That and $3 will get you a cup of coffee
JTA reports that in his speech Monday to the Conservative Movement’s Rabbinical Assembly at its annual convention, the new chancellor Arnold Eisen “was given four standing ovations and received universal praise.”
In fact, it seems to me that his message is right on – (and, while I’m at it, IMO the message is, in a certain sense a continuation of BZs post below)- according to the article, he notes that “the movement has ‘largely dropped the ball’ by allowing pluralism — the notion of competing views of halacha, or Jewish law, coexisting harmoniously — to become its core message,” and suggests that
… contemporary beliefs and practices of American Jews are no longer working in the movement’s favor. Freedom and mobility have threatened the building of strong communities, which Eisen identified as a critical component in the success of Orthodoxy.
Jews are committed to the modern ideology of personal sovereignty, which rubs up against the notion of halacha as a binding set of laws. And they take their cues on the meaning of prayer and religious obligation from the surrounding Christian culture.
Changed circumstances require changes in rabbinic training and in the movement’s strategies, Eisen said. He urged Conservative rabbis to build “tight communities” in which meaningful Jewish practice is part of the broader rhythms of life. He warned them against pursuing a top-down pedagogy that begins with asserting the requirements of Jewish law.
Eisen urged the rabbis to think more broadly about the concept of “mitzvah,” which he suggested means more than simply “commandment,” as it is normally defined.
Instead of the rabbi preaching about what everyone is obliged to do, he said, rabbis need to create strong bonds of community that make obligation to one another and to God much more appealing to a contemporary person.
Eisen also argued that Jewish life must be lived inside what he called a “plausibility structure” — the social and cultural context that makes religious claims meaningful and convincing.
“Jews are living in a time and space that is not Jewish,” he said. The claims of obligation “are not plausible unless they come in a situation of community.”
Above all, the movement must intensely engage its congregants in a way that rivals what is frequently found in Orthodox communities. There is a hunger for that, Eisen said, and the Conservative movement must provide it.
First of all, kudos to Professor Eisen for recognizing what Orthodoxy has done spectacularly well. I wish I could have heard the speech myself, since I’m now guessing at what he was explicit about ( hopefully someone will have and post a full text soon) but I rather wonder if he actually said what the description of his speech implies: on at least two lists for Conservative Jews, the matter of the driving tshuvah comes up at least every couple of months. It provokes a flurry on both sides of the matter, with a strong cohort of observant Conservative Jews pointing out the flaws in the reasoning of the so-called tshuvah, the actual effect it has had on the community, and how it will continue to shape the way that Jews in Conservative shuls interact. Which is to say, quite bluntly, that it massively intereferes with the meaning and rhythms of Jewish life to live outside of walking distance. It means that people do not know a great many of those with whom they attend shul – except insofar as synagogue activities (at best), and so it limits the formation of community to a great extent, as does the broad lack of adherence to kashrut.
The response to people pointing these things out is often very strong -people who believe that they cannot possibly live near a shul due to serious matters of earning a living, being able to afford a house near a shul, and so on. And these are not trivial problems. It is a huge problem in many places to be able to afford a house near a shul (let alone all the other expenses of Jewish family life, but that’s for another post).
So, I’m pleased that someone has finally said (or at least seems to be suggesting that he means to take on as an issue) these problems. But I have to admit, I’m rather curious as to what Professor Eisen thinks that rabbis can do about this, other than continue to cajole people to live closer to shul. Is he going to push for synagogues to give up their enormous, and enormously expensive buildings in favor of renting out smaller locations which can move withthe community every 20 years? Is he going to suggest using synagogues as ways to reinfuse poor neighborhoods with money by buying or renting their buildings there, and then helping young Jews find places to live close by? (Actually, I think that would be a fabulous idea, any takers?) I’d love for this to be the moment in which the Conservative movement found some backbone and decided to get serious about observance in both ritual and ethical matters by more than a committed core and the clergy. But I’m nervous about his linking it with the comment (at least in the JTA article) that “the concept of ‘mitzvah,’ … means more than simply “commandment,” as it is normally defined.”
It is true that it means “more than simply” but we are struggling to get people to do even just “simply.” Every rabbi I know is engaged in a constant juggling trick trying to maintain a balance between getting people to be more committed and not getting eased out for being too pushy. I do believe that some of the solution comes with having a community who is committed, and creating a general expectation within the community, but I want to hear what exactly one can do to foster and grow these committed communites, and where we’re going to put them, and how we’re going to do so given the current mutual trend of more intermarriage, more “outreach” – and not much willingness to ever say no to anyone under any circumstances. Not to mention the money.
