Great points here - I had intended to add something about how I think democracy, particularly participative democracy can educate, ie people end up taking decisions that are different to the views they might have held going in to the process. So I think, and hope, that progressive and radical choices could emerge from such democratic processes, if well designed to push people to engage with evidence and the needs of the marginalised.
I'm a secular Jew, so I am not sure I qualify as being number 4, but since you are short of people who are interested............. I was immensely interested. Perhaps a later piece could discuss the terrible pressure put by congregations, or, more likely, powerful congregation members (e.g. big donors and determined right-wingers) on some of the rabbis who take ( or have taken or would like to take) more radical positions. More bottom up democracy would be a very good thing, but mechanisms would need to be developed to enable and encourage active (ie. speaking up) participation by the great majority of shul members who arent exactly sure what they think/are afraid to say anything controversial etc etc
I do wonder, though, whether Liberal Judaism would have been nearly as radical if it had adopted direct democracy from the outset. Would a majority of Liberal-Jews-in-the-pews have been in favour of same-sex commitment ceremonies as early as 2003? I’m far from certain.
I'm definitely among the interested few! I'm a trainee rabbi originally recruited under the auspices of Reform but presumably eventually to be ordained as a Progressive rabbi in the new movement. I'm in favour of the creation of a single movement, but then I'm on a route towards leadership and as you've noted the leadership clearly stand to benefit from this decision. I'm not entirely convinced by your analysis that Liberal Jews and communities are inherently more radical and Reform are more conservative, though I see where you're coming from. Reform have generally put less focus on being acceptable to "normal" ie middle-class white British society, we've always been proudly cosmopolitan and just generally weird.
I love the idea of more participation in decision making by all Jews, and acknowledge that the top-down decision to create a new movement does cut against that. I do believe in Rs Josh and Charley's claim that making a new movement gives us a chance to define what we really stand for, but then it becomes a question of "who's we?" Certainly not ordained rabbis alone, but the power of the group of "rabbis and lay leaders" together is difficult to topple, because at movement level just as much as at synagogue level decisions are made by people who show up, and people who are in a position to volunteer their time (let alone financial donors and supporters) are only a subset of the Jewish community and perhaps tend towards the more privileged fraction. The Quaker approach of making contribution to decision making part of religious participation could help with that.
I would argue historically that one of the reasons Reform were much slower and less effective on LGBTQ+ inclusion than Liberal was precisely because Reform tried to go at the pace of individuals and communities and build consensus, whereas Liberal rabbis were at an early stage prepared to take leadership even over the objections of some of their congregants. On Zionism it may be the other way round, I think there is a level at which communities sit to the left of the leadership on justice for Palestine.
Great points here - I had intended to add something about how I think democracy, particularly participative democracy can educate, ie people end up taking decisions that are different to the views they might have held going in to the process. So I think, and hope, that progressive and radical choices could emerge from such democratic processes, if well designed to push people to engage with evidence and the needs of the marginalised.
Thank you for this Joseph. I must be one of the ‘seven’ who find all this utterly fascinating.
I'm a secular Jew, so I am not sure I qualify as being number 4, but since you are short of people who are interested............. I was immensely interested. Perhaps a later piece could discuss the terrible pressure put by congregations, or, more likely, powerful congregation members (e.g. big donors and determined right-wingers) on some of the rabbis who take ( or have taken or would like to take) more radical positions. More bottom up democracy would be a very good thing, but mechanisms would need to be developed to enable and encourage active (ie. speaking up) participation by the great majority of shul members who arent exactly sure what they think/are afraid to say anything controversial etc etc
I’m number 2.
Let me rephrase that….
This piece really stuck with me and I quoted it in a sermon this morning
https://gabrielquotes.org.uk/2025/03/08/merger-sermon/
Shavua tov
Gabriel
Fascinating piece, thanks Joseph.
I do wonder, though, whether Liberal Judaism would have been nearly as radical if it had adopted direct democracy from the outset. Would a majority of Liberal-Jews-in-the-pews have been in favour of same-sex commitment ceremonies as early as 2003? I’m far from certain.
I'm definitely among the interested few! I'm a trainee rabbi originally recruited under the auspices of Reform but presumably eventually to be ordained as a Progressive rabbi in the new movement. I'm in favour of the creation of a single movement, but then I'm on a route towards leadership and as you've noted the leadership clearly stand to benefit from this decision. I'm not entirely convinced by your analysis that Liberal Jews and communities are inherently more radical and Reform are more conservative, though I see where you're coming from. Reform have generally put less focus on being acceptable to "normal" ie middle-class white British society, we've always been proudly cosmopolitan and just generally weird.
I love the idea of more participation in decision making by all Jews, and acknowledge that the top-down decision to create a new movement does cut against that. I do believe in Rs Josh and Charley's claim that making a new movement gives us a chance to define what we really stand for, but then it becomes a question of "who's we?" Certainly not ordained rabbis alone, but the power of the group of "rabbis and lay leaders" together is difficult to topple, because at movement level just as much as at synagogue level decisions are made by people who show up, and people who are in a position to volunteer their time (let alone financial donors and supporters) are only a subset of the Jewish community and perhaps tend towards the more privileged fraction. The Quaker approach of making contribution to decision making part of religious participation could help with that.
I would argue historically that one of the reasons Reform were much slower and less effective on LGBTQ+ inclusion than Liberal was precisely because Reform tried to go at the pace of individuals and communities and build consensus, whereas Liberal rabbis were at an early stage prepared to take leadership even over the objections of some of their congregants. On Zionism it may be the other way round, I think there is a level at which communities sit to the left of the leadership on justice for Palestine.
Thank you for lots of food for thought anyway!
me three