Thank you, Rabbi Berman, for joining our dialogue, and for providing an informed perspective on "Classical Reform," a term which you characterize in the concise history on the SCRJ website as problematic.

In that history, you state,"It (CRJ) taught that Judaism had always developed new responses to the challenges of each generation." On the web, and particularly in that document, you call attention to some of the challenges we as a movement have faced in the generations since 1885 -- but there is less clarity about the responses, and how and why those responses differ from the movement's mainstream.

As someone who was married by Dr. Louis Mann, one of your predecessors at Chicago Sinai, and who joined Temple Sholom in Chicago when it was still identified with Classical Reform, I'll be particularly interested in your perspective on why today's Reform mainstream is so different from that of fifty years ago.

Even more, I'd like your insights on the new responses that have been introduced in Classical Reform to meet the needs of today's quite different generation and society.

@ M.B.: I'd very interested to meet a Jew in their 20's and 30's who is interested in Classical Reform. Unless, of course, you're merely refering to any Reform Jew in their 20's and 30's, because your description "a progressive, universal version of Judaism with its active empahsis on Prophetic values and on carrying the influence of Judaism outside of the temple into everyday life" fits mainstream Reform, not just Classical Reform, prefectly.

MB--I'd be interested in seeing actual demographic evidence for the trend you describe--this mass of young people who are yearning for Classic Reform services. I'm in my 30's, and I don't see it. But of course, we all self-select for similar groups, so I would be much obliged if you could open my eyes to this mass of young people you describe who otherwise are completely unseen to me presently.

What studies I have seen have suggest that young Jews want a ritual experience that is ethnically distinct from mainstream WASPY-ness and that has a feel of authenticity. They don't flock to Episcopal services--they are going to Indie Minyans (that by and large run traditional liturgy), Chabad (with its veneer of uber-authenticity), or to Buddist or Buddist-inspired TM and adopting Sanskrit mantras from monks in saffron robes.

But more than the ritual experience, young Jews want Shabbat dinner and a sense of community. Truly, the worship aestetics are likely secondary.

Thanks everyone for the supportive comments on my initial posting discussing the Society for Classical Reform Judaism. Please note that the mispelling of "Clasical Reform" in the header of this discussion topic is the RJ Blog's mistake- and perhaps is a graphic symbol of the disenfranchisment of the CR position in our movement!

My own experience as Rabbi of one of the country's pre-eminent CR temples, Chicago Sinai Congregation, for 25 years, and now as the Founding Rabbi of Boston Jewish Spirit, "A Progressive Reform Congregation for All in the City", has been that many younger Jews are indeed attracted to the Classical tradition once they are exposed to it. Both of these temples are flourishing with people- both singles and families in their 30's and 40's, who are drawn to a meaningful worship experience that embraces beautiful language and music, and lifts them to a higher plane than the popular culture offers. Both of these congregations use the Union Prayer Book- Sinai Edition- the contemporary language, gender inclusive revision of the old UPB that Sinai publishes. Many young people are very moved by a Service that includes both the great Reform choral/organ musical heritage, as well as contemporary compositions and varied instrumentation... many are inspired by a liturgy that balances "participation" with contemplation. Many are drawn to the simplicity of structure of the UPB, and its invitation to creativity and imagination in encountering the text- rather than the encyclopedic pedagogical approach of Mishkan Tefila for instance- which seems to feel that it must do all the work for the worshipper. And for the ever-growing number of interfaith families in our midst, Classical Reform worship is particularly empowering and accessible- removing the obstacles of a primarily Hebrew service, or the requirement of a mechanical knowledge of traditional ritual, as the "secret passwords" to full inclusion.

I would challenge the notion that our younger people are "flocking to Indie Minyanim, Chabad or Buddhism". Obviously these alternatives speak to some people's needs- and the Jewish community is strengthened by embracing diversity, creativity and pluralism. But for every ten young Jews who wander in and out of those settings, there are hundreds who are completely alienated. The Society fo Classical Reform Judaism believes that in the midst of all the other creative options, a contemporary expression of the historic progressive, intellectual, CR experience offers yet another vital and viable alternative.
I also have to say, with all due respect, that it is an illusion that what young Jews want most are " a Shabbat dinner and community..." This kind of approach, in attempting to replace real spiritual encounter and intellectual challenge with gefilte fish and a few new phone numbers for a Blackberry, is not substitute for the search for faith and meaning that most people- young and old - are yearning for...