When I think of the quotes “Above all, the movement must intensely engage its congregants in a way that rivals what is frequently found in Orthodox communities. There is a hunger for that, Eisen said, and the Conservative movement must provide it. “If we can’t win on that count,†Eisen said, “we can’t win.†I think that as a member of a Conservative synagogue I find that some arms of the Conservative movement routinely try to disengage from regular congregants like me. For instance I don’t understand why the Rabbinical Assembly’s own website doesn’t make mention about it’s own convention – going on right now – or it’s most previous law committee meeting. Is there a reason for needed secrecy about what is being talked about at the convention or that the convention is even happening? Eventually last year’s speeches from the RA 2006 Convention were made available in a public format but to get all those audio files would have cost $350. (See https://www.csctapes.com/tapes/rabbi06.htm) Regarding the most previous CJLS meeting, I can’t find anyhwere in the print media or on the web about what happened at the March 2007 CJLS meeting. Also do we know who the Rabbis are that joined the CJLS once Rabbi Roth and the other rabbis resigned in December? Am I allowed to know this? Why this utter disconnect between the Rabbinical circles in the Conservative movement and members of Conservative synagogues like me. If I am suppose to care about what Conservative rabbis are thinking and doing then why isn’t there a movement wide platform to hear what Conservative rabbis from all over the country, Israel and elsewhere are saying. Why am I reduced to reading only a few quotes from the chancellor in an article on the web?
I just think the RA, and the movement in general, is not so web savvy. It is clear that the website is not for “up to date” news.
I’m a member of the RA, and I don’t have the answers to those questions. I looked in the “members only” section and there was nothing about the March Law Committee meeting. There is a list of members of the committee, but it includes the names of those who resigned in December, and no notation of when each term expires.
As for getting audio files, first of all this is a professional convention, primarily for the members of that body. I don’t usually go to the RA, but for the professional conferences I do go to, I would pay a considerable amount to get recordings of all the sessions, and I’ve already paid for the conference.
In general I do think the CM could do a lot better in being accessible to its members, and the United Synagogue is difficult to deal with, but I don’t think everything rabbis do should be immediately available to everyone.
Just to add, the speach by Arnie Eisen was a public lecture, not just for RA members. He has been speaking a lot, but I imagine more details of what he said will be forthcoming.
I think there is an Orthodox program in Baltimore that encourages young families to move into poor neighborhoods. Maybe it’s Ner Yisroel?
I actually disagree that the driving teshuva is the main hindrance to creating communities. While synagogues with the wider radius of attendees who drive (or use public transportation) are different than Orthodox synagogues where everyone walks, I have witnessed intense community built around a synagogue to which people drive….sadly, in the suburbs driving has become part of every daily activity, so there isn’t the need for friends/neighbors/community members to leave within walking distance of each other anyway. and many of the independent minyanim springing up in cities draw large groups of people who a)take public transportation to get there and b)very much consider themselves part of growing, thriving commmunities.
I actually disagree that the driving teshuva is the main hindrance to creating communities. While synagogues with the wider radius of attendees who drive (or use public transportation) are different than Orthodox synagogues where everyone walks, I have witnessed intense community built around a synagogue to which people drive….sadly, in the suburbs driving has become part of every daily activity, so there isn’t the need for friends/neighbors/community members to leave within walking distance of each other anyway. and many of the independent minyanim springing up in cities draw large groups of people who a)take public transportation to get there and b)very much consider themselves part of growing, thriving commmunities.
I also would like to see the rest of Eisen’s speech, but on the whole, do think he’s hitting the issues right on the nose, much moreso than any other major players I’ve heard/read. [At least in this excerpt], instead of complaning about the losses, the intermarriages, how “bad” all the synagogue members are, he’s looking towards what needs to be positively created, what Conservative Judaism can [and needs to] provide people with to maintain and attract them. It’s both a simple messaging issue, but yet, the way the problem is framed effects the entire way it is addressed.
I’m feeling significantly less enthusiastic about our direction. By warning against the “top-down pedagogy that begins with asserting the requirements of Jewish law”, he seems to imply that rabbis should be careful not to harsh their congregants’ mellow too much by letting on that Judaism makes demands. His bit about broadening the definition of mitzvah seconds that emotion.
I also feel obligated to point out that limits on freedom and mobility, as much as they have helped to bond orthodox communities, have created ghettos known as much for sustained Yiddishkeit and observance as for poverty, inadequate education and potential for abuse of the most powerless and innocent members of the communities. It’s like pointing out that Mussolini made the trains run on time.
There’s got to be a viable balance between drawing on gentile observance practices and creating “tight communities” (farmer, the horse is on the phone- he says he already escaped; you can close the barn door if you think it’s a mitzvah, but he’s not coming back).
