Home Home / Letter to R. Weingarten about the Future of the Reform Movement (1997)

Correspondence

Nov. 5, 1997

Letter to R. Weingarten about the Future of the Reform Movement (1997)

Orthodoxy & Other Denominations
View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

RELATED CONTENT

Correspondence

Letter to Moses Feuerstein about Israel's Reform Movement (1963)

Dear Moe: I know how busy you are, especially with all the recent unfortunate developments in your family. Nevertheless, I am sending you enclosed the most recent copy of the CCAR Journal, and suggest that you read carefully the very first article on Reform Judaism in Israel. Especially notice the underlined parts. I think it is important for someone in your position to be aware of the kind of secret activity currently being conducted by the reformed group. Fondest regards.Cordially yours,RABBI NORMAN LAMMNLsf
Orthodoxy & Other Denominations

Correspondence

Letter to Moses Feuerstein about Response to Report Concerning the Conservative Movement (1963)

Dear Moe: The tendency expressed in the enclosed release is known to me for some time now. There is nothing you or I can or should do about it. My own feeling is that this would consolidate the conservative movement and create an irrevocable break with Orthodoxy. If anyone from the Press should ever ask you what you think of it, especially in light of the lay involvement by The United Synagogue, I strongly urge you to say that it is a completely internal affair and that while you have your opinions you do not feel it appropriate to make any public statement, except for the fact that you do not understand how ”Halakhah” can be decided by non-experts, such as lay leaders of the United Synagogue. Sincerely, Rabbi Norman Lamm
Orthodoxy & Other Denominations

Correspondence

Letter to Marvin Herskowitz about the Synagogue Council of America (1969)

It seems to be the fate of Orthodoxy, at least in this country, that battles are fought over matters of little or no consequence. We have allowed truly important matters to be bypassed, and have chosen what are, relatively speaking, trivialities on which to stage our strongest stands. The Orthodox Union, as a more or less centrist group, seems peculiarly afflicted by a penchant for the petty. Once again we are evoking great principles and wasting precious time and risking wounded pride and injured feelings on an issue which is trivial.From everything I have heard about the Synagogue Council of America (SCA), it has a limited scope of activity (how much can an address accomplish!). It is not the kind of organization which will seriously affect the destiny of Torah and American Jewry one way or another. I do not by any means wish to deprecate the value of SCA, but it certainly does not seem worthy of the dissension it has produced in our ranks. We will live with it, and without it. It is almost farcical how we have succeeded in making a “yesh me’ayin.”Nevertheless, even insignificant issues must be met if they are thrust upon us against our will. The SCA question has been blown up to unrecognizable dimensions by those who have insisted upon the Union's withdrawal. I have no reason to regret the comment I made some years ago, which seems to have irritated a number of my colleagues, namely, that the demand for secession is a dull, obsessive litany. Indeed, it becomes duller with repetition. It is with considerable reluctance, therefore, that I undertake to set down even these few comments for your consideration.The Study Panel which deliberated on these matters — and SCA was only the most controversial of the so-called “umbrella” groups discussed — performed its task conscientiously and efficiently, at great expense in time and convenience. We heard testimony from a number of distinguished leaders of the community. I personally came to the hearings determined that I wo…
Orthodoxy & Other Denominations