, distinct and different from the rest. CHAPTER VI RELIGIOUS EDUCATION FOR JEWISH CHILDREN There are few problems that receive closer attention to-day than the problem of education. What shall be taught children, how it shall be taught, and when, are subjects which have been widely and carefully discussed. Parents and professional educators are alike coming to see the truth of the old saying that a nation’s greatest asset is its man (and woman) power. And they realize that the quality and char- acter of this power depend in largest part on the training of the nation’s boys and girls. This new real- ization of an old truth, coupled with the always earnest desire of parents to have their children well prepared to meet the problems of life, has led to reéxamination and to revision of aims and methods in our schools and colleges. Religious education, the Sabbath and Sunday schools, of Judaism and Christianity have also under- gone marked changes. ‘Those responsible for the religious education of children have followed the general trend of affairs and have been reasonably quick to see the advantages and benefits to be derived from the new pedagogy. Yet they have lacked one 74 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 75 great advantage, an advantage with which educators working along secular lines have had, namely the stimulating interest of parents. For parents no longer seem to consider religious education a vital problem as affecting the lives of their children. This was not always so. In America both among Jews and Christians the religious training of a child was once held to be of primary importance. A child, it was believed, could be called good or bad largely on the basis of its efforts and achievements in the religious school, and parents, strict churchgoers and regular attendants at Synagogue alike, placed the utmost importance on the religious school records of their children. Being themselves deeply religious, they naturally took the keenest interest in the work of the religious school. Plans and projects concern- ing it concerned them, for they were anxious to have it discharge its functions wisely and well. All this has changed. And the chief reason for the change les in the fact that the parents of to-day are not themselves vitally interested in Church or Synagogue. Living well is no longer conceived of as synonymous with regularity of attendance at a place of worship. Men and women find that they can live their own lives, on terms quite satisfactory to themselves, without the help of religion. Conse- quently they take less and less interest in the religious education of their children. Nor are they entirely to blame. What parents prize for themselves they are likely to prize for their children, and what they 76 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM themselves disprize they can hardly be expected to commend to their boys and girls. When men and women drew real strength and help and inspiration from their religion, they desired with their whole hearts that these things be vouchsafed their children. If they feel, as so many have come to feel of late years, that religion has little to offer to them, little which will enrich or ennoble their own lives, they are quite right in questioning its value for the young lives whose destiny they are in part to shape. This is their point of view, and just as they grudge the Sabbath hours of freedom from their workaday tasks, which religious devotion demands of them, so they guard the hours left free to their children by the schools, ofttimes resenting the claims on those hours, small though they be, which are made by religious education. The case must not however be overstated, nor should it be imagined that religious education, partic- ularly Jewish religious education, has ceased to play a part in the life of American Jewish communities. In some communities the Sabbath or Sunday school (as so many Liberal Jewish congregations have, in accordance with the fact, called it) is the most hope- ful part of the religious life. There are Rabbis, not a few, who, feeling despondent over the lack of re- ligious interest manifested by the adults, turn all their energies to inculcating and developing religious interest in the children. But since the religious train- ing of their children does not seem to most parents RELIGIOUS EDUCATION iv as important a matter as their secular training, re- ligious educators have been bereft of a great ad- vantage,—the active interest and assistance of parents. On the other hand there are some Jewish parents who desire that their children shall be instructed in the faith of their fathers. Some of these parents have no synagogal interests themselves and take little part in the religious life of their comunities. Yet they feel, paradoxically enough, that their children will derive benefit from that which they have ceased to value for themselves. Tradition is still on the side of religious education, and, while such parents may drift away from the synagogue, they do not wish to break entirely with tradition. And so their children receive religious instruction. There is one further class of Jewish men and women, of no inconsiderable numbers whose children attend religious schools. They are the supporters of, and believers in, the synagogue. They do not send their children grudgingly or half-heartedly to the religious schools. Firmly convinced of the value of their religious faith, they insist that that faith be taught their children. They attend religious services themselves. They intend that their children shall do so too. But I must again point out that this group, while it still exists, has grown and is growing pro- portionally smaller than the other groups. The problem with which I deal in this chapter, is not, however, how to bring the children of those Jews 78 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM uninterested in Judaism under the influence of Jew- ish religious education. What is of more importance is, what shall be taught those children who are now under its influence. What is to be the aim and method of the religious education designed for Jewish boys and girls? The importance of the problem need hardly be stressed. On its solution rest in large part the character of the Judaism of the future, and not a little of the individual character of great numbers of Jewish men and women. The teachings of the religious school will reflect very largely the attitude of the elders of a congre- gation toward religion. I have tried to show that the attitude so widely held at present is, in some of its fundamental aspects, a wrong one, and that, if religion is to become a vital force, much of it will have to be changed. The dogmatism, the stress laid on uniformity, the wrong emphasis placed on the re- lation of past teachings to the faith of the present, these must go. And what ought not to be the belief of adults must certainly not be taught to children. The teachings about God, about the Mission of Israel, and other important matters must be greatly altered. The attitude of open-mindedness, of tolerance for “‘other- ism,” of individual effort to find truth, which has been commended to its elders, must be presented to the child in a manner adapted to its capacity and understanding. But it is not necessary to recapitulate all the changes in outlook which such an attitude will engender. They have been indicated elsewhere. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 19 There remain however several points which pertain particularly to the question of religious education and to a consideration of these I would now turn. The object of all education is, or should be, to form character. And it is necessary to emphasize the fact that religious education is in a very real sense a part of the education which a child receives.* It was pointed out in the chapter on Fundamentals that, while the purpose of religion is to help men to live well, the mistake must not be made of imagining that it is the one or even the chief influence effective in attaining that end. It was explained that there are many other influences in the life of the individual working to the same end. Similarly while it is the task of religious education to help to develop charac- ter, to instil in the individual a moral sense, it must not be imagined that religious education has a monop- oly of this function. It is the task of all education, rightly conceived, secular as well as religious. Even secular education, it might be added, is but one of the factors in building character. For just as real, though perhaps far more subtle, are the influences toward that end, of the home and of friendships and associations. And religious and secular educators, aiming as they do at the development of character 1A very important part it is true, but still a part. We know that the part cannot be as great as the whole, and the whole in its turn retains its unity only as long as all its parts are present. Religious education is not to be confounded with the whole of education, though it is perhaps even more necessary to empha- size the fact that education is incomplete without the religious, which is one of its most important, elements. 80 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM in the individual, must realize that their efforts are but the conscious part of a process, infinitely varied, and in the main to be found working on the subcon- scious levels of the individual’s life. Now character is achieved through the training of the intellect and the training of the will. The training of the intellect teaches the individual to un- derstand life. It helps him to think and to reach decisions concerning the problems of his own be- havior and concerning his relation to the social groups of which he is a member. ‘The training of the will prepares the individual to carry out his decisions, to conquer himself, to master the difficulties which he meets. These two branches of education must not, however, be thought of as separate. They form the main strands, inextricably interwoven in the web and woof of character. The training of the intellect, knowledge, and understanding, are worthless unless the will can turn them to account. And the perfect will, which is power, is ineffective unless there be be- hind it the guiding hand of reason. ‘Together, the trained intellect and the trained will form character. If the purpose of religious education, like the pur- pose of all education be to develop character, it must in its own way assist in training the intellect and the will. Nor is it difficult to assign to religious education certain provinces both of the intellect and of the will which may be strictly called its own. There are whole departments of knowledge, vital departments, which no agency but religious education RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 81 attempts to touch. And as regards the training of the will, the religious school is expected to instil in theory, and to a certain degree in practise, those habits of action which are essential to the formation of character. This is particularly true in America. For the complete separation of church and state has thrown almost the entire task of systematic moral instruc- tion upon the religious school. Ethics, or the science of conduct, is not taught in the schools of America, nor is instruction given in biblical or religious his- tory. It is not necessary to inquire here”? whether such a policy is a right one in a republic. I am con- cerned rather with its result, and the result has been to leave the responsibility for these two very impor- tant parts of education, the science of ethics (a part of the training of the will) and the history of the Bible and of religion (a part of the training of the intellect), to the religious schools of varying denomi- nations. It is necessary then to consider how Liberal Juda- ism ought to set about its task of moral instruction. How can it best instruct the Jewish child in the science of ethics or conduct? What shall it teach the child concerning its religious past, concerning the Bible, The question has in recent years been raised as to whether moral instruction of a non-sectarian character ought not to be given in the public schools. Numerous plans have been suggested, and against all of them objections have been raised. For a full dis- cussion of these plans see Felix Adler’s “Moral Instruction of Children,” pp. 3-16, published in the International Education Series, Vol. XXI. D. Appleton and Company. 82 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM and concerning the relation of Judaism to other faiths? The last of these questions is in many ways the most important. For the answer to it will de- termine the greatest part of the religious outlook of the child. To put that question in another way I would ask, How far is the child to be taught concern- ing all religious matters, as a Jewish child? Is it to be taught only Jewish ethics and only about the Hebrew Bible and its heroic figures? And if other religious beliefs and figures are presented to it, in what light are they to be placed? How far is the desire to make of the child a good Jew or a good Jewess to determine the character of the instruction it receives? These questions cannot be easily answered. Like so many questions touching the science of pedagogy, the answers to them will vary greatly with the varying ages of the children concerned. It is clearly impos- sible to attempt to instruct a child of seven or eight in comparative ethics and religion; on the other hand, it ought be equally clear that after ten years of re- ligious instruction it is impossible to present the same clear-cut teaching concerning such matters as the existence and character of God, or the peculiar task of Judaism in the world, as the child received at first. As it grows older and meets with non-Jewish children, and with beliefs other than those taught to it, the child will wonder concerning the truth of what it has learned, and it will begin to feel the need of relating its particular religion to the world without. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 83 Jewish religious schools must prepare to meet the needs of this later period. They must attempt to prepare the child for the problems which it must face. Yet there is no doubt that the Jewish child must be taught Judaism first of all. By Judaism I mean Jew- ish beliefs, customs, history and ethics. These are imperative both as background and as foundation. They alone can furnish the child with self-respect, as a member of the Jewish group. And self-respect the child must have, for it will live either with Jews, or, if away from them, will be looked upon by others as a Jew. In either case, it is essential to the devel- opment of his character, that he know his past, that he be fortified and dignified by the knowledge of the great tradition behind him. With the Bible as the basis of Judaism, the child is to begin. For in the study of the Bible both the intellectual and the volitional life will be quickened. On the intellectual side it is impossible to over-empha- size the value of a thorough knowledge of the Bible. Goethe has said that “The greater the intellectual progress of the ages, the more fully will it be possible to employ the Bible not only as the foundation, but as the instrument of education.”