The Movement for Reform Judaism

In the course of the work on the prayerbook a number of issues have been raised, apparently resolved, then reopened because of feedback from congregations, re-considered and revised.   The process is still open as one more draft is about to be circulated.   


One example of re-re-re-consideration is the vexed issue of the term ‘avotenu’, our ‘fathers’ and/or our ‘ancestors’. Diary number 5 indicated the range of options available to us and the limitations of each. For the next draft we have had to make a decision!   Having considered all opinions the Editorial Board has decided to use ‘avotenu’ throughout as ‘ancestors’ (without further substitutions) except in the opening of the Amidah where, precisely because both the patriarchs and matriarchs are mentioned, we have included immotenu as well. (Please look out for any instances where we have made a change and not spotted the need to change it back!)    

A very different question is raised by another phrase because of the variety of practices, and indeed the creativity, of our congregations, and the lack of space to include all possible options.   Let’s look at what might seem at first glance to be a simple example:  the priestly blessing.
   
It has been an important part of our existing siddur and other reform liturgies as a nice way to end the service, but not without its critics as well, hence the variety of alternative blessings included in the book. But regarding the priestly blessing itself, there are those who feel that its very priestly nature tends to put the one saying it, usually but not exclusively the rabbi, into a kind of priestly role that is not acceptable. Of course that is partly because we do not include the context from which the passage comes (Num 6:22-27) where it states:  God said to Moses:  ‘Speak to Aaron and his sons saying, thus shall you bless the children of Israel, saying to them…’  Then comes the priestly blessing and at the end comes the explicit conclusion:  ‘They shall set my name upon the Children of Israel, and I shall bless them.’  The one who recites the blessing is merely setting up the framework for God to give the blessing.   Nevertheless there have been a number of attempts to ‘democratise’ the text, including translating it throughout as ‘us’ instead of ‘you’.   ‘May God bless us and keep us…’   In order to be consistent, there are some who have then gone back to the Hebrew and amended it so that it conforms to that particular English.   Moreover since the original Hebrew refers to ‘you’ in the masculine singular, some have amended the Hebrew into the plural, and yet others into the feminine form, for example when blessing a Batmitzvah.   All of these are legitimate ways of addressing the issue, but there is only so much space in the section of blessings at the end of the services, so which version/s should be included?   The practical solution may be simply to give the traditional Biblical version in the text, but provide an elaborate footnote indicating other options.   The note is important, particularly for congregations without rabbinic leadership, as it provides a helpful authority for those who wish to use different versions       

The need to resolve this and other issues points to a much deeper concern, and to a process that is beginning to emerge as the various versions of the new siddur do the rounds for evaluation, criticisms, proposals and improvements.   This is about the nature of the debate that takes place and how people respond to the inclusion or omission of things that they particularly approve or, more often disapprove, of.   It is self-evident that in a movement as large and broad-based as ours not everything will be acceptable to everyone.   Such disagreements exist within the Editorial Board, the Assembly of Rabbis, the individual congregations themselves – and as often as not within the head of the Editor!   The question is how we deal with the inevitable fact that there will be things in it that we are unhappy with alongside those that really reflect our personal understanding and commitment.   There are still occasional voices that say:  ‘If X is in (or not in) the prayerbook our congregation will never take it!’   Obviously this is an extreme position, and not particularly helpful, but it has cropped up.   On the whole whenever we have tested out such views within the congregation in question, we have tended to find as mixed a bag of opinions as anywhere else.   Nevertheless we have to respect strongly held convictions yet still try to negotiate a more helpful approach.   This problem actually goes to the heart of the nature of the democratic process itself and the necessary give and take for any kind of society or community to hold together.   The art of ‘holy compromise’, the willingness to give up some particular strongly held view for the sake of the whole, is actually an important religious value for us to be demonstrating – particularly in a time of widespread religious intolerance.   In this respect these debates about the prayerbook, and the way we resolve such genuine differences of opinion, are an important religious exercise, long before we use the book for our regular worship.  

'Forms of Prayer' will be published in May 2008. If you haven't yet ordered your copy, please contact your synagogue office. The siddur is also available to people who are not members of synagogues. To place your order, please call 0208 349 9484 or click here to buy on-line.