Is Reform Judaism antinomian?
Dec. 14th, 2018 11:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
entanglingbriarsI saw someone on /r/Judaism claim that Reform is antinomian:
and I was surprised to say the least. Antinomianism is a distinctly Christian theological position, and the term tends to be more of an insult than a label people apply to their own theologies. Broadly speaking, antinomianism is the position that Christians are under no obligation to follow the moral law, although it's a lot more complicated than that in its specifics.
As a position, antinomianism is deeply bound up with theologies on original sin, salvation by grace vs. salvation by works, and a lot of other things that are explicitly Christian and do not apply to Judaism. So in that sense, obviously Reform can't be antinomian; Reform isn't part of the conversation in which antinomianism arose. And it's weird that someone in /r/Judaism would be using such a strongly Christian term to critique a minhag within Judaism. You have to wonder what sort of life would lead someone to be familiar with both Reform and obscure Christian theology. I mean, apart from my life obviously.
But it's still fairly obvious what they meant by calling Reform antinomian: Reform lacks any halakhic guidance, is unconcerned with the law of the Torah, and has no true moral principles outside of those found in "secular Progressivism."
And that's where I have to say STOP! Secular progressivism has values and behavioral norms and is not, by definition, an antinomian tradition. You can obviously dislike the values and norms of progressivism, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. For all the accusations of postmodernism, most secularists are not, in practice, moral nihilists. But you know what? I'm going to grant this. We'll call secular progressivism avodah zerah and move on with it.
I actually don't have a huge problem with calling secular progressivism avodah zerah. I firmly believe its incumbent upon Jews to examine the norms and standards of the Gentile societies we live in (if we're in the Diaspora) and to critique those against the standards and norms of our own traditions. As a Reform Jew I don't necessarily think those standards are necessarily wrong, just that they require examination before being accepted.
Even here we have a problem. The history of Reform isn't one of rejecting halakha as difficult, it was one of rejecting a great deal of tradition as outdated, impractical, harmful, or primitive. I have problems with the last, but it was a big deal to a lot of the early Reformers who decried Jewish practice as in need of updates and changes. But despite all this, early Reform didn't stop caring about halakha, they changed what parts of halakha they cared about. They emphasized the Prophetic tradition of concern for the marginalized and oppressed, took part in politics, and organized their communities with the goal of political and social reform. In this, they again had values and norms. They weren't the values and norms of what would be called orthodoxy, but they were informed and guided by the same texts, traditions, and histories that informed and guided orthodoxy.
Reform at its height was, however, pretty divorced from halakha as an area of concern. They reaction to the treyfa banquet was, after all, essentially summed up as "No, we didn't intend to serve shellfish but you know what? Maybe we should have!" But since then, Reform has significantly re-aligned itself both liturgically and in terms of practice with halakha. My very non-Orthodox rabbi won't eat pork or shellfish, we use Hebrew in our liturgy again (ברוך השם) and most Reform Jews I know are happy to talk and debate Torah and Talmud with you.
Where we differ from Orthodoxy isn't that we don't care about halakha, we believe it's up to the individual to determine how halakha will inform their life. I have some problems with this, and actually prefer a Conservative approach to halakha over the Reform one, but that doesn't make Reform antinomian. The general sense I get among Reform Jews is that you need to be aware of what mitzvot you do and don't follow and be able to justify your decision either. That decision doesn't have to be entirely deep, but you do need to demonstrate awareness.
Reform Jews certainly expect each other to be good people, to follow the moral law, and to recognize that Jews should hold themselves to a higher standard than we hold other people. So no, Reform isn't antinomian. It just isn't Orthodox.
Is there any value or behavioral norm in antinomian Reform that is not pretty much identical to that of secular Progressivism?
and I was surprised to say the least. Antinomianism is a distinctly Christian theological position, and the term tends to be more of an insult than a label people apply to their own theologies. Broadly speaking, antinomianism is the position that Christians are under no obligation to follow the moral law, although it's a lot more complicated than that in its specifics.
As a position, antinomianism is deeply bound up with theologies on original sin, salvation by grace vs. salvation by works, and a lot of other things that are explicitly Christian and do not apply to Judaism. So in that sense, obviously Reform can't be antinomian; Reform isn't part of the conversation in which antinomianism arose. And it's weird that someone in /r/Judaism would be using such a strongly Christian term to critique a minhag within Judaism. You have to wonder what sort of life would lead someone to be familiar with both Reform and obscure Christian theology. I mean, apart from my life obviously.
But it's still fairly obvious what they meant by calling Reform antinomian: Reform lacks any halakhic guidance, is unconcerned with the law of the Torah, and has no true moral principles outside of those found in "secular Progressivism."
And that's where I have to say STOP! Secular progressivism has values and behavioral norms and is not, by definition, an antinomian tradition. You can obviously dislike the values and norms of progressivism, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. For all the accusations of postmodernism, most secularists are not, in practice, moral nihilists. But you know what? I'm going to grant this. We'll call secular progressivism avodah zerah and move on with it.
I actually don't have a huge problem with calling secular progressivism avodah zerah. I firmly believe its incumbent upon Jews to examine the norms and standards of the Gentile societies we live in (if we're in the Diaspora) and to critique those against the standards and norms of our own traditions. As a Reform Jew I don't necessarily think those standards are necessarily wrong, just that they require examination before being accepted.
Even here we have a problem. The history of Reform isn't one of rejecting halakha as difficult, it was one of rejecting a great deal of tradition as outdated, impractical, harmful, or primitive. I have problems with the last, but it was a big deal to a lot of the early Reformers who decried Jewish practice as in need of updates and changes. But despite all this, early Reform didn't stop caring about halakha, they changed what parts of halakha they cared about. They emphasized the Prophetic tradition of concern for the marginalized and oppressed, took part in politics, and organized their communities with the goal of political and social reform. In this, they again had values and norms. They weren't the values and norms of what would be called orthodoxy, but they were informed and guided by the same texts, traditions, and histories that informed and guided orthodoxy.
Reform at its height was, however, pretty divorced from halakha as an area of concern. They reaction to the treyfa banquet was, after all, essentially summed up as "No, we didn't intend to serve shellfish but you know what? Maybe we should have!" But since then, Reform has significantly re-aligned itself both liturgically and in terms of practice with halakha. My very non-Orthodox rabbi won't eat pork or shellfish, we use Hebrew in our liturgy again (ברוך השם) and most Reform Jews I know are happy to talk and debate Torah and Talmud with you.
Where we differ from Orthodoxy isn't that we don't care about halakha, we believe it's up to the individual to determine how halakha will inform their life. I have some problems with this, and actually prefer a Conservative approach to halakha over the Reform one, but that doesn't make Reform antinomian. The general sense I get among Reform Jews is that you need to be aware of what mitzvot you do and don't follow and be able to justify your decision either. That decision doesn't have to be entirely deep, but you do need to demonstrate awareness.
Reform Jews certainly expect each other to be good people, to follow the moral law, and to recognize that Jews should hold themselves to a higher standard than we hold other people. So no, Reform isn't antinomian. It just isn't Orthodox.