* The story that it tells, the figures that it presents, the life that it por- trays, are all bound up in a unique way with the his- tory and culture of mankind. It has largely shaped the thoughts of men of the Western world, and at all *Quoted in “A Book of Jewish Thoughts,” p. 139. Oxford University Press, pub. 1920. 84 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM times it has indirectly influenced them. When it has not been cited as authority, it has been alluded to as reference. The history of literature, of art, of music, have been for centuries closely bound up with it. To understand them fully in later years the child must come to know and love the Bible early. But I would attach even more importance to the moral and spiritual teachings of the Bible, and to the effect which those teachings can have upon the training of the child’s will. The best of them have stood the test of time and have been found true. They are the moral heritage of mankind and upon them has been built much of what is finest in our civilization. Every child, Jewish and Christian, can be greatly strengthened by an understanding of the moral prin- ciples set forth in the Bible, and the will of any child must be fortified by an earnest attempt to put those principles into practise. Yet in a particular sense they are the possession of the Jewish child. I would not imply that a non- Jew cannot, for example, understand and practise the commandment, ““Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” quite as well as can a Jew. But there can and should be a peculiarly intimate feeling, a feeling of almost filial affection, on the part of the Jew for this and other of the great spiritual teachings of the Bible. Such affection implanted during the years of childhood will deepen later into a conscious at- tempt to put into practise what was so early loved. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 85 It is the task of the Jewish religious school to instil in the Jew that feeling of affection. It is the business of the Jewish teacher to inspire the child with the desire to claim its own. Yet the child must be led gently. The Bible must not be forced upon it. And it must be remembered that the Bible is to be taught not for the Bible’s sake, but for the sake of the child. Its teachings must be fitted to the child’s comprehension and not vice-versa. Nor are all children to be taught the Bible in a uni- form way, as the multiplication table might be taught, —an unvarying and impersonal affair. Rather must the child be stimulated as an individual spirit to seek and to find the glory of the Bible for itself. And the glory of the Bible lies not chiefly in the uniformly applicable character of its teachings, but rather in the fact that it is so wide and grand of scope, that within it there is contained the possibility of infinitely diverse, infinitely personal inspiration. “It is a low benefit,” says Emerson, “to give me something. It is a high benefit to enable me to do somewhat for myself.” I would apply his word to re- ligious education. It is a little thing to give the child the priceless spiritual treasures of the Bible. It is a great thing to help the child to find those treas- ures in its own time and way. Yet this is seldom done. And I cannot better emphasize what is meant than by quoting the word of an able Jewish educator on this subject. In a paper on the “Sunday School and Religious Consciousness,” Rabbi Louis Grossman 86 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM writes: * “We insist that our children shall know Jewish history and the formulated articles of belief. But they require throughout their tried careers, to orientate themselves in the crossing roads of human experience, to find their way toward the true, the good, the beautiful in God’s world. Being led to them is not half as good nor half as satisfactory nor half as wonderful nor half as happy as finding them themselves. In fact, religion consists in discovering the wisdom and the wonders of life. Only fresh and genuine initiative counts for something genuine be- fore God and men. We have allowed nothing to initiative, nothing to spontaneity, nothing to the per- sonal fact in the soul. Religion is a prescription to- day, just as much as it was in ancient days. We have taken the freshness out of it for young souls that reach out for the hand of God, who long to see things with their own eyes and to touch the world of won- ders with their own hands. . . . Instead of allowing youthful nature to speak its language of marvel, we interpose our articles and threshed-out history.” This is a serious indictment from a religious teacher. But the indictment is true. Herein lies the greatest defect in the religious education of the past. Against this defect let the religious education of the future be on its guard. The training of the Jewish child in Jewish history and ethics is however but half the problem. To *Yearbook of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Vol. XXX, p. 306. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 87 teach the child only about his own faith would pre- pare him almost as little for contact with the world as to teach him nothing concerning it. Nor would it serve to introduce him to other faiths as though they were of inferior quality to his own. Such a course might strengthen his adherence to Judaism, but it would in no way help him to form an intelligent conception of the problems which he must face. The Jewish child will meet intolerance enough. And the weapon with which to fight intolerance is not intoler- ance. Intolerance can only be met and overcome by understanding and knowledge and insight. An understanding of faiths other than his own, of viewpoints differing from his, is required as part of the child’s religious training. Nor need it be feared that this will weaken the beliefs that the child holds. He will rather achieve a sense of value, and of perspective. He will respect his own religior for pointing out the good in other faiths. He will be tolerant of others, respecting the sacredness of the right of other faiths to their peculiar individuality, and thus he will be immeasurably strengthened in demanding tolerance and respect for his own faith. And finally the sympathetic study of other religions will help the Jewish child to take part in the greatest task before all America to-day, the task of ending race and religious hatred, an dof estab- lishing an order of tolerance and good will and understanding. The whole question is not unlike the problem of 88 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM what shall be taught American school children con- cerning the history of other nations. The American child must certainly learn American history first. It must know the past on which it stands, the heroes of its own people, and the principles on which the gov- ernment, under which it lives, rests. But that is not all that it must learn. To help the child to under- stand fully the world it lives in, to prepare the child for the larger citizenship of international affairs, it is taught the history and customs of other lands. And were the teaching is wise and far-sighted the history and customs of these lands are not disparaged. They are not taught to demonstrate the superiority of Amer- ican history and customs, but to give the child a sympathetic insight into the life of other peoples. They are taught not to bring out the bad, but the good that is in them. And just as surely as such a course is necessary to promote international peace and good will, so surely is it necessary in order to bring about inter-racial and inter-religious peace and good will within the nation ° that the Jewish child be taught first, about his own faith, and then, not disparagingly but in sympathetic manner, about faiths other than his own. It is impossible here to go into the details of °It is of course at least equally important that the Christian child on its part be taught in the same way, and with the same end in view. But the fact that the Christian child is seldom taught in this way is no reason for the Jew not to adopt such a course, if it .eem to him right. “So act that thine action might be made a universal law” is a particularly applicable principle in this connection. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 89 the plan of religious instruction suggested above. Whether the beliefs and histories of other religious groups can be fairly presented will depend largely on the type of teachers which the religious school is able to command. Nor is it necessary to state exactly at what age, or stage in the religious education of the child such presentation should be made. These and similar matters concerning the curriculum of the re- ligious school must be left to the judgment of who- ever is in charge. What I would insist upon is the principle that the child ought learn about religions other than its own. But while I cannot deal with the minutiz of the course of religious instruction, there is one question on which it is necessary to dwell. That is the ques- tion of confirmation. It is the custom among Liberal Jewish religious schools to have a yearly service at which those girls and boys who have reached a cer- tain age, usually between thirteen and fifteen, and who have been prepared by successive years of re- ligious school training, are confirmed, that is, make public confession of their belief in God, and swear eternal devotion and loyalty to their religion. But though this ceremony is one bound up with the his- tory of the reform movement in Judaism, it seems to me to be neither wise nor right. I believe it is out of harmony with the dominant spirit of religious life, and that in its present form at least it ought to be abolished. The article on confirmation in the Jewish Ency- 90 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM clopedia ® says in part: “It does not mean initiation into the faith or admission into the Jewish community, but is a solemn declaration of the candidates, after having been sufficiently instructed in their duties as Jews—to be resolved to live as Jews and Jewesses.” And again, speaking of the various forms of the con- firmation service, “Thus some introduce a formal confession of faith, while others prefer a statement of principles.” Now could anything be more absurd than a “con- fession of faith” by a child of fourteen or fifteen, or a “‘statement of principles” or a “‘solemn declaration” of loyalty to Judaism? ‘True, these can very easily be elicited. During these years the child is in an im- pressionable state and can easily be led to believe that what it says is of a binding character. But it is a tragic mistake to use or to misuse the malleabil- ity of the child’s religious conceptions in this way. Just when the adolescent period of struggle and doubt is about to grip the child, it is the height of unwis- dom to exact or even to accept from it a confession of faith or a statement of principles. The difficulties of the years to follow will not be made éasier thereby. The child will not be satisfied, when its soul is seeking and questioning after religious truth to know that it has been “confirmed.” For what young man or woman will or should consider the vows and confes- sions made at so early an age as binding? It is, moreover, the gravest misunderstanding of Vol. IV, p. 220. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION oF the principles of pedagogy to attempt to give “‘stabil- ity” to the child’s belief at this age. It is the period of growth, of change, of a new outlook on every fun- damental problem of life. Work, play, the relations between the sexes, the meaning and place of religion in life, all these conceptions may, in the years fol- lowing confirmation, be radically changed. To at- tempt in any one field to prevent such a change is ut- terly impossible. We do not desire a statement from children as to their life calling at the age of fourteen! We should be shocked if the choice of a partner in marriage were required or permitted at this time. Yet without the slightest hesitation religious teachers allow and encourage children, admittedly far too young to decide other important questions for them- selves, to pledge lifelong allegiance to God, to Juda- ism, and to the principles on which it rests!‘ It is absurd. It is contrary to all that science and thought and feeling teach. Confirmation at this age is nothing less than a violation of the sacredness of childhood. There is yet another reason, perhaps even more cogent, why the confirmation service ought be abol- ished. It is urged by those who admit the impos- sibility of confirmation for children of fourteen and fifteen, that at a later age, perhaps between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, when the period of storm and 7Let it not be imagined that it is proposed to prevent the child at this age from thinking and discussing with its teachers concerning these problems of the religious life. It is fitting that it should do so. But progressive thought and instruction con- cerning these matters are very different from a confession of belief or of principles, whether publicly or privately made. 92 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM stress is passing, there be such a service. I will not discuss the doubtful feasibility of this plan. I would point out, rather, that at this age, or at any age, public confirmation is opposed to the innate spirit of religion. The heart of my contention against con- firmation lies in the fact that it makes public an act, which by its very nature, ought to be of a private and a purely personal character. Public confirmation em- phasizes outwardness and show and ostentation in religion. Whereas the confirmation of the spirit must be made in silence and alone. This the child must be made to understand. And the child can understand it. With its yearning after the ideal, with the impressionability of its youth, the child, far better often than the adult, can be made to feel that the still small voice, the inner faith, is not a thing to be broadcasted in a parade of two minute “confessions,” designed chiefly to titillate the senti- mentality of admiring relatives and friends. The child soonest of all will feel, if it be but given the chance, that the trappings and show of religious exer- cises, must in the highest interest of religion be brought to an irreducible minimum. The child (who, it is said, desires so much the public service of confirmation) will be the readiest, if touched by a fine spirit, to forego a ceremony so out of keeping with the essentially simple and inner spirit of faith. Can as much be said for the elders of the child? It were foolish however to overlook the fact that some ceremony is necessary at this period in the re- RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 93 ligious education of the child. Some point in the development of its religious school activity towards which the child may strive, and which will mark a certain achievement in its religious training, will prove helpful as a stimulus to the child’s interest. The nature of what that function should be can best be described as an exercise of graduation, very similar in many respects to the graduation exercises of a secular school. The purpose of it shall be to give evidence not of future faith or belief, but of past attainments in the field of learning. And if any re- ligious “view” is to be expressed by the child, that view is not to be in the spirit of a promise of adher- ence, of “lifelong devotion” to Judaism, but is rather to voice the desire to live well, to live intelligently, to live helpfully, in the light of all the noblest teach- ings of the world. Nor is there to be confession of belief in God. If anything there is to be expressed the ardent will to find Him.