Editing Reform Judaism (section)

==Theology==

===God===
In regard to God, the Reform movement has always officially maintained a [[theistic]] stance, affirming the belief in a [[personal God]].<ref>Kaplan, ''American Reform: an Introduction'', p. 29; ''Challenges and Reflections'', p. 36; ''Contemporary Debates'', 136–142.;[[Jonathan Romain]] ''Reform Judaism and Modernity: A Reader'', SCM Press, 2004. p. 145.</ref> Despite this official position, some voices among the spiritual leadership have approached [[religious humanism|religious]] and even [[secular humanism]]. This tendency has grown since the mid-20th century among both clergy and constituents, leading to broader, dimmer definitions of the concept.

Early Reform thinkers in Germany clung to this precept;<ref>Meyer, p. 96.</ref> the 1885 [[Pittsburgh Platform]] described the "One God... The God-Idea as taught in our sacred Scripture" as consecrating the Jewish people to be its priests. It was grounded on a wholly theistic understanding, although the term "God-idea" was excoriated by outside critics. So was the 1937 Columbus Declaration of Principles, which spoke of "One, living God who rules the world".<ref>''Challenges and Reflections'', pp. 34–36.</ref> Even the 1976 San Francisco Centenary Perspective, drafted at a time of great discord among Reform theologians, upheld "the affirmation of God... Challenges of modern culture have made a steady belief difficult for some. Nevertheless, we ground our lives, personally and communally, on God's reality."<ref>Kaplan, ''Contemporary American Judaism: Transformation and Renewal'', pp. 131.</ref> The 1999 Pittsburgh Statement of Principles declared the "reality and oneness of God". British [[Liberal Judaism (UK)|Liberal Judaism]] affirms the "Jewish conception of God: One and indivisible, transcendent and immanent, Creator and Sustainer".

===Revelation===
The basic tenet of Reform theology is a belief in a continuous, or progressive, [[Revelation#Judaism|revelation]],<ref>Dana Evan Kaplan, ''Contemporary Debates in American Reform Judaism'', Routledge, 2013. p. 239.; ''Challenges and Reflections'', pp. 27, 46, 148.; Elliot N. Dorff, ''Conservative Judaism: Our Ancestors to Our Descendants'', United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, 1979. pp. 104–105.</ref><ref name="Bor">Eugene B. Borowitz, ''Reform Judaism Today'', Behrman House, 1993. pp. 147–148.</ref> occurring continuously and not limited to the [[Mattan Torah|theophany at Sinai]], the defining event in traditional interpretation. According to this view, all holy scripture of Judaism, including the [[Torah]], were authored by human beings who, although under [[divine inspiration]], inserted their understanding and reflected the spirit of their consecutive ages. All the [[Jews|People of Israel]] are a further link in the chain of revelation, capable of reaching new insights: religion can be renewed without necessarily being dependent on past conventions. The chief promulgator of this concept was [[Abraham Geiger]], generally considered the founder of the movement. After critical research led him to regard scripture as a human creation, bearing the marks of historical circumstances, he abandoned the belief in the unbroken perpetuity of tradition derived from Sinai and gradually replaced it with the idea of progressive revelation.

As in other [[Liberal religion|liberal denominations]], this notion offered a conceptual framework for reconciling the acceptance of critical research with the maintenance of a belief in some form of divine communication, thus preventing a rupture among those who could no longer accept a literal understanding of revelation. No less importantly, it provided the clergy with a rationale for adapting, changing and excising traditional mores and bypassing the accepted conventions of Jewish Law, rooted in the orthodox concept of the explicit transmission of both scripture and its [[Oral Torah|oral interpretation]]. While also subject to change and new understanding, the basic premise of progressive revelation endures in Reform thought.<ref name="JJ"/><ref>See also: [[Dana Evan Kaplan]], [http://forward.com/opinion/136237/ "In Praise of Reform Theology"], ''[[The Forward]]'', 16 March 2011.</ref>

