Tribalism, Reform Judaism, Rites and Choices
September 4, 2008
Lifecycle | Religious Life
(19 comments)
By dcc
Answer this question for me honestly: Do you, as an active Reform Jew, practice a Jewish tradition simply because that is what Jews have always done? Professor Carol Ochs writes in this week's d'var Torah that our portion teaches us that we can't "keep doing something just because we have always done it." I don't observe rituals simply because my parents do (or don't) observe them, but in all honesty my family's observance does inform my personal observance. And for that matter my community's observance plays a significant role in the formation of mine as well. But I can say with no doubt in my mind that I do not follow Jewish tradition simply because it is the way it has always been done.
So why do we continue to practice the brit mila?
In the most recent edition of Reform Judaism magazine Rabbi Mark Washofsky, HUC-JIR professor, Reform responsa scholar and general reference for all things Reform Judaism, wrote that Reform Jews continue this practice simple because that is what Jews do.
I think that the answer to these questions lies largely in the words "ancient tribal rite." For that's what berit milah is. That's why we do it, and, really, it's the only reason we do it.
Circumcision is a tribal rite in the same way that every Jewish ritual observance is a "tribal rite": a means by which the members of our "tribe" express their identity as a people, as a community covenanted with God, through the performance of a "rite" meaningful only within the context of that covenant. Putting it another way, if we seek to explain why we light Shabbat candles, or fast on Yom Kippur, or hold a Passover seder, it would be enough to say simply that "we do these things because we are Jews, because only Jews do them, and because we rehearse our uniquely Jewish identity by means of these uniquely Jewish acts."
I don't buy this at all. Earlier in the article, Washofsky notes that throughout Reform Jewish history boys had been circumcised, but not always by a mohel (or more recently a mohelet). Yet in the past few decades there has been a revival of the practice of the brit milah. So people don't just do it because it was always done, there is a choice that takes place in the mind of parents. They choose to identify with a past. They learn about their history and make the choice to connect to tradition.
There are also those who choose to identify with the past, learn about history and choose not go through with this practice. There has been a growing movement of "intactivists" (clever name I know) are gaining ground, even in some segments of the Jewish community. These folks tend to be young, upwardly-mobile, urban, professional types (there is some clever name for them too) who may or may not be connected the organized Jewish community.
Regardless of this movement or the so-called revival, the same issue is at its center: parents making a choice for their children.
Recently, Rabbi Danny Rich, leader of the Britain's Liberal Judaism, was quoted saying that he holds ethical requirements of Judaism over ritual practice; the article in which he is quoted focused on circumcision. DK, the Kvetcher, has long been harping on this particular issue and it seems that he believes that the brit milah will be gone from all streams of liberal Judaism with in a few generations. He uses Rabbi Rich's statement as proof. I disagree.
As the Reform Movement in North America continues to explore our past as a way to inform our present and build our future, the brit milah revival will continue and so too will the advancement of the intactivists. But the act of circumcision will not disappear from the liberal Jewish world. As long as choice remains a major aspect of liberal thinking and Reform Jewish ideology, people will continue to make the choice to engage with this tradition.
I am curious to hear the reaction of others out there in the Jewish, Reform Jewish and Intactivist worlds. Let me know.
Comments
Post a comment
|
Print
Email
Comment
Here's my response: "In Response"