Thanks Mark, I appreciate your commenting now, as that will help me be relevant as I write the other posts.

I know many others share your question, as I have heard it often. As I have worked in this area now for over ten years, for me it is a testament to the sad neglect of the distinctive treasure of Jewish ethics. It is no fault of yours, but it is a key failing of the Reform movement, as I will explain in my next post.

The way in which Jewish tradition approaches ethics, particularly in the Talmud, is quite different from other traditions. The results are often similar to other ethics, but sometimes not. For example, there are many points of divergence from both traditional Christian ethics and from some of the strands of contemporary American ethics.

In any case, the heart of Judaism is the wedding of ethics and spirituality. You can separate them, but I think both sides lose a lot when you do.

It will take many posts to do justice to your questions, but I will be having a go at it, so keep me honest!

Reform has over recent decades lost much of the pride in Reform Judaism and confidence that modern, rational ethical Judaism was the best religion. Many have come to accept the Orthodox characterization of Reform as "Judaism Lite" rather than the reformers belief that it was a more "pure Judaism."

The leading figures of the Jewish Reformation included some of the world's most highly respected scholars of the Bible, the Talmud, and other rabbinical writings. Having experienced Orthodox Judaism, and having given each of the changes they were making to modernize Judaism great consideration, they were justly pleased with the new, improved, reformed Judaism. That pride and confidence was widespread for a long time as our ancestors worked to create the future form of Judaism for all Jews. More recently, I see some leaders who are more apologetic for Reform. Many Jewish leaders place a higher value on appeasing the Orthodox by adopting more and more of its trappings than in having a purer form of Judaism that withstands a reasoned analysis.

It strikes me as bizarre that Reform chose Emanuel Gamoran, who studied at the JTS and did not believe in Reform Judaism, and did not believe in Judaism being taught as a religion, to be in charge of the educational programs for our Sunday Schools for 35 years. Is it any surprise that his books reflected his dislike of basic Reform ideals and sought to undermine them? Or the selection of Samuel Cohon, who disliked the rational approach and stress on ethics of Reform and wanted more Orthodox ritualism, as Professor of Theology at Hebrew Union College for 33 years. Is it any surprise that his rabbinical students were urged to move toward Orthodoxy rather than to continue to push for reform of Orthodoxy.

My view may well be too jaundiced, but I see Reform Judaism of late as an amalgam of faux-Orthodox ritual practices, an embarrassed retreat from founding beliefs, and a self-righteous embrace of monotonous political correctness. The less distinctive Reform Judaism becomes from other Jewish denominations, the less reason it has to exist as a separate movement.

Like Ruth B, I am uneasy about the split among Jewish denominations. The institutions of Judaism are denominationally split, and are important to the future and so realistically need to be considered.

However in my post here my main concern is with laying out a philosophy that can inspire a strong future for Judaism, at least on the liberal side--the side concerned with incorporating into Judaism ideals from the Enlightenment.

What I meant by "aimless neo-traditionalism" is that there is general praise of traditional rituals once not practiced in Reform, but not a critical assessment or guidelines on what should and should not be revived.

To my mind, Reform dropped precious parts of the tradition that should be restored, but also got rid of things we are well rid of.

Whatever else we may think about some of the inanities that are stimulated by Dr. Berkson's insightful posts, we must certainly give first prize to the assertion that we do what we do to appease the Orthodox.

The progenitors of the American Jewish Reformation, whatever the purity and rationality of their thought processes, were optimists who looked at their Reform Judaism as a universalitic religious solution so compelling that people of all faiths would eventually adopt it. (My house shall be a house of prayer for all peoples.) Lo and behold, they couldn't even get all Jews to adopt it.

And, truth be told, they didn't want all Jews to adopt it, as demonstrated by the Reform impetus behind the creation of the Jewish Theological Seminary, as part of a strategy to keep the great unwashed out of their Temples in their New Jerusalems.

Dr. Berkson places the heart of Judaism at the wedding of ethics and spirituality. To those I would add lifestyle. We define ourselves as Reform Jews by how we think, how we pray, and how we live. In all those realms, we may learn from our more halachic contemporaries and predecessors -- although Postville shows us that we have a lot to teach them about ethics, if only they would learn.

I have always loved the story about the little boy who tells his mother he's drawing a picture of God. But Sammy, she says, no one knows what God looks like. Of course not, Sammy replies -- I'm not done yet.

As Reform Jews, our job is to draw that picture of God -- and never to be done. Those who don't like our ever-evolving picture can establish their own museums, to display their completed visions. And if I look at their picture, and borrow a detail or two for my own, it will be to enrich my practice, not to appease them.