* *On this subject see the paper on “The Religious Influences of Childhood upon Adolescence” by Rabbi Montague N. A. Cohen in the Yearbook of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Vol, XVII, pp. 248-9. CHAPTER VII INTERMARRIAGE The teachings of a religion depend on the religious attitude underlying it. When that attitude is a wrong one, the teachings which are based on it are not likely to be good or wise. Liberal Judaism presents an example of what is meant. It has been shown that in several respects the attitude underlying Liberal Juda- ism is wrong, and it follows that some of the teachings which it offers are likely to prove false as well. Indeed it has already appeared upon examination that the greatly stressed conception of Israel’s mis- sion to the world, based neither on right ideals nor on a right reading of the facts of history, is a false one, and that in the highest interests of Judaism it must go. Another very serious problem confronting Liberal Judaism is the question of intermarriage, and what the attitude of Judaism ought to be towards those Jews who choose to marry outside the ranks of Israel. There is a generally “‘accepted teaching” on the part of Liberal Judaism concerning intermarriage; but by the term “accepted teaching” I do not mean to imply 94 INTERMARRIAGE 95 that it has been accepted by all or most Jews who come in personal contact with the problem of inter- marriage, nor that it has helped in any very large degree in achieving a solution of the problem. What I do mean is that the teaching of Liberal Judaism con- cerning intermarriage has become standardized, that in the pulpits and from the platforms of Judaism there is heard an almost uniform doctrine. That doc- trine must be carefully examined for it rests on prin- ciples which are in many respects unsound, the acknowledged principles of Liberal Judaism to-day, and like some other doctrines of our faith it may prove to be unsound and no longer tenable. If it does so prove, neither the universality with which it is held, nor the power of the tradition behind it, will avail it aught. That the question of intermarriage is a most im- portant one it is hardly necessary to explain. That it is recognized as such is witnessed to by the amount of discussion which it has occasioned; although in recent years discussion about the problem has lapsed more and more into the statement of the now recog- nized teaching of Liberal Judaism concerning it. But while uniformity of doctrine on this point has grown with the years, that uniformity has neither checked nor diminished the number of marriages between Jews and non-Jews to any appreciable degree—yet to check and diminish their number has been the avowed object of Liberal Judaism. Something is clearly wrong, but whether the fault lies with the 96 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM teaching of Judaism or with the Jews to whom it is supposedly taught, is not so clear. When the founders of Liberal Judaism proclaimed their belief that the Jews were not a race but a re- ligious brotherhood, and that a return to Palestine was not the aim of modern Judaism, but that its aim was to seek to spread the truths of Judaism in all places where Jews might live, they hoped they had solved the age-old difficulty of the politico-social status of the Jew in the land of his adoption; and the even more difficult and delicate problem of the relations between the Jew and his non-Jewish neighbors. The Jew, they declared, was to consider himself, and to be considered, as a citizen of the land in which he lived, having just the same rights and duties as any other citizen, and as being not a whit less loyal than others in his devotion to his country. The Jew, it was further said, was to take part in the development of the country in which he lived, and to make every contribution in his power towards its civic and cul- tural advancement. In short, as far as his citizen- ship was concerned there was to be no difference be- tween the Jew and other members of the state.* +The difference between the old and the new Judaism can be seen, even though greatly exaggerated, in the bombastic utterance made by the first reform Rabbi in America, who in the course of the dedication of his synagogue said: “This country is our Palestine, this city our Jerusalem, this house of God our tem- ple.” (Quoted in Philipson’s “The Reform Movement in Juda- ism,” p. 467.) It must be added in fairness, however, that this was not the spirit of the wisest or noblest among the leaders of the Reform movement. They were facing a serious problem, the status of the Jews in the various countries in which they INTERMARRIAGE ie Only in the realm of religious belief and worship was the Jew to be marked off from others. Only in his adherence to the teachings of the Hebrew prophets and to the Mosaic law was he to be different from his non-Jewish neighbors. And as the reformers in- terpreted that law and those teachings, there was nothing in them to prevent social intercourse on the friendliest of terms between Jew and non-Jew. (In- deed the points of similarity and identity between the two groups were stressed almost ad nauseam and the efforts of some Jews, under the spell of this sort of teaching, to ape and imitate the customs and habits of those around them, form one of the sorriest chap- ters in Jewish history.) In accordance with what they believed to be the mission of Israel, the early reform- ers held that such friendship and interchange of ideas were not only permissible, but even desirable and nec- essary. For in what other way, they asked, could the world come to know of the message which Israel had been chosen to bring? These early reformers were not slow to see how- ever that there were certain practical difficulties with which their teachings would have to cope. For the theory of the underlying similarity of Jew and non- Jew,” and the doctrine that social and intellectual lived, and in the main they dealt with the problem with utmost wisdom. *,No phrase was to be heard on the lips of reform Jews more often than the words of Malachi: “Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us?” words -which were interpreted to demonstrate the essential unity between the children of Israel and others. 98 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM intercourse between the Jew and the world without was desirable, led to events of which the reformers did not approve. Chief among these was the increase in the number of marriages between Jews and non- Jews. That this should occur was inevitable. With all the barriers to social intercourse down which it lay in the power of the reformers to destroy, with the increased facility of meeting between young Jews and Christians, it was but natural that a certain num- ber of marriages between members of the two faiths should take place. But as the number of such mar- riages increased, the reformers felt that it was neces- sary for Liberal Judaism clearly to define its attitude towards the whole problem. At first a certain amount of toleration was shown towards intermarriage, as evidenced by the resolution passed on that subject by the Brunswick Conference of 1844. But as time went on and as it appeared that when intermarriage occurred the Jewish party to it usually became defiliated from the Synagogue, and that the children of such marriages were seldom reared in the Jewish faith, leaders of the reform movement came gradually to oppose it and to state with more or less uniformity that it was contrary to the teachings of Liberal Judaism; and that, while the Synagogue recognized the validity and the bind- ing character of such marriages, it opposed their being made, and would take no part in solemnizing them. This opposition was based on two grounds. (1) It INTERMARRIAGE 22) was held that intermarriage would tend to disinte- erate Judaism, to weaken the bonds of Jewish solidarity, and thus to interfere with the effective per- formance of Israel’s mission to the world. (2) Mar- riage between members of two different religious groups was bound, it was asserted, to bring in its train discord and unhappiness, and that as such marriages could not even approximate to the high Jewish ideal of what marriage should be, it could not be sanctioned by Liberal Judaism. On both grounds intermarriage was condemned. There was however one way in which, it was held, a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew could be recognized by the Synagogue. That way consisted in the conversion of the non-Jewish party to Judaism. This, it was said, would eliminate both objections. There would, strictly speaking, be no intermarriage. Such conversion would, it was argued, unite both parties in their devotion to Judaism, and would do away with the danger of an imperfect union because of religious differences.* And as the conception of a Jewish race or nation had been abandoned, there was no objection possible to the admission of any person into the Jewish religious fellowship. This is the attitude of Liberal Judaism toward the problem of intermarriage, an attitude which seems to *It is well to note that this attitude was not universally ac- cepted, and that some Liberal Jews held that even when con- version occurred, intermarriage was a most undesirable event because such conversion would, of necessity, prove meaningless and evanescent. But this point of view was, and is held by but the fewest of Liberal Jewish teachers. 100 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM me to be fundamentally wrong. Not only the reasons advanced against intermarriage, but the suggested solution of the problem, in and through the conver- sion of the non-Jewish party, are utterly at variance with the underlying principles of religion and are false to the ideal which Judaism ought to cherish. The thesis of all the foregoing chapters has been that the purpose of religion is to help the individual to live well, and to live well in his own way, and that religion must not be forever seeking to preserve itself at any cost. The position of Liberal Judaism to-day in regard to intermarriage inverts both these under- lying principles, and it is necessary to examine a little more closely the arguments on which its position is based. The argument that, because intermarriage will prove harmful to Judaism and will tend to disinte- grate it, it is to be discountenanced by Judaism, is not sound. Because, priceless though Judaism may be, its prolonged existence must not be purchased at the cost of the right of the individual Jew, in matters such as this, to be himself. For that right, if clearly understood, will be seen to underly Judaism itself, to be the cornerstone upon which the edifice of Juda- ism has been reared, and on which it must continue to rest. Disapproval of intermarriage, based on the ground that it will hurt the Jewish cause, loses sight of the personal character of the problem under con- sideration. So intensely personal is that problem that, even though the belief of David Einhorn that INTERMARRIAGE 101 “TIntermarriage is the nail in the coffin of Judaism” were proved to be correct, Judaism would not be jus- tified in demanding of individual Jews that they do not intermarry. It must be remembered, to para- phrase the word of Jesus about the Sabbath, that religion is made for man, and not man for religion. And opposition to intermarriage which is based on the harm which it may do to Judaism, places the indi- vidual in a position of subordinate importance to religion, a position which, from the religious point of view itself, is clearly impossible. Nor is the demand sometimes made by Liberal Jewish teachers justifiable, that the Jew make the sac- rifice of giving up the contemplated marriage with a non-Jew, as an evidence of religious devotion, and as a laudable example of self-denial. For the contem- plated marriage implies that both persons have de- cided that they are fitted and fated to live together, to become man and wife, and that it is vitally neces- sary to them that they do so. And once two people come to feel about each other in this way (and unless they do there ought be neither marriage nor inter- marriage) they owe no duty to religion or to family or to friends which would prevent their union. Their duty is to themselves and to each other! No one, whether it be parent or religious teacher, the home or the Synagogue, has the right to demand the sacrifice which renunciation of one another’s love would imply for each. There is a certain limit beyond which self- sacrifice may not decently be asked to go. For, en- 102 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM nobling though it ofttimes be, sacrifice may, at times, be less of a virtue than a fault. Taken on its own merits, however, the opposition to intermarriage on the ground that it will cause the disintegration of Judaism does not seem to be valid. Apart from the religious teachings of Judaism on the subject of intermarriage, there is a marked endogamous tendency among Jews, a tendency to marry among themselves, which, I believe, is far stronger and more generally prevalent than the ten- dency to marry members of another faith. It is true that there has in recent years been an increasing number of intermarriages, but are not many of them due to the reaction from the long centuries of enforced Jewish marriages, the inevitable rebound from the over strict tribalism of long ages? That rebound, however, has in Western lands at all events, already spent the greatest part of its force, and although a certain number of intermarriages will un- doubtedly continue to occur it will not be long before the percentage of such marriages will become stabil- ized by the