A Jewish attorney who was going through a divorce asked one of her more observant colleagues if he knew any rabbis who could help her obtain a get (religious divorce). She knew little about the process, except that her Reform rabbi insisted she would need one in order to remarry. The observant colleague explained that she would

A body of law applies to the Jewish People, and that the observance of one aspect is organically connected to the application of another.

not need a get because her husband was not a Jew according to Jewish law. Rather, as the son of a Jewish father and gentile mother, his status as a Jew was recognized only by the Reform Movement by virtue of patrilineal descent, which is contrary to Halacha (Jewish law).

Armed with this information she again spoke to her rabbi, who nevertheless remained insistent. This woman grew up in a Reform synagogue and her Jewish education was limited to Sunday school curriculum. Yet, as an attorney she appreciated the legalistic nature of Halacha when explained to her, and was able to see the illogic in her rabbi's position. She found it strange that he was so doctrinaire about the theoretical observance of Jewish divorce law even as he failed to understand that it applied only to those defined as Jews under the law, irrespective of how his movement chose to recognize them.

Despite her lack of observance, the woman appreciated that a body of law applies to the Jewish People, and that the observance of one aspect is organically connected to the application of another. The experience sparked something of a spiritual reawakening for her.

This vignette brings into focus a phenomenon that is occurring with increasing frequency. Some Reform congregants are searching for greater ritual connection, while the movement's hierarchy has sought to encourage greater observance to counteract the demographic anarchy occasioned by the rejection of traditional standards. Nearly ten years ago, the movement's rabbinical association, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), adopted a new statement of principles constituting the fourth platform in movement history. This platform sought, among other things, to promote ritual observance as the governing body understood it, although not in a traditional sense.

Apparently alarmed by the increasing intermarriage rate, growing malaise in lay commitment to Jewish identity and lack of uniform standards, the CCAR attempted to reintroduce some of the ritual substance that was discarded during the movement's evolution in America. The first statement of principles - the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 - had rejected Halacha and traditional observance, attempting instead to redefine Judaism as an ethical belief system stripped of its ritual and national elements. To reinforce the break with tradition, the movement's first ordained rabbinical class celebrated graduation with a banquet featuring shellfish.

Thereafter, the movement periodically adopted less extreme platforms, even re-embracing the concept of peoplehood in the wake of the Holocaust. Nevertheless, the lack of rules and standards continued to whittle away at Jewish identity, which in part prompted the call to action that spawned the new platform a decade ago. This platform, however, did not recognize the importance of mandatory observance for Jewish continuity and instead conceptualized mitzvot (commandments) more as a body of voluntary customs, traditions and practices.

The friction between validating the need for observance and actually requiring it was illustrated by Rabbi Harry K. Danziger, then senior rabbi at Temple Israel in Memphis, who was quoted in the New York Times describing the platform as "the big tent within which you stand, and [where there] is a broad view of Jewish heritage out of which you will make your personal religion. No one ideology replaces or triumphs over another." ("Reform Movement Reconsiders Rituals it Abandoned a Century Ago", New York Times, May 27, 1999, Brozan, Nadine and Niebuhr, Gustav)

Given this sentiment, the platform could not require compliance with its recommendations; and in any case, it did not establish even a suggested minimum regimen of observance. Moreover, a review of the draft manifesto during its developmental stages shows that the drafters did not employ the tools of traditional rabbinics or applied Halacha in determining what elements to include.

At every stage of revision the drafters considered observance advisory only; but the very discussion of mitzvot was extremely controversial for a movement whose original manifesto had rejected traditional ritual as archaic and the concept of peoplehood as anachronistically tribal. Some of those participating in the platform convention were extremely hostile to any calls for ritual revival, although most seemed to understand the value of, if not the need for, increased observance for maintaining Jewish commitment and identity.

The movement's leaders certainly understood the crisis on the American Jewish landscape, as evidenced by rising Jewish illiteracy and a dizzying intermarriage rate. However, acknowledging the need for rules did not reconcile the movement's internal aversion to the enforcement of observance-based standards. On one hand, the CCAR desired to combat assimilation and the dissipation of standards, while on the other, it had neither the tools to create a substantive program nor the inclination to require adherence. Although one rabbi might now encourage his congregants to keep kosher, for example, the platform did not make Kashrut obligatory and contained no mechanism for strengthening personal commitment through observance.

Nothing illustrates the inherent inconsistency more acutely than the treatment of intermarriage in the Reform community. Although the movement's leaders decry the increase in intermarriage among their congregants, nearly half of them (by some estimates) officiate at such unions, in part because of the concept of patrilineal descent for defining Jewish identity. Indeed, many Reform rabbis rationalize that performing intermarriages preserves a connection to Judaism for the Jewish partner.

The intellectual conundrum, however, is that rabbis cannot effectively discourage intermarriage if they themselves perform mixed weddings, sometimes in collaboration with non-Jewish clergy. That some rabbis justify their actions as "preserving a connection to Judaism" is pure sophistry. Such claims ignore the reality that any perceived

Nothing illustrates the inherent inconsistency more acutely than the treatment of intermarriage.

connection does not make the children born of such unions Jewish under the law if their mothers are not. Furthermore, they ignore the demographic reality that Jewish identity, and indeed any religious or ethnic identity, cannot continue in perpetuity when intermarriage occurs over successive generations.

And yet, there are people, like our attorney above, who are clearly troubled by the lack of standards to guide them. Her experience is common for people raised with only tenuous connections to tradition who discover how little they know when faced with death, divorce or some other life event and, for the first time, must ponder where Judaism fits in. Ultimately, they are driven by a sense that there has to be more to Judaism than ethical platitudes without requirements, suggestions without demands, generalized belief without specific focus, and affiliation without commitment.

The movement's attempt to promote greater observance could not fill the ritual void absent any real demands for compliance or benchmarks for commitment. Nevertheless, its effort to synthesize a more ritualized approach seems to signal a realization that at least some of its constituents are searching for more than it currently has to offer. And this searching underscores the potential of the Jewish spirit for renewal and growth.

This article is the copyrighted property of Matthew M. Hausman and may not be published, printed, copied or reproduced without the expressed written permission of the author. Copyright March 20, 2009.