Here is hj list discussion on the appropriateness of HJ's using blessings in services. Posts included here by: Bernard Farkin Debra Ernsberger Roger Eden (2) Adam Chalom (2) Miriam Jerris ....................................................................... Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 14:20:11 CET From: Bernhard Farkin To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ HJ Shabbat and Kiddush Hello all! I will be traveling to Holland and Belgium soon, and I have been asked to take part in a Kiddush there. The family I will be visiting share the same basic HJ values, but this is the first time we celebrate anything together, and I have proposed to make it some sort of HJ Kiddush. I have adapted the traditional Kiddush, and shamelessly copied some of Machar's and Rabbi Wein's phrasings (I hope that's OK...). Now to my question: I have seen two different versions of the HJ texts used in stead of Brakhot. The first retains the word "Barukh", the second substitutes "Na'eh". My own feeling is that the different derivations of "b.r.kh" (bless) are not necessarily theistic in nature. The traditional greeting of "Shalom uvrakhah" combines the notion of inner peace and harmony (shalom) with outer success and happiness (brakhah), originally meant to imply being blessed with many children. I would feel very uncomfortable in doing away with the word blessing altogether. I definitely don't interpret it in any theistic manner at all. Or is it just that I don't want to change one of my Hebrew names (yes, you guessed it, it's Baruch, the other being Shalom!) ;) I would be grateful for any comments, or suggestions for what to do on Shabbat. Shalom uvrakhah (I couldn't resist that!), Baruch Shalom or Bernard ....................................................................... Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 11:05:06 -0500 From: "Debra L. Ernsberger" To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Is using "Baruch" kosher (so to speak)? Re. Bernhard Farkin's question about whether or not it is ok to use Baruch (bless) .... well, I am certainly no authority, but I can offer my perspective, which also happens to be the same as some other people's perspective within the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations. One can use Baruch or Bless or Bless you, etc. and not be calling upon a supernatural force . It can mean, " I (or we) bless you." (Note: the above is not an official tenet of CSJO; it is the viewpoint of some of the members wiSome members, not all.) By the way, I have been lurking on this BB for a cople of weeks. Are there any other women around besides me? Debbie Ernsberger ....................................................................... Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:31:31 GMT From: Roger Eden To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Baruch, Creed and Deed Interesting debate about words and meaning, if I say -I don't think so!- I mean that I'm not absolutely sure but probably something is not correct, when I hear a NY policeman say it, he means there is no way you are going to do that! We surely cannot rely on pure meaning. We may object to the meaning of Kaddish, but most are moved at the cadence. Given that it is in a dead language few understand (Aramaic), isn't the feeling generated what is important? Isn't some use of deist liturgy a good way for us, surely it demonstrates that the meaning is not important. Isn't Judaism about deed more than creed - one of the essential differences with Christianity and Islam. The meaning of deist liturgy is meaningless, if there is no Deity, but meaningful for the humans who say it nevertheless. The respect demanded at religious prayers, that we all pretend to pray, gives the lie, you have to say it, but you don't have to mean it! I vote that we use any liturgy that makes us feel good and feel Jewish, and I'm for all the words mentioned so far, Baruch, Ashrei, Na'eh. Roger Eden, British Community for HJ eden@siftac.easynet.co.uk (Roger Eden) ....................................................................... Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 12:59:55 -0500 (EST) From: Adam Chalom To: Roger Eden Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ Baruch, Creed and Deed Roger (and everyone else reading): Two responses to your latest post: 1) I don't want to go on at great length about the need for consistency, but a little is in order. Why should we bother with a separate movement if our individuals can just go to Reform/Orthodox services and re-interpret the language? I like to think that there are two genuinely "true to themselves" denominations of Judaism: Orthodoxy and Humanistic Judaism. The Orthodox say what they believe: Blessed are you our god, king of the universe - and not in a metaphorical sense. The moderate branches say the same thing but have to put an asterisk on the end to explain what they REALLY think. We should say clearly what we believe and NOT say what we don't believe. And I feel that my belief in HJ, my connnection to the Jewish people, is not based on saying the same things, just like my American Citizenship or patriotism is not dependent on not burning the flag or repeating verbatim the pledge of allegiance. 2) I was raised at the Birmingham Temple, a secular humanistic jewish upbringing. So hearing any theistic (or even "deistic") language produces a VERY negative emotional response from me. There are also many people who come to their Humanistic Judaism from no Judaism rather than a more observant form, and the inclusion of traditional tefilim to "sound Jewish but not mean Jewish" sounds confusing and ambiguous. I think that when creating liturgies we need to keep in mind not only philosophical consistency (see above) but also making meaningful services for the greatest number involved. If the congregation agrees on the humanistic themes but are divided over how to use traditional words, the solution is clear. We need to keep our eyes to the future as well, because if our schools are raising humanistic jews with a strong belief in the value of the individual etc. etc., a contradiction between rhetoric and practice will be even more obvious to them. A service which has to be individually interpreted is not meaningful in the good sense for me, because my strong beliefs produce a strong reaction. I understand the need for connection, the emotional attatchments. However, having been raised in secular humanistic judaism, I don't have those attatchments and have a negative reaction to such language as hypocritical and simply unneeded. My "tefilla" is "Ayfo Oori" by Sherwin Wine: it is meaningful and SAYS WHAT I THINK. Where is my light? My light is in me Ayfo Oori? Oori Bee. Where is my hope? My hope is in me Ayfo Tikvatee? Tikvati Bee. Where is my strength? My strength is in me Ayfo Kokhee? Kokhee Bee. And in you V'Gam Bakh (or B'kha) I don't need Baruchs. Adam Chalom ....................................................................... Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 17:15:50 -0500 From: Msjerris@aol.com To: eden@siftac.easynet.co.uk Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ Baruch, Creed and Deed There are at least five other Jewish movements (if we count orthodox as one) who use theistic language. Anyone who wants to "feel good" saying meaningless things or things that we don't believe in (in any language) can go to an Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist or Jewish Renewal service. If you want to be Jewish and express your Jewishness saying things consistent with your beliefs then Secular Humanistic Judaism is the movement for you. Miriam Jerris ....................................................................... From eden@siftac.easynet.co.ukWed Jan 10 19:56:33 1996 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 07:34:37 GMT From: Roger Eden To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Do we mean what we say, or say what we mean? I had not expected such a response to my use of the phrase "Deed and Creed". Can I explicitly ask four questions?: 1. Doesn't all ritual incantation become meaningless eventually, whatever the words say? 2. Isn't there meaning beyond the words (The NY Policeman and "I don't think so!"). 3. Should we in HJ have ritual? Actions or words repeated often and regularly acquire a whole new meaning. Putting on teffilim, becomes meaningful as obssessive-compulsive behaviour. People become distressed if they don't do or say these things. They interpret the avoidance of distress as well being, emanating from due devotion. 4. Are there things additional to integrity of meaning, that we seek (bonding, Judaism, reaching out to the disenfranchised Jews)? I admit to rigidly avoiding theism in the services I provide. However it is Jewish Humanism I am trying to develop, which is not the same as Secularism, the latter is more exclusive. In the US you have HJ Temples to defend, but if the Anglo-Jewish Community reject anything that does not have Jewish cadence, what can we offer? Roger Eden, British Community for HJ eden@siftac.easynet.co.uk (Roger Eden) ....................................................................... From adam.chalom@yale.eduWed Jan 10 19:56:33 1996 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:09:56 -0500 (EST) From: Adam Chalom To: Humanistic Judaism Subject: Re: HJ/ Do we mean what we say, or say what we mean? Both. A point-by-point response: > 1. Doesn't all ritual incantation become meaningless eventually, whatever > the words say? In a way, that's one of the reasons we don't just recite the old words and melodies, because they've lost their meaning. But I think Roger is saying, "even our humanistic liturgy will lose meaning with long repetition, so why not use traditional words?" First of all, we want some relevance between the rest of the services (ie the non-repeated parts) and the usual liturgy; we can't talk about humanism and then Baruch Adonai as if either what we said or what we're saying don't mean anything. In addition, if we're thinking of new members, the same old liturgy for us veterans could be fresh and exciting for them, as they think, "Wow, NEW rituals that mean something to me!" Finally, I'm not so sure that liturgies RELEVANT to one's beliefs and times will lose meaning through repetition. > 2. Isn't there meaning beyond the words (The NY Policeman and "I don't > think so!"). There's a difference between giving clear explanations with which most everyone can agree and stretching words beyond reason. I can define Humanism as an emphasis on and belief in human actions and importance, but once I start trying to say "God is Love," or "When I say "Blessed be God who created the world" I really mean we're blessed for preserving the world. . ." Do you see what I mean? The difficulty lies between making our meaning clear and at the same time meaningful in the emotional sense. We need to do both, and repeating traditional liturgy fails the first part. As I said before, if I have to personally interpret a service, I'll make my own or go to Beth Israel where everyone else is already doing the same thing anyways. > 3. Should we in HJ have ritual? Actions or words repeated often and > regularly acquire a whole new meaning. Putting on teffilim, becomes > meaningful as obssessive-compulsive behaviour. People become distressed if > they don't do or say these things. They interpret the avoidance of distress > as well being, emanating from due devotion. Again, we need to strike a balance. I enjoy knowing the words to songs sung consistently on Friday night, but I get a little bored if the service is completely repetative. My father, who grew up Orthodox, can still recite his morning prayers at about 350 words a minute, precisely because he did it every day and was sick of it. We need to balance ritual with creativity, but we need to use authentic rituals--some traditional, but some of our own making. We must have the courage to create our Judaism. > 4. Are there things additional to integrity of meaning, that we seek > (bonding, Judaism, reaching out to the disenfranchised Jews)? OF COURSE! But we have to use certain methods to accomplish these goals and reject others for a reason like this one: We compromise our own personal or movement integrity just to attract members. Our goal is NOT to provide a home for all Jews of all flavors; let Polydoxy bend in every direction to attract EVERY unaffiliated. We are a serious, powerful option in modern Jewish life, but not the only one. Besides, who wants to join or stay with a group whose only goal is to get new members by any means necessary? > if the Anglo-Jewish Community reject anything that does not have Jewish > cadence, what can we offer? I'm afraid that I don't have a strong answer to this, because I don't know what the JEwish experience is of the Anglo-Jewish Community. But you can sound Jewish, talk Jewish, think Jewish, and learn Jewish without compromising your personal belief systems. Now Roger (and others) do not feel that repeating traditional liturgies for emotional connections and then either reinterpreting them or claiming they were just for connection compromises their or the SHJ movement's integrity. I obviously disagree for the reasons explained in this and my previous post. Do we mean what we say or say what we mean? We must do both: Thank you for your patience to those hardy souls who finished this all-too long message. Adam Chalom