counteractive tendency—the tendency of the Jew to marry within the Jewish group. In the terms of modern psychology, the subconscious inhibi- tions surrounding intermarriage will gradually be removed, and the desire to intermarry will weaken and not strengthen, in inverse proportion as those inhibitions disappear. Although I would not offer this as the chief reason (there are far weightier ones) why the opposition of Judaism to intermarriage ought INTERMARRIAGE 103 be abandoned, I would suggest that it may help to allay the fears of those Jews who, like Einhorn, read in the percentage of intermarriages recorded in Western lands the destruction of Judaism. Those fears, as I believe, are hysterical in character, having no basis in the actual facts. The second reason on which is based the opposition to marriage between Jews and non-Jews is that such marriage must inevitably fall far short of the Jewish ideal of what marriage ought to be, and that in sanc- tioning it Judaism would be disloyal to its high ideal. The argument has been ably propounded by the Rev. Dr. S. Schulman, who says: *- “There could not be that complete union of souls, and there could not be that perfect harmony and unity of household between two people who hold with serious conviction dif- ferent views of religion.” In that statement there is a certain amount of truth, and if instead of saying that “there could not be” this perfect union, it were stated that such union inevitably becomes more dif- ficult of achievement, I should be prepared to accept it. For there is little doubt that differences in belief do make it far more difficult to achieve the perfect harmony which marriage implies, if it is to fulfill the high ideal of what marriage can and ought to be. Such differences clearly do make the task more difficult, and should be pointed out to people who *Cf., his paper on “Mixed Marriages in Their Relation to the Jewish Religion,” pp. 317 ff. in the Yearbook of Central Con- ference of American Rabbis, Vol. XIX. 104 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM contemplate such a marriage, but the difficult must not be confused with the impossible. Far greater difficulties have been overcome by the power of love. But even though the statement of Dr. Schulman be correct, with this modification, it is not a valid argu- ment either against intermarriage or for the opposi- tion of Liberal Judaism to it. Closely examined and _applied to conditions as they exist, it serves rather to explain most clearly why Judaism has no right to op- pose the marriage of Jews to members of other faiths, on the ground of probable marital infelicity. It is said that two persons “who hold with serious convic- tion different views of religion” will not attain happi- ness in marriage. But granting that this were unconditionally true, it would not serve to condemn intermarriage to-day because, while it may not be pleasant to reflect upon, the fact is that most young Jews and Jewesses, and particularly those who con- template marrying outside the ranks of Judaism, do not hold views on religion with serious conviction! It is not necessary here to consider the problem of the non-Jew who contemplates intermarriage. I am dealing with the Jewish aspect of the question. And the average young Jew, even though he may have been trained religiously in a Jewish school, and though he or his parents may be members of a Syna- gogue, is not likely to hold any views either on Juda- ism or on religion in general, which are so different from the views of a non-Jew as inevitably to cause un- happiness in the home. Even when the Jew does feel INTERMARRIAGE 105 his Jewishness distinctly, it is in the rarest instances that his Jewish beliefs play so important a part in his life that, unless they were shared by another, he would be deeply unhappy. It is true that a community of interests and an un- derlying sympathy in outlook and belief are neces- sary for a marriage that is to be a perfect union. But the fact must be faced that his Judaism no longer determines the fundamental outlook and belief of the Jew. If it did Liberal Judaism would be justified in refusing to sanction intermarriage. But it does not. The young Jew or Jewess of to-day may, and usually does, hold very serious convictions. But those con- victions are not convictions about religion. And this fact Liberal Judaism must recognize. It serves no good purpose to protest that intermarriage must lead to unhappiness because of grave differences, when those differences have ceased to exist! The argu- ment advanced to justify the opposition of Liberal Judaism to intermarriage proves to be the strongest reason why such opposition can no longer be main- tained. In the attitude of Liberal Judaism toward the prob- lem of intermarriage there is another factor, and that is the solution it offers. In those cases where inter- matriage does take place, that solution consists of the conversion to Judaism of the non-Jewish party to the marriage. But like the opposition of Liberal Juda- ism to intermarriage, this solution is hopelessly out of harmony with what should be the underlying spirit 106 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM of religion. It has been shown that the attitude of opposition to intermarriage is not a justifiable one, and there remains therefore little need of dealing at great length with the proposed solution of a difficulty which does not exist. Regarding such conversions it may however be pointed out, that when they do take place they are not likely to be of a very deep or pers manent kind. They must obviously be made in a period of intense emotional stress, the period im- mediately preceding marriage, and they can hardly be expected to have any very real or lasting effect. On the contrary, after a time the converted person is more than likely to feel a sense of irritation and grievance against the religion which summarily de- manded adherence in so short a time, and whatever statements were made by the converted person will have little more meaning than statements exacted from prisoners under torture. The parallel may be neither fortunate nor exact, but the psychological conditions and reactions are similar in both cases. Liberal Juda- ism must recognize this and must realize that ““The loose and easy conversions that are often performed for the sake of intermarriage add no strength to the Jewish cause.” ° But even if a real pre-marital conversion were pos- sible it ought not be attempted by Judaism. Such con- version requires the surrender of the religious indi- °Of., paper on Intermarriage, by Rabbi Mendel Silber, deliv- ered before the Central Conference of American Rabbis and published in the Year Book, Vol. XVIII. INTERMARRIAGE 107 viduality of one member to the marriage. And there is no valid reason why that surrender ought be re- quired of the non-Jew any more than of the Jew. If Liberal Judaism were as concerned, as it lays claim to being, about the ideal of marriage, it would recog- nize the unwisdom and the injustice of asking one party to a marriage to abjure that which it insists that the other party retain and cherish. If Liberal Juda- ism really cared to ensure at least a reasonable likeli- hood of happiness in the marriage of a Jew with a member of another faith, it would respect and seek to safeguard the religion of the non-Jew just as much as the religion of the Jew. It would realize that the surrender of the religion of one party to a marriage sets the whole marriage relation on a wrong footing from the very outset, and that no good purpose is served by insisting that the non-Jewish party to the marriage accept something which at the time must necessarily be alien. Upon examination, then, the objections raised by Liberal Judaism against intermarriage appear to be groundless, and the solution of the problem which it offers no solution. If, however, the attitude of oppo- sition and categorical disapproval is wrong, and is to be abandoned, something must be offered to take its place. For intermarriage occurs very fre- quently among Jews, and Liberal Judaism must define anew its attitude towards it. Shall approval take the place of the old attitude of disapproval, and if not one of approval what shall the new attitude be? 108 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM As in the other questions which have been consid- ered, the teaching of Judaism in regard to intermar- riage will be determined by the religious principles on which Judaism is held to rest. And to Judaism based on the principles laid down in these chapters, intermarriage must necessarily seem perfectly permis- sible and in no way to be condemned. It is not im- plied that every marriage between a Jew and a non- Jew would be approved of by Judaism. (Such ap- proval would depend on individual circumstances just as in the case of marriage between Jews). But in the theory of intermarriage, in intermarriage itself there is nothing to which objection can, or ought, be made by Liberal Judaism. It is necessary to ex- plain a little more fully just what is meant. I have said that the purpose of religion is to help men to live well, and that the aim of Judaism must be to help Jews to live well. Intermarriage does not, as has been urged against it, impair the possibility of happiness or right living for the individual, and it may well help the individual to achieve these ends. For this reason Liberal Judaism must abandon its opposition to it, and substitute therefor an attitude of complete tolerance and sympathy towards those Jews who choose to marry a member of some other re- ligious group. It must be recognized by Judaism that if a Jew or Jewess has come deeply to care for a non-Jew, it is the highest duty of Judaism, regardless of the effect which a marriage between such indi- viduals may have on church or synagogue, to further INTERMARRIAGE 109 and not to hinder their union. The attitude of Juda- ism must be one of stimulating and encouraging the individual to follow his or her own highest nature in arriving at a decision concerning marriage. And that encouragement and stimulus must neither be with- drawn or lessened even where they might lead the Jew or Jewess to a union with a member of another faith. If such the event should prove, there is every reason why that union ought to be consecrated. There is no valid reason why it should be prevented. There is one further aspect of the problem of inter- marriage on which it is necessary briefly to dwell. Al- though the general attitude of Liberal Judaism has been one of opposition to intermarriage, there have been some Jews who have urged that intermarriage is not only permissible, but that it is both desirable and necessary, and that, far from opposing it, Liberal Judaism ought to give it recognition and encourage- ment. The grounds for this view are two. First it has been held that by means of intermarriage the in- fluence of Judaism would be widened and that it would eventually be adopted throughout the world. And since this was the acknowledged aim of Judaism, it ought welcome the aid which intermarriage could bring to it.© The other argument advanced in favor *Intermarriage, favored for this reason, is based, of course, on the supposition that conversion of the non-Jewish party to the marriage will take place. Such conversion, however, Juda- ism has no legitimate right to demand or to expect. For a statement of the position of those Liberal Jews who favoured intermarriage see the “Jewish Times,” Vol. I, re the controversy between Einhorn and Samuel Hirsch. 110 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM of intermarriage is that, if it were to take place on a large enough scale, it would put an end to anti- Semitism and to the persecution of the Jews, as there would in time be Jewish members in every non-Jewish family and vice versa. It is hardly necessary to go into the details of either of these plans, or to question their possible results. But it is necessary to point out the underlying fal- lacy of the conception behind them. The fallacy is the same as that which has appeared in the arguments advanced against intermarriage. It has been forgot- ten in both cases that marriage and intermarriage are alike purely personal matters, and that religion can adopt no one attitude toward the problem, whether of approval or disapproval. It would be just as unjus- tifiable for Judaism to counsel or to insist that Jews marry outside Judaism, as it is for Judaism to at- tempt to discourage and to prevent them from doing so. Either attitude implies a complete lack of under- standing both of the province of religious teaching and exhortation, and of the infinitely delicate mar- riage relation. Indeed in regard to this problem there can be no general attitude or rule or regulation. Judaism must realize that its own interests have no place in this, the most personal of decisions which the individual is called upon to make. Judaism must neither frown upon nor yet advise intermarriage. Its duty is rather to attempt to make clear that intermarriage is a per- sonal problem, to be decided afresh by each indi- INTERMARRIAGE 111 vidual who is faced by it. And it must also make clear that the decision is not to be made with the pres- ervation or propagation of Judaism in mind, but according to the best wisdom and thought and feeling of the persons involved.’ It has been urged by those who oppose intermarriage that where it occurs the children of such a union are in danger of being brought up without a knowledge of either parent’s re- ligion, and without religious education of any sort. There is no doubt that this sometimes happens and every individual con- templating intermarriage ought well to consider this aspect of the problem. And the religions of both the parties to such a marriage ought to point out to the individuals concerned their responsibility to the child and the duty of preparing and arrang- ing to meet that responsibility. It is also said that in the event of intermarriage the spiritual ideals of Judaism will be lost to the next generation. This fear does not seem to me to be justified. Ideals are not “lost.” Where they are a real factor in the individual’s consciousness, hey will remain and will be transmitted by the individual to his children, And while the ideals of the Jewish parent may lose a certain amount of their specifically Jewish quality and character, they will nevertheless persist in one form or another. And it is the ideal after all, not the quality of Jewishness attached to it, which is of greatest value. CHAPTER VIII THE PLACE OF JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM For almost nineteen hundred years Jesus has been excluded from Judaism. His personality and his teachings alike have played no part in the inner life of the Jewish people. As far as any direct influence on Judaism is concerned, Jesus might never have lived and taught and died. Yet indirectly Jesus has deter- mined the whole course of Jewish history and Judaism has never been unmindful of his life. Christendom has made that impossible. The religions which have called themselves by his name have determined in one way or another the world history of Israel for more than fifteen centuries. No matter what interest, or lack of interest in Jesus, Judaism may have felt, Christendom never forgot for a moment the relation between them, and never allowed the Jew to forget that he and his children’s children must bear the re- sponsibility, and atone for the crime of Jesus’ death. It is not necessary here to do more than recall in passing the centuries of persecution and oppression, of suffering and shame, which have in truth “made the people of the Christ into the Christ of peoples.” But recalled they must be in order to understand the 112 JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM 113 tragic irony of fate, which has kept the Jew from lov- ing the person and knowing the prophecies of Jesus, and yet has wriiten his name in blood across every page of Jewish history. True it is that Judaism has had for centuries no desire to know aught of him whose name has been alike upon the tongue of per- secuting prelates and of the murderous rabble in the streets. For aught the Jew could see or was made to feel, there was not an iota of truth or goodness in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. “By their fruits shall ye know them,” Jesus had said, and the only fruits of his teachings with which the Jew was familiar were violence and hatred and oppression. And, worst of all, masquerading under the name of Love! Nor was this the only reason why the Jew adopted an attitude of aloofness towards everything connected with the name and teachings of Jesus. Even had he desired to learn something about the Nazarene Jew, to discover why it was that the world looked on him as a divinity, there were reasons why he could not. Any word, every word, which the Jew wrote or spoke concerning Jesus was, and well he knew it, likely at any time to be turned terribly against him. Were the word one of praise, it would be seized on to help in converting other Jews to Christianity. Were it a word of disapproval or of censure, it might be fraught with the possibility of torture and of death for thou- sands. In silence lay the Jew’s only safety, and it is not to be wondered at that he avoided anything, in 114 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM any way associated with the life and doctrine and death of Jesus. Half the Jews of the world still live under condi- tions such as these. To the millions of Jews in East- ern Europe the central figure of the Christian religion is still the dominating factor in Jewish suffering. But in Western lands this is no longer so. Despite tempo- rary flurries of medieval fanaticism, the prevailing spirit is one of liberalism and of tolerance. The Jew is able to follow his own religious beliefs without in- terference, and in consequence he is enabled to revise and to re-formulate his opinions about the religious beliefs of other groups. While the Christian world still holds that Jesus was uniquely divine, it no longer seeks to impose that conviction on others by means of the sword and of fire, and the Jew is free to find out for himself what it is in the life and teachings of Jesus that has so gripped the imagination of man- kind. The Jew is free to go to the sources of the life of Jesus instead of deriving knowledge about him from Christian creed and theology. How he will use this freedom remains to be seen. It may, for a time, be very difficult for him to ap- proach the subject in a way which will do it and him justice. Yet to those who feel that in the estrange- ment which has so long existed between Jesus and his people there is something deeply regrettable, who hold that there is very much in the teaching and life of Jesus which can be of inestimable value to the Jew even to-day, the hope must remain that some- JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM 115 how, and at some not too distant time, Jesus will be reclaimed by Judaism, and will assume the place which should be his in the minds and hearts of his fellow Jews. The objection may be urged that there is no real need to include the teachings of Jesus within the volume of Jewish lore, and that while his life may have been an inspiring one, and his doctrines, in part at least, forceful and true, Judaism stands in no need of them to-day. It may be urged that Judaism has gotten along very well for nineteen hundred years without Jesus, and that it can do without him in the future. This objection, I say, may be raised. But I cannot really believe that it will be. At all events it is not in keeping either with the teachings of Liberal Judaism or with the informing religious spirit of our times, and represents an attitude which is becoming far less common to-day than it has been in the past. It is not amiss however to recall the fundamental principle, emphasized earlier in this book, of the duty of Judaism to seek and to use whatever it is thought may prove of help to the Jew in living well. The Bible, it was there explained, is no longer to be the one religious text book of the Jew, but wherever a teaching is found which may serve the religious end it is to be utilized regardless of the source from which it may have been derived. This principle would in itself justify the inclusion of any great religious teaching as part of the teaching of Judaism. But in the case of Jesus there are further 116 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM and far more cogent reasons for his inclusion within the company of those to whom the Jew may turn for spiritual guidance. Jesus is, after all, a unique figure in the history of the world, unique both in what he taught, and in what he was, and Judaism, if it is to serve the real needs of the Jew to-day, cannot ignore this master spirit. The appeal of Jesus, it has been justly said, is universal. He may not mean “all things to all men,” but to any man he may mean much. In his personality, as revealed by the gospels, there is something irresistibly appealing, something which touches answering chords in the hearts of men and women and children.’ Not the least of the tasks of Judaism to-day is to find out what this power is and how it can be adapted in order that it may give strength and inspiration and joy to the Jews of our generation. And it must never be forgotten that Jesus, world-figure that he has become, was a Jew, and that Judaism in seeking him out to-day is not taking to itself an alien or a stranger spirit, but is rejoicing once again to find and to love an older brother and a friend. Perhaps there is no phase of modern Judaism more interesting and important than the beginning, the very limited beginning, it has made toward the rediscovery *The power of appeal of Jesus is evidenced by the very dif- fering things which his life and teachings have connoted to different ages,—and to different men in any one age. ‘The details and the manifestations of the appeal have varied pro- foundly. But the appeal itself has remained constant in in- tensity and power. JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM LY of Jesus. Judaism is beginning to feel that in the life, in the teachings, in the suffering of this Jew there was somewhat utterly Jewish, utterly human, of which it would no longer remain in ignorance. The modern Jew, separated by centuries from Jesus, begins to feel a very real kinship with him; not with Jesus the Christ, not with the Jesus of supernatural miracles or of the resurrection, but with Jesus the Jew, with Jesus the man, with Jesus of Nazareth, who, in the word of Matthew “went about the land doing good.” Liberal Judaism has taken the first step. The ablest among its leaders have for some years insisted upon the essentially Jewish quality of the teachings of Jesus. Many of them have voiced their profound admiration for the man and for his teachings, and have rejoiced to claim him as a great Jew. They have insisted that Jesus was not alien to Judaism, but that he was one of, perhaps the greatest of, the great company of Hebrew prophets, and that both his life and teachings were in every way permeated by the spirit of Judaism at its highest. Liberal Judaism has advanced far in its attitude towards Jesus. But it has not gone far enough. While it has recognized Jesus as a great Jew, Liberal Judaism has stopped there. It has made no effort to re-include him, in fact as well as in theory, among the long line of Jewish teachers, whose lives and works so largely determine what Judaism is to-day, and whose histories are impressed by rabbi and 118 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM teacher alike upon the Jewish consciousness.” Lib- eral Judaism admits freely that Jesus was a great ethical teacher, a teacher fully worthy of his fore- runners, the prophets. But it fails to examine into what made Jesus a great ethical and spiritual power, what the doctrines were which he taught, and which of them, when tested by the standards of our own religious conscience and consciousness, can be of help to Jews to-day. In other words Liberal Judaism admits that the personality of Jesus was a great and truly religious one, but it has so far failed to make use of that personality in shaping the lives and characters of the Jews of this generation. Centuries of silence and repression cannot be over- come in a moment, and it is not to be wondered at that Jews have been slow to apply to their own lives the lessons to be drawn from the teachings of Jesus. But the time has come when Jews living in Western lands can approach without fear the story of a Jew who came to preach the high gospel of love! The Jew to-day is ready to reclaim Jesus, to learn for himself what it is in the message of Jesus that has so appealed to all ages and in all lands, and to incorporate in his 7It is true that Jesus is the subject of many sermons and lectures from Jewish pulpits and platforms. But the burden of the message of those who have dealt with the subject has been to prove that Jesus was a Jew, and never desired to be anything else. The attempt has never to my knowledge been made on the part of Jewish teachers, to consider with their fellow Jews just what the fundamental teachings of Jesus were and how they may be applied to the Judaism of the present. JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM 119 own life whatever of the teachings of Jesus seem to him good and true. In attempting to understand the personality and teaching of Jesus, the Jew possesses one important advantage over other peoples. Not only is he ac- quainted with the background out of which Jesus appeared, and without an understanding of which, Jesus can never be fully understood, but he can go directly to the man and to his work. He can brush aside, as of no importance for his purpose, the theo- logical veil which has so often hidden Jesus from those who sought to know him. The few can come to know the inspiringly simple man of the gospel narratives, and can afford to ignore the metaphysical and credal interpositions which have been placed between him and the world. Indeed the necessity for separating the history and teachings of Jesus from the history and teachings of organized Christianity, cannot be emphasized too strongly. And, despite fre- quent assertions to the contrary, that separation can and must be made. It is quite true that Christianity would be a meaningless phrase without the back- ground of the life of him who is believed to have been its founder, but that is no reason why the teach- ings of Jesus may not be studied and loved and fol- lowed, without any reference to the creed and dogma which were later founded upon them. Thus it will be seen at once that there are certain problems connected with the figure of Jesus which need not concern the Jew. For example, the whole 120 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM question of his messiahship, of the unique incarna- tion in him of the spirit of God, of his perfection and sinlessness, and of his atonement and mediation for all men—all this the Jew can afford to ignore. Jewish scholars may and should deal with these problems in order to make clear the Jewish point of view in regard to the theological and eschatological questions in- volved. But to the Jew who wishes to know and to understand Jesus they are not of importance. The ideas involved in them can never be very meaningful to great numbers of Jews. For they seem neither necessary nor even plausible in the world which the Jew knows and in which he must live, and moreover they seem to him to be out of harmony with present- day life and thought and feeling. Nor can the Jew accept the argument that Jesus himself dealt with and stressed these ideas. In regard to them he will agree with Emerson that “The idioms of his language, and the figures of his rhetoric, have usurped the place of his truth.” Nor need there be any fear that there will be little or nothing left when the dogma and the creeds sur- rounding the figure of Jesus have been removed. Much will remain. Indeed all that is of real worth will still be left. There will, in truth, be no sub- tracting from the personality of Jesus in this process of dedogmatization. What in reality will take place will be the removal of what have come to be obstruc- tions and superfluous superstructures, the dogmas which obscure the true splendor of the radiant spirit =< JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM 121 of Jesus. And when these have been done away with (and to the Jew they need never be real obstruc- tions), there will remain the striking character, the inspiring history, and the sublime ethical teachings of the man.* Before examining the teachings of Jesus I would dwell briefly on his personality, and in what way it may help to serve the spiritual needs of the Jew to- day. It is evident of course that personality and teaching must be closely connected in the case of a figure such as Jesus. It is impossible to think, for example, of his noble doctrine concerning the out- casts and the pariahs of society, without remember- ing how he himself lived with them and was their friend. And it is equally impossible to think of the occurrences of his life and the tragedy of his death, without connecting them always with the message that he preached. But despite this obvious connection the gospels do give us, even though it be but in fragmentary and broken manner, the picture of an inspiring and in- spired personality, which, apart from all question of teaching or doctrine, commands respect and love. And to the Jew who would find in the history of Jesus a present help and strength, no starting *This view of Christian dogma concerning Jesus cannot, in fairness either to Jews or to Christians, be called the Jewish view alone. For it is also the view of great numbers of liberal Christians, who, as the conflict between the Modernists and the Fundamentalists shows, are trying to pierce through the screen which theology has erected, and to draw inspiration anew from the simple faith and noble personality of Jesus. 