The Jewish religion

by M. Friedländer

The question is frequently asked whether special meetings and Services may be arranged with a view of improving the religious status of the Jewish community. There is no reason why attempts should not be made in this direction. By all means let everything be done that is conducive to a revival of religious feeling and religious practice. But in such attempts care must be taken that nothing be done that is contrary to the precepts of the Law, both Written and Oral; that the teachers, preachers, or lecturers do not themselves display a disregard for recognised religious authority, and by such conduct undermine the existing reverence for the inherited traditional Religion.

On this basis meetings on Sabbath for the purpose of reading the Bible, praying, and singing, in whatever language this be done, and special Services for the pupils of Religion Classes at the close of the session, must be welcome to all who have a love for our holy Religion.

6. On Page 420.

A question of equal importance that frequently disturbs the peace of the congregation is this: whether and in how far the established Ritual or minhag of a Synagogue may be altered. The Ritual is not the work of one man or of one age; it is the product of the thoughts and the feelings of our nation through many [[450]]centuries. Its foundation was laid by the Men of the Great Synagogue in the time of Ezra. Generation after generation were busy in the construction of the building; storey was added to storey; from time to time new wings made their appearance. Reverence and piety made successive builders reluctant to pull down what the same feelings of preceding generations had reared. The whole formed a Sanctuary every single stone of which was cherished and guarded against desecration. Notwithstanding the storms and tempests to which it was exposed, and which certainly caused a breach here and there, our Sanctuary stands still on its ancient foundations, and its walls retain their power of resistance.

What is the duty of the present generation with regard to this structure? Architects or would-be architects examine it minutely from foundation to top-stone; but they come to different conclusions. We will examine these conclusions, sine irâ et studio, assuming that the examination has been conducted bonâ fide, with a view of strengthening the Sanctuary, and that the reports are in accordance with truth and the examiners’ innermost conviction.

(1.) Some declare “the Building no longer attractive; there are so many other edifices full of points of attraction both without and within; these must in course of time draw away the visitors from our Sanctuary, and estrange those who used to fill it.” We admit the force of the argument. It has always been the aim of those who had the management of the Synagogue in their hands to make the Service attractive; there is no reason why it could or should not be done at present. Means of attraction are mostly of an external character: the art and luxury displayed in the building and its furniture, the eloquence of the preacher, the voice of the reader, the singing of the choir, introduction of novelties, such as instrumental music (scil., on week-days) and prayers in the vernacular. In themselves these things are harmless, and although they are not the essence of the worship, they may lead to it;[135] and, for this reason, it must be considered a condition sine quâ non, that the style of singing, reading, and preaching should be such as to please the majority, if not every one, of the congregants.[136] But there is this to be feared and guarded [[451]]against: viz., that the husk be mistaken for the fruit, and true devotion be lost. Besides, the experiment has been made, and the desired result has not been obtained. There are plenty of places for the enjoyment of vocal and instrumental music, with which the Synagogue would vie in vain in point of attractiveness, and novelties, as novelties, soon wear away, and bring no real improvement. Let the leaders of the Synagogue strengthen the faith of their brethren in God and His Word, maintain, by good example, their reverence for our ancient traditions and customs, and be themselves earnest and devout worshippers; they will then surely be more successful in drawing others to the House of God.

(2.) Another critic says: “The Synagogue Services are discordant;” that is, the feelings expressed in our prayers have no echo in the hearts of the worshippers. “Education and general progress have so entirely changed the whole life of man that he can no longer be edified by the prayers and method of devotion followed by our forefathers.” Those who assert this, of course, only assert it of themselves, and so far their statement may be accepted as correct. But on examining it more closely we find that there must be something misleading in it. For what is the central idea of the ancient prayers and hymns? The conviction that we address our Heavenly Father, who is the Creator and Ruler of the Universe; who is just, good, and holy; who alone can fulfil the wishes which we utter in our prayers, and “who is near to all those who call upon him in truth.” Does progress of education force us to abandon this principle? Certainly not. Those who do abandon it cannot be said to do so by force of education, for they are found among the educated and uneducated alike; and we should be false to our own Faith if we were to abandon this fundamental principle of our Divine Service.

The second of the fundamental Principles of our Faith, though less general than the preceding, is yet equally essential in Judaism, viz., the belief in Revelation, in the Integrity and the Divine origin of the Torah, and the truth of the Divine messages sent through the prophets. The Ritual is replete with references to this belief, and it would amount to a rejection of this essentially Jewish Principle, if we were to expunge such references from the Ritual in order to please a few unbelievers. [[452]]

References to the Sacrificial Service, and especially prayers for its restoration, are disliked by some, who think such restoration undesirable. Let no one pray for a thing against his will; let him whose heart is not with his fellow-worshippers in any of their supplications silently substitute his own prayers for them, but let him not interfere with the devotion of those to whom “the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord pure, enlightening the eyes; the judgments of the Lord true and righteous altogether” (Ps. xix. 9, 10), and who yearn for the opportunity of fulfilling Divine commandments which they cannot observe at present.[137] Prayer, in the true sense of the word, is impossible without the recognition of God as our Master, whom we are willing to serve, and whose commands we desire to do, whether the act implied in them be in other respects agreeable to us or not.

(3.) The Ritual contains many sections which owe their existence to particular circumstances that have passed away, and to local conditions which are different from those prevailing in the countries in which we live. Have these a right to be kept perpetually in the Ritual? Certainly not. There is no reason why prayers which have become obsolete and meaningless should not be modified or discontinued. But as a rule our prayers are free from references to the particular causes of their composition, and there is no need to expunge from the Service petitions, thanksgivings, or praises which were originally intended for a special occasion, if they are expressed in general terms, and have become in the Synagogue a source of devotion and edification. But as to the latter condition, it is difficult to decide whether a liturgical composition has become, and is still, an aid to devotion. Much depends on the individual character of the particular congregation in which the question has been raised, and each case should be decided on its own merits by a competent and responsible authority.