It would be very unfortunate if the confrontational, hyper-critical, quick-to-take-offense dynamic of the current Presidential campaign infected the discourse of these conversations... Everything I said in my previous remarks, and all of the public statements of the Society for Classical Reform Judaism, affirm the diversity and pluralism of our Movement. This does not negate the fact that there are coherent, compelling reasons why we each fall within a particular point on this spectrum, and prefer certain alternatives in our own commitments. My rather mild and passing expression of the reservations I and many others have regarding Mishkan Tefila, is not a "put down" of anyone. I find many strengths to MT, and in fact, the SCRJ has been in discussion with the President of the CCAR regarding our preparation of a guide to using MT in a Classical Reform mode for alternative Services in congregations that have adopted the new Prayer Book, but also seek to meet the spiritual needs of all of their members.

I do not choose at this time to respond to Mr.Kaufman's rather mean-spirited charges regarding Classical Reform Jews choosing not to learn Hebrew or new music. Nor does it seem necessary to point out that MT will inevitably enjoy wider usage, as the official liturgy of the CCAR/URJ, than the Sinai UPB, which simply offers itself as an alternative option in what should be a free and diverse progressive religious community.

I appreciate the passion and commitment that anyone taking part in these discussions obviously feels - but I also hope that we can express our own positions and constructive critiques without denigrating the integrity or sincerity of other opinions.

The challenge for a worshipper to approach the Union Prayer Book with imagination and creativity is the very same open heart and mind called for by the use of any classic literature - whether the Bible itself...Shakespeare... or even more to the point, the traditional Siddur. These examples of majestic literary style and usage aspire to a standard of poetry and metaphor that seems to allude the modern mind- especially the hi-tech mindset of our own era, which communicates in quick e-mails and has somewhat short attention spans - using language more as a basic vehicle for contact on the run, than as an art form. When the UPB was first published in 1892, it was in fact hailed by writers and English professors as a model of formal contemporary -if formal - English prose and style.

More important however- all religious language calls for interpretation and personal analysis. The UPB, by its elegant and rich use of poetic and symbolic reference, presents this challenge rather explicitly. While it does present a greater variety of theological possibilities than might readily appear, it does make it necessary for us to filter words like God, Lord, bless, praise - and of course, He, Him and mankind -through our own intellectual lens. In this way, it is as much "prayer as study" as the traditional liturgy was for centuries. Maimonides challenged the rational worshipper to apply the same process to the Prayer Book.

The "simplicity of structure" is the fact that the UPB's original editors dought to extract the essence of the Siddur's themes and texts, and distill them into a clearly flowing, coherent liturgy that would be coherent and comprehensible to the modern mind. Needless repetition or meaningless texts that could not be rationally - or even ethically- spoken by a modern American Jew were replaced with paraphrases or new passages that retained the essential meaning - or newly expressed the distinctive theological vision of Reform Judaism. The service was conceived as an integrated whole- in which the liturgy itself was the primary element of the worship service, but was also understood to be thoughtfully linked to great music and challenging preaching. And by the turn of the 19th century, it was fully and honestly understood that the pace of American life did not provide for all of this to be accomplished in a three hour service ( and it can be questioned whether all of these elements were ever fully achieved in a three hour Orthodox service.)

So what I am suggesting is that contemporary language liturgy runs the risk of eventual obsolescence itself- by using colloquialisms or styles that are immediately current, but are soon passe. Even in our UPB-Sinai revision, while we have sought to revise the most pressing dimensions of the original text- particularly the "Thees and Thous" and the need for gender neutrality, we have nevertheless tried to retain the cadence, and much of the majesty- and even mystery- of the UPB's genius. For many Reform Jews today, this tradition is still cherished and deeply meaningful. For many younger people exposed to it in an open, positive way, it is a revelation that becomes very attractive to them. It is not the only way -and no one is suggesting that the Movement ditch GoP or MT and completely return to the UPB- all we are saying is that there are many approaches and commitments in our big-tent spiritual community, and all of them should be respected and empowered.

Rabbi Berman writes:
( and it can be questioned whether all of these elements were ever fully achieved in a three hour Orthodox service.)

I have been to a wide range of Orthodox services in the US, Israel, Italy, and Turkey, and the only ones that I recall breaking 3 hours on an ordinary Shabbat were the Leader Minyan in Jerusalem (a once-a-month minyan that is especially known for very long services, where they sing everything for a long time), a Yemenite synagogue in Jerusalem (where they preserve the ancient practice of translating the Torah reading verse-by-verse into Aramaic, making it take at least twice as long), and the Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue in New York (which has a full choir, and "decorum" that has been compared to Classical Reform). Much more common is to speed through the service. One can debate whether or not this is an effective means of prayer, but it does keep the service shorter.

If we're going to call out one denomination of mainstream American Ashkenazi Judaism for having long services, it should be Conservative.

i hope that the society for classical reform judaism will post some of their newsletters in their website so we can read more about classical reform judaism. thank you.