In its early days, this notion was greatly influenced by the philosophy of [[German idealism]], from which its founders drew much inspiration: belief in humanity marching toward a full understanding of itself and the divine, manifested in moral progress towards perfection. This highly rationalistic view virtually identified human reason and intellect with divine action, leaving little room for direct influence by God. Geiger conceived revelation as occurring via the inherent "genius" of the People Israel, and his close ally [[Solomon Formstecher]] described it as the awakening of oneself into full consciousness of one's religious understanding. The American theologian [[Kaufmann Kohler]] also spoke of the "special insight" of Israel, almost fully independent from direct divine participation, and English thinker [[Claude Montefiore]], founder of [[Liberal Judaism (UK)|Liberal Judaism]], reduced revelation to "inspiration", according intrinsic value only to the worth of its content, while "it is not the place where they are found that makes them inspired". Common to all these notions was the assertion that present generations have a higher and better understanding of divine will, and they can and should unwaveringly change and refashion religious precepts.<ref name="JJ">Jakob Josef Petuchowski, "The Concept of Revelation in Reform Judaism", in ''Studies in Modern Theology and Prayer'', Jewish Publication Society, 1998. pp. 101–112.</ref>

In the decades around [[World War II]], this rationalistic and optimistic theology was challenged and questioned. It was gradually replaced, mainly by the [[Jewish existentialism]] of [[Martin Buber]] and [[Franz Rosenzweig]], centered on a complex, personal relationship with the creator, and a more sober and disillusioned outlook.<ref>Robert G. Goldy, ''The Emergence of Jewish Theology in America'', Indiana University Press, 1990. pp. 24–25.</ref> The identification of human reason with Godly inspiration was rejected in favour of views such as Rosenzweig's, who emphasized that the only content of revelation is it in itself, while all derivations of it are subjective, limited human understanding. However, while granting higher status to historical and traditional understanding, both insisted that "revelation is certainly not Law giving" and that it did not contain any "finished statements about God", but, rather, that human subjectivity shaped the unfathomable content of the Encounter and interpreted it under its own limitations. The senior representative of postwar Reform theology, [[Eugene Borowitz]], regarded theophany in postmodern terms and closely linked it with quotidian human experience and interpersonal contact. He rejected the notion of "progressive revelation" in the meaning of comparing human betterment with divine inspiration, stressing that past experiences were "unique" and of everlasting importance. Yet he stated that his ideas by no means negated the concept of ongoing, individually experienced revelation by all.<ref name="Bor"/>

===Ritual, autonomy and law===
Reform Judaism emphasizes the ethical facets of the faith as its central attribute, superseding the ceremonial ones. Reform thinkers often cited the [[Nevi'im#Latter prophets|Prophets]]' condemnations of ceremonial acts, lacking true intention and performed by the morally corrupt, as testimony that rites have no inherent quality. Geiger centered his philosophy on the Prophets' teachings (he had already named his ideology "Prophetic Judaism" in 1838), regarding morality and ethics as the stable core of a religion in which ritual observance transformed radically through the ages. However, practices were seen as a means to elation and a link to the heritage of the past, and Reform generally argued that rituals should be maintained, discarded or modified based on whether they served these higher purposes. This stance allowed a great variety of practice both in the past and the present. In "Classical" times, personal observance was reduced to little beyond nothing. The postwar "New Reform" lent renewed importance to practical, regular action as a means to engage congregants, abandoning the sanitized forms of the "Classical".

Another key aspect of Reform doctrine is the personal autonomy of each adherent, who may formulate their own understanding and expression of their religiosity. Reform is unique among all Jewish denominations in placing the individual as the authorized interpreter of Judaism.<ref>Dorff, p. 132; Dana Evan Kaplan, ''American Reform Judaism: An Introduction'', Rutgers University Press, 2009. pp. 41–42; Jonathan Sacks, ''Crisis and Covenant: Jewish Thought After the Holocaust'', Manchester Uni. Press, 1992. p. 158.</ref> This position was originally influenced by [[Kantian]] philosophy and the great weight it lent to personal judgement and free will. This highly individualistic stance also proved one of the movement's great challenges, for it impeded the creation of clear guidelines and standards for positive participation in religious life and definition of what was expected from members.

