Paths offers a generally more honest translation than a lot of reform siddurim (less important now than it once was, but because I often entertain people whose Hebrew is weak, I prefer that they have accurate renderings). The prayers follow reform custom, which means most of the content that I find theologically objectionable in the Conservative and Orthodox siddurim is absent.

Things I don’t like are the use of “metim” instead of “hakol” in gevurot – I treat it as q’rei/ketiv and read “hakol” for “metim,” following the custom of gates of prayer. I also don’t like the fact that “she’asani yisrael” is missing from the morning blessings – I think it reflects an outdated squeamishness about particularism.

It’s fairly easy to daven out of, and not to heavy to hold. Has accomodation for those who lay tefillin and don tallit.

After entering into Hebrew study with the simple goal of just being able to figure out where we were on the page, I was surprised to be able to detect that a GoP translation had nothing to do with the related Hebrew. That small moment of mastery propelled me towards years of studying, teaching, and setting a fine example for my splendid son.

But it’s not just about being able to participate in services. Since Hebrew is from a completely different family, understanding how the verbs work and other grammatical geekinesses help me understand Judaism in a way that simply reading translations just never could.

It’s thrilling that you are taking advantage of the time and resources to really dive into this!

Yeah, me too. More people in the blogosphere know me as BZ than by my real name, so using my real name would actually be more anonymous.

And for this reason I think everyone is better off if there are lots of different options and people can pursue the one that is best for them. But I guess that makes me “Neo-Orthodox”.

I don’t know what a “universal religion” is, other than an expression of the nineteenth-century view that all the world’s religions would synthesize into one, and that one would look very much like Classical Reform.

Another distinction might be that Classical Reform was much more concerned with the state of the world (universalism) than with the state of the Jews (particularism). To some extent, it seems possible that the universalism is the part of the divorce settlement that went to the American Council for Judaism when the SCRJ gang split.

I watched, and indeed lived, the transition of the once-Classical Temple Sholom into the mainstream of the movement, marked in great measure by less universalism, more particularism. (There came a rabbi who asked of every new initiative, Where’s the Torah?) That pendulum appears to be swinging again, to a healthier balance. (If I am only for myself, who am I?)

It will be interesting to see if Rabbi Berman responds to the questions that have been posed to him on rj.org.

Randi, all true enough.

About this I’m not so sure the SCRJ website says this about their principles–
“We believe that Judaism is a religious faith with a universal message for all people.”

Is the present normative Reform understanding of Judaism that we are a universal religion, or that we are that more of a People with a covenant? This is, in my view, the significant departure between the Classical Reformists and the mainstream: that Judaism is just a religion.

I share your extreme frustration with MB. I missed his dismissive comments about keeping the service dumbed down for converts, otherwise I doubt I could have shown any restraint. I may still need to call him out on that. And I understand Hinneni’s point about not engaging MB, but I think that on the RJ blog it is important to show that MB’s view is not prevalent.

To Hinneni–I post under a pseudonym at RJ. I gave this some thought: the reasons are fairly complicated. Happy to explain in an email if you’d like…