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