The notion of autonomy coincided with the gradual abandonment of traditional practice (largely neglected by most members, and the Jewish public in general, before and during the rise of Reform) in the early stages of the movement. It was a major characteristic during the "Classical" period, when Reform closely resembled Protestant surroundings. Later, it was applied to encourage adherents to seek their own means of engaging Judaism. "New Reform" embraced the criticism levied by Rosenzweig and other thinkers at extreme individualism, laying a greater stress on community and tradition. Though by no means declaring that members were bound by a compelling authority of some sort – the notion of an intervening, commanding God remained foreign to denominational thought. The "New Reform" approach to the question is characterized by an attempt to strike a mean between autonomy and some degree of conformity, focusing on a dialectic relationship between both.<ref>Leon A. Morris, "Beyond Autonomy: the Texts and Our Lives", in: Dana Evan Kaplan, ''Platforms and Prayer Books: Theological and Liturgical Perspectives on Reform Judaism'', Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002. pp. 271–284.</ref>

The movement never entirely abandoned ''halachic'' (traditional jurisprudence) argumentation, both due to the need for precedent to counter external accusations and the continuity of heritage. Instead, the movement had largely made ethical considerations or the spirit of the age the decisive factor in determining its course. The German founding fathers undermined the principles behind the legalistic process, which was based on a belief in an unbroken tradition through the ages merely elaborated and applied to novel circumstances, rather than subject to change. Rabbi [[Samuel Holdheim]] advocated a particularly radical stance, arguing that the ''halachic'' [[Dina d'malkhuta dina|Law of the Land is Law]] principle must be universally applied and subject virtually everything to current norms and needs, far beyond its weight in conventional Jewish Law.

While Reform rabbis in 19th-century Germany had to accommodate conservative elements in their communities, at the height of "Classical Reform" in the United States, ''halakhic'' considerations could be virtually ignored and Holdheim's approach embraced. In the 1930s and onwards, Rabbi [[Solomon Freehof]] and his supporters reintroduced such elements, but they too regarded Jewish Law as too rigid a system. Instead, they recommended that selected features will be readopted and new observances established in a piecemeal fashion, as spontaneous ''[[minhag]]'' (custom) emerging by trial and error and becoming widespread if it appealed to the masses. The advocates of this approach also stress that their [[Responsa#In Judaism|responsa]] are of non-binding nature, and their recipients may adapt them as they see fit.<ref>Walter Jacob, ''Liberal Judaism and Halakhah'', Rodef Shalom Press, 1988. pp. 90–94.; Michael A. Meyer, [https://www.jstor.org/stable/23536120 "Changing Attitudes of Liberal Judaism toward Halakhah and Minhag"], Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1993.</ref> Freehof's successors, such as Rabbis [[Walter Jacob]] and [[Moshe Zemer]], further elaborated the notion of "Progressive ''Halakha''" along the same lines.

===Messianic age and election===
Reform sought to accentuate and greatly augment the universalist traits in Judaism, turning it into a faith befitting the Enlightenment ideals ubiquitous at the time it emerged. The tension between universalism and the imperative to maintain uniqueness characterized the movement throughout its entire history. Its earliest proponents rejected [[Deism]] and the belief that all religions would unite into one, and it later faced the challenges of the [[Ethical movement]] and [[Unitarianism]]. Parallel to that, it sought to diminish all components of Judaism that it regarded as overly particularist and self-centered: petitions expressing hostility towards gentiles were toned down or excised, and practices were often streamlined to resemble surrounding society. "New Reform" laid a renewed stress on Jewish particular identity, regarding it as better suiting popular sentiment and need for preservation.

