Daily Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters

[The purpose of the Digest is informative: Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does indicate approval.–Editor.]

That the influence of American Reform Judaism has brought about a change in the attitude and outlook of the Jewish Reform movement, as evidenced at the recent Liberal Conference in London, where the former attitude of antagonism to Zionism was substituted by an attitude of neutrality, is the conviction expressed by Dr. S. Bernstein, in an article appearing in the Hebrew paper “Hadoar.”

“The Reformers eraced the name of Zion and Jerusalem from the prayer book and this negation became the symbol of Reform. This was their main credo, without accepting which a Jew could not enter a Reform congregation. Now, after 75 years, a new tune was heard in London,” Dr. Bernstein writes. “Not only was the greatness of the idea of Palestine reconstruction heard there, but also, with regard to the Zionist movement, the idea of a Jewish national and political renaissance, a new policy was adopted, that of neutrality.

“It was only a year ago that Dr. Phillipson declared that he could not understand how a Reform Jew could not be an opponent of Zionism. In London, however, the pillars of Reform Judaism in Europe and America proclaimed that the denial of Zionism is not obligatory for them. This is a significant historic cultural event. The basis on which Samuel Holdheim built in Germany and Isaac M. Wise in America, their religious outlook, was nullified. Between the Reform Conference of 1861 in Berlin and the London Conference of 1926 there occurred a radical and revolutionary change, a change which will yet bring fruit in the future.

“The writer sees this change as a result of American influence. We see here the influence of American Reform. It is many years since there emerged a material and spiritual line of demarcation between the German and American schools of Reform. The difference between the movement which grew under the influence of German culture and its sister-movement which grew in the light of Anglo-Saxon culture, dates back not from yesterday. The Jewish Reform movement in Germany was basically oligarchic, anti-democratic, while the Reform movement in the United States was permeated with the spirit of democracy. The Jewish masses in America have become during the last few decades such an important national and political factor that no social force which wants to exist and be recognized can ignore it. So it developed that German Reform became a movement of negation and death while American Reform became a positive movement of virility and life. Now when the center of gravity in Jewish life is being transplanted to America it is only natural that the influence of the American school grows and becomes evident in all directions. This situation found expression at the London conference. An end is coming to the German Jewish Reform School. Holdheim goes down from the platform and his place is being taken by Stephen S. Wise. Before our own eyes an interesting, very important historic change of posts is taking place.”

Less certainty as to the outcome of the conflicting tendencies of Reform in Germany and America, is voiced in an editorial in the “New Judaea” of London, organ of the World Zionist Organization.

Offering an analysis of the German and American Reform movements similar to that of Dr. Bernstein, the “New Judaea” says, in its issue of July 23:

“It is impossible to prophesy which of these sharply opposed tendencies in Liberal Judaism will gain the upper hand. If the German tendency wins, the Liberal movement is likely to cease before long to have any interest for those of us who desire Judaism and the Jewish people to be preserved. But it is perhaps more probable that the future is with the American school. America sent the largest contingent of delegates to the Conference, and the temporary Executive Committee contains four Americans as against three Germans and two Englishmen (though it was stated that the numerical composition of the Committee would not be taken as a precedent). Further, it is not unlikely that the influence of the English Jew, for what it is worth, will ultimately be thrown rather on the side of the American than on that of the German school. If the less destructive tendency gains the day, no doubt the movement will in course of time shed those of its adherents for whom Jewish solidarity and particularism are anathema, and will retrace its steps to some extent in matters of doctrine and practice. In that event it may yet become a valuable element in the life of Western Jewry, and may contribute its share to that work of spiritual consolidation which is as necessary for the health of Judaism as for the success of Zionism.”