122 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM point could be more appropriate than his luminous personality. Figures enough can be found in the Old Testament and throughout Jewish history that have been up- right and just and brave; prophets who like Jesus “preached righteousness in the great congregation,” but there is no figure in all history whose nature was so compact of sympathy and of courage and of kind- ness; who was as firm as he, and yet as gentle, and who like him ministered to men in tenderness and love. The Jesus who went about the land doing good can be recalled to-day to serve greatly in the shaping of the character of Jewish men and women. He can again be made a living force in stimulating our gener- ation to become, in some degree at least, like him. Nor must it be objected that his was a nature so far above that of most men, that it is one impossible to follow. We must not forget that even if men fail to live as he lived: “When the high heart we magnify, And the sure vision celebrate, And worship greatness, passing by, Ourselves are great!” In dealing with the teachings of Jesus which can be of real value to Jews living in our day, I cannot make it too clear that it is impossible here to discuss all of them, or to do full justice to those which I shall consider. No more can be done than to outline some of his greater teachings. They must be dealt with eventually with far more thoroughness and compre- JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM 123 hensiveness than they will be dealt with in this chap- ter. But a beginning must be made, and to this beginning I now turn. Before examining the teachings of Jesus, however, it is necessary to mention an attitude current among many Jews in regard to them. That attitude is one of refusing to admit that there is any originality in them. Jesus, it is said, taught nothing new, and made no original contribution to the fields of morals and of ethics. He only restated in a novel way, it is held, the truths which the Hebrew prophets had long since enunciated and the only contribution which he made was in the manner and not in the matter of what he taught.* That there is no truth in these assertions has been so abundantly proved that it is hardly neces- sary to answer them here. In many respects, it is true, Jesus did re-state the teachings of the prophets, and adapt them to meet the needs of his own time. But in addition he taught certain doctrines that were clearly his own, which are indelibly stamped with the originality of his own unique personality. To state that he did nothing more than to re-phrase the teachings of the prophets is as absurd as it would be to state that Amos did no more than to re-phrase the This peculiar view is not only the product of Jewish research and scholarship. There have been Christian writers and teachers not a few who in recent years have held the same opinion. Nor must it be imagined that all or even the best among Jewish writers have denied originality to the teachings of Jesus. In increasing numbers Jews are beginning to recognize that orig- inality—and to rejoice in finding it, instead of admitting it reluctantly. 124 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM teachings of Elijah, and that Isaiah went not a step beyond Amos, except in the manner of his presenta- tion of the truth! The old and the new must always intermingle in every religious teaching, but it is as pointless to say that in the teaching of Jesus all is old and nothing new, as it is to say that all is new and nothing old. Among those teachings which Jesus emphasized in common with the prophets may be classed his insis- tence that inward piety was more acceptable to God than the trappings and the show of religious worship. And like the prophets Jesus emphasized the fact that worship of God was worse than a mockery unless it were founded upon justice in dealings between man and man. On these fundamental religious questions Jesus stood exactly where the prophets had stood before him.° In dealing, however, with the teachings of Jesus which are ethically and spiritually original, his dis- tinct contribution to the spiritual wealth of our world, it is impossible, I believe, to find any one underlying doctrinal unity running through them. Certain fun- damental points are stressed by Jesus again and again, * But even in regard to these questions there is in the teachings of Jesus something of real value. Although he was at one with his predecessors concerning them, he stood as it were upon their shoulders, and with keen vision he could see still further into the spiritual truths which they had glimpsed. And he taught moreover in a way, which if it missed something of the titanic grandeur of the prophets, surpassed them in warmth and human- ness, and in the power to make personal appeal. So that even where the teachings of Jesus coincide with those of the prophets, the Jew will find much in them which may inspire and guide him. te | ll i a a JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM 125 but these points are not brought into any sort of rela- tion with each other, which would justify one, on the basis of the gospels alone, in building up a system- atic religious philosophy, and attributing that phi- losophy to Jesus. There is no unified doctrine that Jesus taught.® It must always be remembered that Jesus dealt, not with theoretical morality, but with life. His words and thoughts, though they must have been deeply pondered over when he was alone, in the years before his active ministry began, were delivered to multi- tudes, in answer often to unexpected questions, and in a manner very much simpler than the ordered manner of closely reasoned theology. Jesus did not prepare his message (except, perhaps, the sermon on the mount) in the secluded closet of the scholar. He dealt with spiritual problems as they arose, and it is a sorry misunderstanding of his teaching to attempt to wring from his compelling and stirring words a con- sistent and consecutive religious philosophy. It can- not be done. The only real unity in the teachings of Jesus is to be found in the purpose that informed and underlay them all, the ever present will of Jesus to minister unto men, “to be about my father’s busi- ness.” That unity will then be pre-supposed and his teachings will be dealt with, in the only way in which they can intelligently be dealt with, that is separately. *Indeed one can point to numerous inconsistencies and even contradictions, but these will not lessen the value of the teach- ings that are good and true. 126 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM Of the many doctrines of Jesus which may be called essentially his own, his teaching concerning the divinity of man seems to me the most important. Be- fore his time it had been shown that God stood in very close and loving nearness to human beings. But Jesus first insisted that in man himself, in man at his best, at his highest, the divine dwelt. Jesus it was who taught that every human being had within him at every moment of his life the potentiality of divine be- ing, that, if man would but will it, he could make himself as one with God. Nor must this fundamental teaching of Jesus be confused with the doctrine of Christianity concerning his unique divinity. As Emerson has explained: “Alone in all history, he estimated the greatness of man. One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his World. He said in this jubilee of sublime emotion, ‘T am divine. Through me God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or see thee, when thou also thinkest as I now think.’ But what a distortion did his doctrine and memory suffer in the same, in the next, and the following ages! There is no doctrine of the Reason which will bear to be taught by the Understanding. The understanding caught this high chant from the poet’s lips, and said in the next age, “This was Jehovah come down out of heaven. I will kill you if you say he was a man.’ ” 7 *Emerson’s Divinity Address. JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM 127 But because of the “distortion” which his teaching suffered its greatness must not be overlooked, and his insistence on the innate divinity of man remains an imperishable contribution to the religious outlook of the world. It is a doctrine which undoubtedly bears within it the seed of exaggerated mysticism, and if carried too far it may easily lead men away from a clear understanding of the facts of life, of the earthly, the material basis, on which the spiritual possibility here implied, depends. But it is a noble teaching none the less, a teaching which it will be well worth the while of Jews living to-day carefully to consider. Closely connected with his belief in the divine nature of man was the insistence of Jesus upon the worth and importance of the spiritual judgment of the individual. It was he who first insisted that the indi- vidual had the right, the duty, to speak out as he was moved, to oppose his own spiritual insight and judg- ment to the insight and judgment of the world. There are no words in all history more meaningful and moving than his oft-repeated “But I say unto you.” He, the single man, in defiance, not only of the powers and principalities of earth, but of tradition of re- ligious custom and of established belief as well, in- sisted upon the spiritual duty of speaking the truth as he saw it, upon “Pure passion’s high prerogative, to make, not follow precedent!” Dealing with this insistence of Jesus upon the val- idity of his own teaching, it is said in the article on 128 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM his life in the Jewish Encyclopedia that, “The prophets spoke with confidence in the truth of their message, but expressly on the ground that they were declaring the word of the Lord. Jesus adopted equal confidence; but he emphasized his own authority apart from any vicarious or deputed power from on high.” ® Always in opposition to the phrase “It hath been said by them of old time,” is flung back the prophetic, “But I say unto you!” Truly in this word of Jesus lies the magna charta of the spiritual freedom of mankind. And in this teaching there is much by which the Jew of to-day can profit. It emphasizes what is of greatest importance in the spiritual life, the worth which must be ascribed to individual ethical insight; it emphasizes the right, the privilege of all men to be themselves, to follow their own conscience in accordance with their own best judgment. Traced through the life and the teachings of Jesus, this em- phasis on the right of the individual to face life’s problems in his own way, can inspire the Jew to dare to voice whatever of the spirit he feels speaking through him, and it can help to strengthen the Jew in the knowledge that one with God is always a. majority. Another problem with which Jesus dealt, and con- cerning which he made a strikingly original contribu- tion, is the problem of evil, and how evil may be coped with. It is impossible, in dealing with his teaching in this connection, to do better than to quote, * Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 163. JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM 129 even if at some length the exposition of Felix Adler concerning it. Jesus he says, commands men to “Re- sist not evil, resist not oppression. Shall then evil triumph? Is the victim helplessly at the mercy of the injurer? Shall he even be told that in a servile spirit he must accept the indignities that are put upon him? No; this is not the meaning. Quite a different mean- ing is implied. And here the teaching of Jesus takes its novel turn. There is a way, he says to the victim, in which you can spiritually triumph over the evil- doer, and make your peace with irresistible oppres- sion. Use it as a means of self-purification; pause to consider what the inner motives are that lead your enemy, and others like him, to do such acts as they are guilty of, and to so violate your personality and that of others. The motives in them are lust, greed, anger, wilfulness, pride. Now turn your gaze in- ward upon yourself, look into your own heart and learn, perhaps to your amazement, that the same evil streams trickle through you; that you, too, are sub- ject, even if it be only subconsciously and incipiently, to the same appetites, passions, and pride, that ani- mate your injurers. Therefore let the sufferings you endure at the hands of those who allow these bad impulses free rein in their treatment of you lead you to expel the same bad impulses that stir potentially in your breast; let this experience fill you with a deeper horror of the evil, and prove the incentive to secure your own emancipation from its control. In this way you will achieve a real triumph over your enemy, 130 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM and will be able to make your peace with oppres- sion.” ® Again concerning the command of Jesus to love one’s enemies, Adler says: ““To bless them that curse you, to bless them that despitefully use you, means to distinguish between the spiritual possibilities latent in them and their overt conduct, to see the human, the potentially divine face behind the horrible mask, and to invoke the influence of the divine power upon them in order that it may change them into their purer, better selves.” *° The next teaching of Jesus with which I would deal, has occasioned so much dispute and misunder- standing, and has become so much a matter of po- lemic and controversy, that it is with difficulty that one can come at the heart of what it contains. I refer to his teaching concerning love. And at once it must be said that in the words of Jesus, and in his spirit, there is to be found none of the antithesis of love and law, or love and justice, which has been so commonly attributed to him since the time of Paul. Dealing with the spirit of love and its place in life, he does not op- pose love to law in general, or to the law of Israel in particular, nor does he offer love in the place of jus- tice. True he emphasizes love as it had never been emphasized before, but love is to act through the law and through justice, and not to oppose them; it is to be the crown of justice, a transforming and a trans- ®“An Ethical Philosophy of Life,” pp. 33 and 34. “Op. cit., p. 38. JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM 131 figuring crown. But no pseudo-interpretation or al- legorization is able to do away with the words, ““Think not that I am come to destroy the law of the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Jesus un- derstood that law and justice were always indis- pensable. But he insisted that beyond and above these, though based upon them, love must exalt men, love which is after all the very salt of life, the salt without which all life loses its savor. It must not be imagined that love had been neglec- ted in the Old Testament, or that Jesus gave the con- ception of love to the world. Jesus himself insists that the first and greatest commandment in the law is to love God, and that the “‘second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The con- ception of the love of God and man was an old one. What Jesus did was to ascribe to it a new meaning and to emphasize an aspect of love which had not before his time been considered. I refer to the active aspect of love, in virtue of which, as Mr. Montefiore has said, “Love goes forth, and gives freely, and yearns to help and save, in virtue of which it seeks to succor and redeem the sinner, and is ever ready to renounce, to sacrifice and to endure. .. .”’ It is this aspect, or rather these qualities of love, which Jesus first clearly understood, and commended to mankind. It is an aspect which is still well worth the consider- ation of Jew and non-Jew alike. These are in broadest outline some of the teach- ings of Jesus which are essentially his own and es- 132 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM sentially true, and which may prove to be of vital: help and inspiration to the Jew living to-day. But the question very naturally arises: if these teachings are in reality so fine and true, if they do represent such a great advance beyond the religious teachings of the prophets, and if Jesus verily does appear to be so luminous and inspiring a personality, why should not Jews accept the religious teachings of Jesus as a whole and follow them entirely? They would not have to become Christians or accept Chris- tianity. For as Lessing put it “Christianity has been tried for eighteen hundred years, but the religion of Jesus remains to be tried!”” Could and should not the Jew be the first to put it into practice? The answer to this question must be in the nega- tive. In the first place, it may be pointed out that noble and inspiring as many of the teachings of Jesus are, they do not contain the last word to be spoken in the fields of religion and ethics. That word it was explained has not been and cannot be spoken at any one time or by any one person, and the Jew must no more accept the religion of Jesus than he must accept the teachings of the Old Testament, as ade- quate to meet all his religious needs. Nor ought the acceptance by the Jew of the teachings of Jesus prove in any way inimical to his love for and loyalty to other Jewish teachers. The Ol dand New Testament (at least that part of the New Testament contained in the gospel histories of the life of Jesus) need not and ought not prove mutually exclusive. They JESUS IN MODERN JUDAISM 133 ought rather supplement and complement each other.” ** The Jew cannot enroll himself as a follower of Jesus, because his teaching, inspiring and noble as it was, is not enough. It was pointed out in the chapter on The Outlook of Liberal Judaism that no past teach- ing, however fine, and no spiritual insight, however clear and true, are sufficient to meet the problems of the present; that the problems of to-day must in the / last analysis evoke to-day’s solutions. Thus the Jew cannot accept the teaching of Jesus as possessing such power and cogency that they can meet and solve his problems; and it would be a step backward to assume that his words and actions, any more than the words and actions of the seers of the Old Testament, are capable of supplying the Jew with a comprehensive spiritual chart or guide. The teachings of Jesus cannot alone solve the prob- lems of the Jew, nor can the Jew consider the word of Jesus to be the last or truest word in the spiritual progress of mankind. Yet his was a noble teaching 417t must be made clear, however, that even together they can- not determine the whole spiritual outlook of the Jew to-day. Beside them there are other teachings and other religious doc- trines which, while they may be less inclusive than those of the old and New Testaments, may none the less serve and help the Jew to-day in the effort to live well. Plato and Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, for example, had no knowledge of the writings which are included in the Bible and hence drew none of their own teachings from that source. But each of them contributed greatly to the spiritual wealth of the world. And in the works of each there are ethical doctrines which are lofty and inspiring and which in their own way may form a vital part of the equipment with which the Jew will attempt to face life’s problems. ee, 134 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM and he spoke a blessed word. In them the Jew can and should find much that will light up the course of his own life, much that may inspire and stimulate and strengthen him to live that life in the spirit of Jesus himself, in the high and holy spirit of love. CHAPTER IX THE FUNCTION OF THE MINISTRY In the preceding chapter I have tried to outline some of the problems which confront Liberal Judaism to-day, problems which it must frankly face if it is to remain a vital force in the lives of Jewish men and women. In regard to many of these problems it has been pointed out that the attitude and outlook of Judaism appear at present radically wrong, and that they must be greatly changed. In addition to those questions which have been dealt with there re- main others which have not been discussed. Among them are such problems as the place and value of ritual and religious tradition in the Judaism of to- day, and the very difficult question of what the rela- tion of Judaism and of American Jews ought to be in regard to Zionism, or more correctly, in regard to the Jewish National Homeland, now in the process of being reestablished in Palestine.t And _ besides these, there are numerous minor questions which have not been touched upon. +] have failed to deal with these two problems for quite dif- ferent reasons. In regard to the first, I believe that the point of view emphasized throughout is capable of being applied very simply to questions of ritual and tradition, and of their place in modern Judaism. It does not seem necessary to elaborate at 135 136 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM There remains one problem however which is of such great importance that it cannot be overlooked. I refer to the problem of the Jewish ministry, its general function, and its relation to the religious questions which have been discussed. That the rela- tion is a very intimate one will readily be appreciated. It will be seen to what a large extent the attitude of Judaism is the attitude of its ministers and teachers and leaders. “Like people, like priest” is an old proverb and a true one, but perhaps it would be even truer to-day to say “Like priest, like faith!” For it is the clergy of the great faiths of the Western world, who determine almost entirely the character of re- ligions in our day. While on the other hand there is the fact that the character of the ministry, whether Jewish or Christian, in our day does not determine the character of the people. A fine ministry no longer ensures a fine laity. On the contrary, I have known of instances not a few, where the average of goodness and fineness of members of a community has been above that of the ministers and priests who were supposed to be its spiritual guides.” any length upon the principle that ritual and tradition are to be retained and valued, only insofar as they prove meaningful and helpful to those Jews for whose spiritual development they are intended. As to the other question, the relation of Jews individually, and of Judaism as a whole to Palestine and to Jewish achieve- ments and aspirations there, I have not touched upon it because it does not seem to me to be essentially a religious question. And in this book I have attempted to deal only with problems of the religion of the American Jew. 2'The reason for the lessening of the moral rapport between people and priest is to be found in the dissociation, which has eS Oe eee. THE FUNCTION OF THE MINISTRY 137 But while the character of the ministry no longer determines the character of the lives of laymen to the great extent that it once did, there has grown up in recent years an increased dependence of the character of religion itself upon the ministry. When ordinary men and women were deeply concerned with the prob- lems, both theological and practical, of religion, they and the minister together determined what the char- acter of their faith should be, and, while the ministry influenced them in their religious beliefs and prac- tises to a large degree, they in their turn influenced it. But the interest in and zeal for religion on the part of members of churches and synagogues have in our own day flagged. Men and women have come to feel less keenly their responsibility in determining the character of their faith. And the responsibility and the power of determining it have come gradually to rest almost wholly upon the ministry. At all events that is the case with Liberal Judaism to-day. What it is and what it is to become depend almost entirely upon the rabbinate of America. Whether for good or ill, the indifference of the ordinary lay- man and laywoman to the vital problems of religion has placed in the hands of the Rabbi the greatest degree of power in determining the character of Judaism.? for years been growing up in the minds of educated persons, between nobility in the conduct of life, and religious observance. It is being perceived that the two need not go together, even though in so many cases they do. ?To guide and direct the religious beliefs of the community is the natural task of the minister. But to-day the minister no 138 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM In some senses it may be said that it is a very barren power which the rabbinate possesses, a power over the empty forms of religion, rather than over the lives and character of those to whom it seeks to minister. Yet that power is not wholly barren. Some Jews there are who still apply with earnestness and with con-— scious effort the dicta of Judaism to their own lives. And there are always the great number of children, whose religious training and spiritual inspiration depend largely upon the religious head of the com- munity. Because of them, and in the hope that it is not yet too late to bring the teachings of religion again into direct contact with daily life, it is neces- sary to determine what the attiude of the Jewish ministry ought to be in regard to the more important questions with which this book has dealt. It is unnecessary here to discuss the Jewish min- istry in its intimate workings, or the way in which it has served American Israel. Its virtues, and it has many, are in no danger of being overlooked. And concerning most of its faults the Jewish ministry is itself acutely conscious. (Although it is significant that one very sane and deeply Jewish person to whom these chapters were shown said in all seriousness, that the faults of the Judaism of to-day were not attributable to Judaism itself, but that almost uni- formly the case was one of right beliefs and doctrines longer seems to be leading and guiding the people. On the con- trary, ministers and laymen seem to be traveling and progressing upon entirely different planes, planes which do not even inter- sect, be- Ss THE FUNCTION OF THE MINISTRY 139 being misread and mistaught by the wrong persons. To how large an extent this is true it would be difficult to decide, and not very profitable to discuss. I men- tion it only to make clear that a problem does exist, as to the real serviceableness of what has been at least a devoted rabbinate.) The problem to be dealt with may be stated as follows: What is the attitude of the ministry to be in regard to those questions of belief and conduct which are so vexed to-day? How and in what spirit is the minister to discharge his - function? * It is necessary at the very outset to recall once more the fundamental principle laid down in the first chapter of this book. That principle was that the purpose of religion is to help men to live well. Upon its acceptance or rejection will depend in largest part the attitude which the Jewish ministry will adopt. If the minister is to be concerned not so much with com- mending to men the religion of Israel in the hope that it may answer their spiritual needs, as in helping them to live well, no matter in what way, or at what cost to traditional Jewish beliefs, it will be seen that the function and the attitude of the ministry will necessarily undergo a great change. This change will perhaps appear most clearly in relation to the preaching and teaching of the min- *In all the questions dealt with in these chapters some refer- ence has been made to the necessity for a change in attitude on the part of the Jewish ministry. What I wish here to do is to find some broad underlying principles of outlook and attitude which shall characterize the teachings of the rabbinate in America. 