Problems of Liberal Judaism Discussed at London Conference

Reports on the present position of Liberal Judaism in the various countries were submitted to the International Liberal Conference at today’s session. Rabbi Stern reported for Germany, Dr. Morgenstern for America, Claude Montefiore for England and Dr. Wolff, president of the Stockholm Kehillah, for Sweden. The question of the opposition of Liberal Judaism in Germany against Orthodoxy and Zionism was the subject of the address of Rabbi Stern who asserted that “the Liberal opposition is directed less against Orthodoxy than against Zionism.

“The opposition between the Liberal Jews in Germany and the Zionists is more than a conflict between religious universalism and nationalist Judaism. The Liberals regard political cultural questions purely from the German standpoint, recognizing separatist Jewishness only religiously-socially, while the nationalists demand a Jewish collectivity within the state. The German Zionists,” Rabbi Stern also stated, “are unlike the English and American Zionists, who feel themselves culturally and politically members of their respective countries.”

REFUTES CHARGES

The charge put forth by Orthodox elements in Great Britain that Liberal Judaism was merely “a halfway house to Christianity” was refuted by Claude Montefiore, who termed these allegations “absurd and hollow.”

“Orthodox Judaism,” Mr. Montefiore declared, “is something deeper than mere observances. It has been and still can be a great religion. But the only Judaism which many Jews nowadays know is observances and nothing more. They are outside of Orthodox Judaism’s appeal. Liberal Judaism alone can help them. The only serious attack made against Liberalism is the allegation that it is semi-Christian or a halfway house to Christianity, but this charge is absurd and hollow.”

Dr. Julian Morgenstern in the course of his discussion of the present condition of Reform Judaism in the United States and its prospects for the future, wherein he made the prediction that a new Jewish religion would arise in America, declared:

DR. MORGENSTERN’S ADDRESS

“Today the various groups in American Judaism are just beginning to draw together. Suspicion and antagonism are slowly giving way to understanding and cooperation. Orthodoxy, both native and foreign, is building like institutions and organizing itself in manner quite simlar to Reform. More and more too it is accommodating itself to the conditions and forces of American environment. In many respects foreign Orthodoxy in America stands today about where Reform Judaism stood forty years ago.

“And reform Judaism in turn is slowly inaugurating a program of internal growth and spiritual enlargement. A new leadership is preparing to assert itself, young men, largely college bred, spiritually aspiring, with no prejudice of birth, vaguely discontented with what has and even more with what has not been accomplished thus far. Already we sense a growing insistence upon the spiritual and social content of Judaism, an urge to lift it still further and more positively above the confines of mechanical conformity to traditional belief and practice, and, reaffirming in simple, direct terms Judaism’s basic spiritual, social and ethical principles, to apply these to the compelling problems of life, both Jewish and general. More or less consciously they would make Judaism truly a religion of today, modern not only in creed, in form of worship and in educational methods, but also and equally in the constructive application of its principles and teachings to all of life. And this they would do with full consciousness of Judaism’s true nature and doctrine and with the principles of its historical development as their constant guide. In their program above all else Judaism must remain thoroughly and permanently Jewish.

OUTLINES THE NEW JUDAISM

“As a result of this gradual convergence of these various groups and forces in American Jewry and of the slow but sure formulation of this positive program. a new Judaism promises to be born in America in time, a Judaism which will probably differ from present Reform Judaism almost as much as it will differ from Orthodoxy, a Judaism which will be modern, positive, constructive, thoroughly religious. Important therefore to realize that in America at least Reform Judaism is not a finality, that it is in a transition stage, or rather that it is itself a stage in the transition from the Judaism of the 15th and 16th centuries to the Judaism of the 20th, or perhaps, if the evolution be too hard and slow, of the 21st century.

“That this American Judaism of tomorrow may, nay probably will, be much unlike our Reform Judaism of today does not afright me; for not the preservation of Reform Judaism in America is our goal, but the propagation of a living Judaism; naught else. And in this modern Judaism and our power to upbuild it I have complete faith.

“With this realization we can understand better many of the present tendencies in Reform Judaism in America. There is above all a pronounced undercurrent of discontent, a feeling, slowly developing into a conviction, that Reform Judaism today is not adequate. This discontent is not so much today, as it was unquestionably a decade ago, with our lot as Jews. Today there is comparatively little repining that as Jews we are a minority and victims of manifold discrimination and prejudice. Some would still cast off the burden of the Jew by apostasy and self-obliteration, but their number grows steadily smaller. Intermarriage exists, of course, and probably even increases slowly, but in every case are the Jewish participants or the children lost to Judaism. But beyond all this there is among us a far more pronounced and assertive Jewish self-consciousness, a realization and even a pride that be our destiny what it may we belong inescapably to the great house-hold of Israel, and have a direct part and responsibility in its future.”

SIXTY AMERICAN DELEGATES

The American delegates attending the conference are:

Rabbis Louis Wolsey, Philadelphia; M. C. Currick, Erie, Pa.; Leo M. Franklin, Detroit; William Rosenau, Baltimore; Joseph Rauch, Louisville; Samuel Schulman, New York City; Joseph Silverman, New York City; Stephen S. Wise, New York City; Frederick I. Rypins, Wilmington, N. C.; William S. Friedman, Denver; David Goldberg, Maurice Harris, New York City; Leon Harrison, St. Louis; Isaac Landman, Far Rockaway, N. Y.; Solomon Landman, Madison, Wis.; Morris S. Lazaron, Baltimore; Felix Levy, Chicago; Marius Ranson, Albany, and S. E. Starrels, Lincoln, Neb. Also A. Leo Weil, Pittsburgh; Milton Alexander, Detroit; Jacob Eisenman, Washington; Simon England, Pittsfield, Mass.; F. I. Fleisher, Cincinnati; Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin Hirsch, Louisville; Joseph Lazarus, Cincinnati; Dr. and Mrs. Mozart Lischoff, Pensacola, Fla.

Abe Maas, Tampa, Fla.; Dr. Julian Morgenstern, Cincinnati; Dr. Nathan Stern, New York City; Dr. and Mrs. B. S. Pollak, Secaucus, N. J.; Ruth Rosenbaum, Cumberland, Md.; Alex Rosenfeld, Atlanta; Simon Selig, Atlanta; Mr. and Mrs. Mayer B. Sulzberger, Highland Park, Mich.; Samuel Weil, New Haven; Mrs. Henry Oppenheimer, San Antonio, Tex.; Mrs. Fred Oppenheimer, San Antonio; Mrs. A. Joske, San Antonio; Mrs. G. Fischell, Montreal, Can.; Mrs. Lee Loeb, Charleston, S. C.; Mrs. Jacob L. Schwartz, Newark, N. J.; Mrs. Alfred Motta. New York City; Mrs. Max C. Currick, Erie Pa.; Mrs. Frederick I. Rypins, Wilmington, N. C.; Mrs. Charles Kline, Allentown. Pa.; Mrs. Felix Levy. Chicago; Mrs. Bernard Saltman, Bridgeport, Conn.; Mrs. Lawrence Finkelstone, Bridgeport; Mrs. Leo M. Franklin, Detroit; Miss Ruth Franklin, Detroit; Mrs. H. J. Franks, Montreal; Mrs. G. Fischel, Montreal; Mrs. Lotta Bertuch, Baltimore.