One major expression of that, which is the first clear Reform doctrine to have been formulated, is the idea of universal [[Messiah in Judaism|Messianism]]. The belief in redemption was unhinged from the traditional elements of [[return to Zion]] and restoration of the [[Third Temple|Temple]] and the sacrificial cult therein, and turned into a general hope for [[salvation]]. This was later refined when the notion of a personal Messiah who would reign over Israel was officially abolished and replaced by the concept of a [[Messianic Age]] of universal harmony and perfection. The considerable loss of faith in human progress around World War II greatly shook this ideal, but it endures as a precept of Reform.<ref>Borowitz, ''Reform Judaism Today'', pp. 81, 88–90.</ref>

Another key example is the reinterpretation of the [[Jews as the chosen people|election of Israel]]. The movement maintained the idea of the Chosen People of God, but recast it in a more universal fashion: it isolated and accentuated the notion (already present in traditional sources) that the mission of Israel was to spread among all nations and teach them divinely-inspired ethical monotheism, bringing them all closer to the Creator. One extreme "Classical" promulgator of this approach, Rabbi [[David Einhorn (rabbi)|David Einhorn]], substituted the lamentation on the [[Ninth of Av]] for a celebration, regarding the destruction of Jerusalem as fulfilling God's scheme to bring his word, via his people, to all corners of the earth. Highly self-centered affirmations of Jewish exceptionalism were moderated, although the general notion of "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" retained. On the other hand, while embracing a less strict interpretation compared to the traditional one, Reform also held to this tenet against those who sought to deny it. When secularist thinkers like [[Ahad Ha'am]] and [[Mordecai Kaplan]] forwarded the view of [[Cultural Judaism|Judaism as a civilization]], portraying it as a culture created by the Jewish people, rather than a God-given faith defining them, Reform theologians decidedly rejected their position – although it became popular and even dominant among rank-and-file members. Like the Orthodox, they insisted that the People Israel was created by divine election alone, and existed solely as such.<ref name="Eis"/> The 1999 Pittsburgh Platform and other official statements affirmed that the "Jewish people is bound to God by an eternal ''b'rit'', covenant".

===Soul and afterlife===
As part of its philosophy, Reform Judaism anchored reason in divine influence, accepted scientific criticism of hallowed texts and sought to adapt Judaism to modern notions of rationalism. Judaism was viewed by Enlightenment thinkers both as irrational and an import from ancient middle-eastern pagans. The only perceived form of retribution for the wicked, if any, was the anguish of their soul after death, and vice versa, bliss was the single accolade for the spirits of the righteous. Angels and heavenly hosts were also deemed a foreign superstitious influence, especially from early [[Zoroastrian]] sources, and denied.<ref>Romain, p. 8; Borowitz, ''Today'', p. 168; Petuchowski, pp. 183–184.</ref><ref>Walter Homolka, ''Liturgie als Theologie: das Gebet als Zentrum im jüdischen Denken'', Frank & Timme GmbH, 2005. pp. 63–98; and especially: J. J. Petuchowski, ''Prayerbook Reform in Europe: the Liturgy of European Liberal and Reform Judaism'', World Union for Progressive Judaism, 1968.</ref> Notions of afterlife according to Enlightenment thinkers were given to be reduced merely to the [[Immortality#Judaism|immortality of the soul]], while the founding thinkers of Reform Judaism, like Montefiore, all shared this belief, the existence of a soul became harder to cling to with the passing of time. In the 1980s, Borowitz could state that the movement had nothing coherent to declare in the matter. The various streams of Reform still largely, though not always or strictly, uphold the idea.<ref>[[Martha Himmelfarb]], "Resurrection", in: Adele Berlin (ed.), ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion'', Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 624.; Kaplan, ''Platforms and Prayer Books'', p. 217.</ref> The [[New Pittsburgh Platform|1999 Pittsburgh Statement of Principles]], for example, used the somewhat ambiguous formula "the spirit within us is eternal".<ref>Kaplan, ''Contemporary Debates'', p. 106.</ref>