140 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM ister on ethical problems. His aim will no longer be to commend to the souls of his hearers one particular standard or law of life. He will rather attempt to stimulate them as individuals to form their own stand- ards according to their own best judgment and the highest law of their own being. This does not mean that the minister is not to express his own convictions as strongly as he desires or that he is to abate by one whit the ardor with which he champions what he conceives to be the moral law. What it does mean is that the minister will no longer present the doc- trine which he preaches and the beliefs which he upholds, as the one and only means of salvation for all individuals. Instead he will offer his own faith, or the faith of Judaism as he understands it, that those who hear him may know what that faith is, that they may compare it with their own beliefs, and that they may apply whatever in it seems of worth to their own lives. Similarly in the fields of dogma and of creed, the minister is not to attempt to impose either his own beliefs or the traditional beliefs of Judaism upon his hearers. Problems such as the existence of God, the character of God and the immortality of the soul, must not be dealt with as if there were one solution which it is the business of the minister to expound. ‘There exists to-day among all groups a wide divergence of beliefs touching these questions. Men and women hold very different opinions on them, opinions which are often radically different THE FUNCTION OF THE MINISTRY 141 from the opinions of past generations, and from the contemporary teachings of most religions. And these men and women will not, and should not, tolerate a dogmatic assertion of belief by ministers. Despite dogmas of church and synagogue there can be no one single answer, capable of satisfying all men, to the great questions concerning God and the human soul. And men are beginning to realize this. The ministry of the future will deal with questions of belief, just as with questions of ethics. The his- toric conceptions of them will be expounded and made clear. The personal belief of the minister will be presented by him, as his own personal belief, and then the men and women to whom he speaks will be urged to consider and to weigh the matter for themselves, and to arrive in their own way at their own decisions. Nor will ministers falter or repent in this attitude, even when it appear that the conclusions reached by those to whom they speak differ from their own, or from the dogmas which their religion has always cherished. An example of this new attitude of the ministry is to be found in an address, recently delivered by a great preacher in New York on the subject of immor- tality. Beginning with a frank admission of the im- possibility of any scientific proof or any definite or certain knowledge on the subject, he goes on to affirm his own unshaken belief in immortality, and to ex- plain just how and why he holds that belief. And in concluding his address he makes clear that the belief 142 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM which he cherishes so dearly, is one which many men cannot accept, and that therefore it is not and cannot be, in any sense, a final solution of the problem. This is the attitude which the ministry will adopt. It is an attitude which freely recognizes that uni- formity in creed is an impossible and an undesirable achievement, and which understands the value of doubts, and of difference of opinions. It so hap- pened that this man believed firmly that life does not end with death and so expressed himself; but even had he not held this faith, even had he doubted deeply concerning a future life, it would have been of just as much importance that he speak his thought to his people. It is not only as the protagonist of orthodox doctrine that the minister must speak to-day. If doubts and questions are in his own soul, then he must share those doubts and questions with his hear- ers. He must let their wonder feel that he has won- dered, and their doubt that he has doubted. Questionings and doubts are the very stuff of which the life of the spirit is made; they are a vital part of the life of thoughtful men and women. And the minister must not seek to hide this aspect of his being. Asa great American teacher put it, “The true preacher deals out to the people his life,—life passed through the fire of thought.” The function of the ministry is, then, not to be thought of in terms of perpetuating and inculcating certain ethical ideals and dogmas. Rather is it to consist in stimulating and inspiring the individual THE FUNCTION OF THE MINISTRY 143 to formulate his own ideals and to arrive at his own beliefs. Indeed if there is any one religious point of view, or any one attitude, which the min- ister is to commend and to emphasize, it is the neces- sity of self-ministry. Individuals must be made to feel the importance of the command, Minister ye unto yourselves! For it is all-important. Our age is frankly individualist; perhaps even more individualist in tendency than in its present status. It marks the rise in place and power of the individual, in his relation to the family, to society, and to the state. And so it is in his relation to re- ligion. The individual has become to an unprece- dented degree its standard and its test. The indi- vidual’s needs and the way in which his needs are met are fast becoming the criterion of the value of his faith. The individual has become the sole judge of the spiritual values in his own life. He has become in large part and is becoming ever more his own minister. And the problem of religion to-day is how to induce the individual to accept consciously and earnestly the great responsibility which is his. Church and Synagogue have lost their power to regulate the spiritual values and ethical decisions in the lives of men. That power is now largely in the hands of the individual. It is a mighty weapon, a weapon which may be used either for good or evil. And it is a weapon which, if it is to be used for good, must be well understood. To make men understand how to use this weapon, is the chief function of the ministry. 144. LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM In these days of changing power and of shifting values the ministry is called upon to aid the individual in preparing for the struggle which lies ahead. That struggle the individual must wage largely against himself. For the newly acquired duty of ultimate ethical decision concerning life will surely bring to pass a deep conflict of ideals within him. And upon ministers everywhere rests the responsibility of pre- paring man to face his problem. The minister can- not presume to decide that problem for the individual, and the minister can no longer take the burden of that problem upon himself. The individual alone is capable of solving it. But the minister can still, in a very real sense, be of service. He can instruct the in- dividual in the spiritual geography of the country to be traversed. He can point out the alternate goals towards which the individual may set his face, and, most important of all, he can, and must, make it absolutely clear that with the individual alone, the issue rests. POSTSCRIPT These chapters have been discussed with a number of persons who have criticised them with perfect can- dor and without reserve. Many of their suggestions have been incorporated without acknowledgment throughout these pages. Others I have felt forced to reject. But for all of them I am deeply and sincerely grateful. There are, however, three critical judgments on this work, which can neither be accepted wholly nor yet be completely ignored. Two of them deal with the fundamental thesis of the book; the third with a practical danger to which it may give rise. And each of them emphasizes so important an aspect of the problem, that there could be no better way of sum- marizing the content of what I have written than by rehearsing and dealing with these criticisms. The first questions the basic principle that the purpose of religion is “to help men to live well.” What, it is asked, is to be the definition of living well? What are the social implications of that term? To both queries I would make answer, first, that my object has not been to deal with the religious duty of the individual Jew, or to set forth the laws of conduct by which he is to shape his life. These are, of course, 145 146 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM alluded to, though indirectly. But the fundamental question with which this book seeks to deal, is the question of what ought be the attitude and obliga- tions of religion itself in relation to the individual and to society, rather than a discussion of the duties laid upon the individual by his religion. But though it was unnecessary to dwell on, or to amplify at great length, the definition of the term “living well,” it may make clearer the goal toward which religion is to strive, if what is meant thereby be briefly stated. By living well I mean the conscious effort of the individual to pitch his life upon the highest plane to which he feels capable of rising. More simply perhaps: An individual, to live well, must live according to the highest that he knows.* This implies both the fact of the consciousness within the individual of the possibility of moral decision, —of the reality of the choice between a better and a worse way of conduct, and, more important still, the belief that when that better way is surely felt and known the natural desire of the individual will be to follow it. As to the social implications of living well, I would say that these are inherent in any definition of that term. The individual verily is “an abstraction apart from society,” and no intelligent person can fail to * This, it is true, leaves far more to the “innate goodness of the human heart” than is usually left nowadays, Yet on that good- ness have been founded the great hopes of humankind, and in that goodness the believer in the potency of the spirit must ultimately trust. POSTSCRIPT 147 realize the intimate relation in which he stands to others. On the contrary, he will feel that he is a member of an “infinite community of spirits, similar though not identical to his own.” And he will realize negatively that no ill of theirs can really subserve his gain; and positively, that the achievement of what is noblest in him must be wrought with due considera- tion for, and in true harmony with, the right of others to similar achievement. The second criticism with which I would deal, is that in presenting the purpose of religion as the at- tempt to help men to live well, I have not added that it is impossible for a Jew to live well unless he live Jewishly,? and further that I have not defined what living Jewishly, or as a Jew, implies. Yet that ad- dition [ cannot make. Unfortunate it may be, yet the fact remains that there are literally hundreds of thousands of Amer- ican Jews whose life is lived in an orbit practically untouched by Jewish interests or activities. Jews they remain because their heritage is Jewish. Yet Judaism has failed to touch their souls. And the light of the spirit, as they have seen it, has not appeared to them (as it doubtless did to their fathers), merely as the re- flection of the teachings of the Synagogue. To ask these Jews to live a fully Jewish life, is to ask them 2Namely, by experiencing the consciousness of identification with world Israel, a consciousness which ought become operant through communal participation in Jewish religious activities, and through the effort of the individual Jew to interest himself in the needs, the problems and the possibilities of the Jewish group, both within and without his own land. 148 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM suddenly to accept as a vital part of their lives a set of values and beliefs which have no vital meaning for them. And to insist further that they cannot live well unless they do accept them is clearly im- possible. For such Jews have been dissociated by their up- bringing, by their surroundings, even by their religion itself, from a Jewish life.* Judaism has failed to move them, and yet their lives are not without spirit- ual gleams. It were vain to tell them that they cannot live well without living Jewishly, that they cannot be spiritually minded without being Jewishly minded. For they know this is not so. And their knowledge is based not on theory but on experience. Instead of reiterating that the Jew cannot live well except qua Jew, let Liberal Judaism face the facts as they are, and strive slowly, even painfully, to give the Jew that background of Jewishness which will eventually make inevitable the Jewish quality of his life. Finally it is alleged that the result of the suggestions made throughout this book (were they to be adopted) would be to weaken rather than to strengthen, to attenuate rather than to liberalize Liberal Judaism, and to make less rather than greater the loyalty of the * Conditions such as these do not, however, obtain among all Jews. Many Jews are possessed of backgrounds and connections which are so Jewish that to live well they must needs live Jewishly. The “ought,” as it touches their conduct in life, touches it largely in relation to their faith, and to their fellow Jews. For such Jews the further definition of living Jewishly in order to live well may be made. But the Jewish community of to-day, particularly that portion of it with which, by circumscription, this volume deals, consists neither wholly, nor even largely, of such Jews. POSTSCRIPT 149 Jew to his faith. In reply to this I would point out that this is exactly what was urged against the founders of Liberal Judaism sixty and seventy years ago by the champions of orthodoxy. And in circum- stances very similar. For the orthodoxy of their gen- eration was as lifeless as is the reform of our own! Liberal Judaism has failed to meet the present need. + It has built its mighty temples, but those temples have become the mortuary chapels of the living faith which once inspired it. Liberal Judaism is no longer com- pelling to American Israel. Its attitude conflicts with the principles which men to-day feel must be the foundation of a real religion. These I have tried to outline. And if it is claimed that they will lead the Jew away from Judaism, I answer that Liberal Juda- ism has done that already! Liberal Jews are very little, and grow ever less, Jewish in their habits of mind and life. Yet Liberal Judaism blindly and blandly pursues the even tenor of its way, seemingly unconscious that it stands in terrible need of a reformation, a refor- mation whose aim will be far more than renewed loy- alty to the principles of the Liberal Judaism of the past. Rather will it search out fearlessly the vital needs of the Jew to-day, and seek to meet those needs. It is this reformation that I urge. In it may lie the sal- vation of Liberal Judaism, the seed of religious re- birth for the Jews of this land. And at all events it cannot lead American Israel farther from a real loy- 150 LIBERALIZING LIBERAL JUDAISM alty to its faith than, under the influence of Liberal Judaism, it stands to-day. On the contrary, my earnest conviction is that through such reformation may come a love of Judaism, based not so much on empty protestations respecting its eternal value as on a clear understanding of how it may be used to ennoble the life of the individual Jew, and to enrich the character of the Jew- ish group. I would not substitute new lamps for old, —worthless innovations for the priceless treasures of the past, but, if the old lamp is to serve the new need, if it is to burn as a steady illuming flame, it must be filled again with oil; the encrustations which have dimmed its brightness must be removed; and the wick within it must be trimmed afresh. To this end these chapters have been written. The changes which must take place will not come over- night. Nor are the outlook and attitude suggested in this volume, together with their application to concrete problems, likely to be accepted entirely, or at once. They are not meant to be. In form they are neither full nor final. They embody rather some intimations of the direction in which we must move, if Liberal Judaism is to become once again a living, moving force in this generation and in the generations that are to come. ee he es abn 7 to as My waste Geharonls ~ Fhe hureslirnri tee Gf Lebvcal Seetlematn ~ dyew® ! i La « ae yA cae | { Date Due i . f ee ¥ bith th hay inna Ny “4 vs q i TA ray 4 K i RK. + iy n i. wed ak iy , Dar i Re eat ay Are Ue 2 ae LOTT ee ee te eter 6 es Ae yey eye ve worse seiseeee 5 = © ms Yerevan yey) se Ges ome Tne resece nt ee ea * rd ars SSN TY reper serr epee weer rer tree etpeee renee = seewers" ots atest ars tr et