I also feel obligated to point out that limits on freedom and mobility, as much as they have helped to bond orthodox communities, have created ghettos known as much for sustained Yiddishkeit and observance as for poverty, inadequate education and potential for abuse of the most powerless and innocent members of the communities.
When Eisen says “Orthodox” he doesn’t mean Kiryas Yoel, he means the Lincoln Square Synagogue. I don’t see any poor, inadequately educated or abused members there. And he’s right – none of the surveys say this, but I see it with my own eyes all the time – C. Movement graduates, if they stay Jewishly observant, often won’t do it in a Conservative context. Eisen is talking about his close friends, and many of his colleagues, who may be theologically conservative, employed by the movement but who daven in Orthodox shuls and consider themselves – and are considered by others – to be “socially orthodox”, for the simple reason that the conservative shuls just can’t make the mark – not on community, not on learning, not on prayer.
I’m hoping he does mean Lincoln Square. But I’d offer that Lincoln Square is as representative of the average orthodox congregation as Donald Trump is of the average New Yorker.
Look, orthodoxy is in flux at best and in crisis at worst. The Israeli chief rabbinate has all but called the RCA’s gerim sheygitzes, and congregations in my neck of the woods are folding like chairs after a picnic. Strong American orthodox Judaism is a myth, except, as you point out, in Lincoln Center. And I’m glad the Jews there aren’t poor, uneducated or abused; thanks for pointing that out. But you can bet your dollars to doughnuts that a measurable amount of their hard-invested returns are going to support communities less genteel. That’s the way it works.
And if you’re trying to sell the idea that Arnold Eisen is promoting a more observant form of conservative Judaism, please re-read his stance on mitzvot and pedagogy. It seems to say the opposite. Which means that I’m not sure exactly what he’s trying to say, but it sure leans toward my conclusion and jibes with his previously stated ideas.
BTW, I’m writing as one who identifies with those you wrote of in the last part of your post (although I consider the term “socially orthodox” to be a misnomer- we’re also pretty indistinguishable from orthodox in private). I want to believe that a bright new day has come for CJ, but I don’t think it’s today.
The fact that Eisen is at least aware of what is happening outside the ivory tower of JTS is an improvement. But there is nothing anyone can do to restore the Conservative movement to its heyday. The question is how to most gracefully manage the movement’s downsizing. Focusing more on identifying core principles and providing meaningful communities is a much better strategy than trying to please everybody – which in the end has wound up pleasing no one.
Rabbi Jeff:
If Conservative Rabbis really do have any insights into what God or Torah or Israel really is about then they have to get that message out. The Orthodox and to some extent the Reform websites kick the living daylights out of Conservative Jewish websites. With apologies to the shefanetwork.org I can go to websites from the OU, Aish, Chabad, and Yeshiva University and a number of other Ortho sites that have hours and hours and hours of free or very little cost discussions on parsha shavua, daf yomi, halacha, chagim, whatever, you name it, it’s out there from the best of their circles. Even if you disagree with some or all of their messages, I would rather hear some message then get no message. And I am basicially getting no message from the larger Conservative Rabbinical community. The United Synagogue website gives me a few tired links about some Conservative responsa. JTS blesses us with a measly two parsha shavua commentaries a week. Yes there are some Conservative Rabbis that post some weekly commentaries and some podcasts, but really significant discourses on Talmud, classic commentaries, Shulchan Aruch etc. is left in the hands of Orthodox websites. Hands down they kick our tuchis’.
I sort of agree with what you wrote in your last paragraph, “In general I do think the CM could do a lot better in being accessible to its members, and the United Synagogue is difficult to deal with, but I don’t think everything rabbis do should be immediately available to everyone.” Like any organization there are some things said between people in the organization that should be kept private. That’s obvious. But I think that at a time like now where Conservative Judaism in America is losing approximately 2000 members per month, that if Conservative Rabbis really do have any significant insights into what God wants from us that they have to be very forthcomming in getting those messages to the masses. And if Rabbis at the RA Convention are at least talking Torah to each other, the kind of Torah they don’t dare talk in from of their congregants because Conservative congregants are so used to the message of “I’m ok you are ok we are all ok.” then I want access to at least that Torah.
Judi, I find you remarks terribly uninformed in a JTS-elitist kind of way. I find serious problems in the ‘not halachic and proud of it’ movement. To equate a strict interpretation of halacha with abuse in communities is a complete logical falacy- it’s like me saying that all conservative jews know nothing about judaism because by and large they are completely uneducated. while that might be the case, it has NOTHING to do with conservative judaism but rather is a byproduct of their assimilation-prone attitudes.
That all being said, I live in the Pico-Robertson area of Los Angeles, and there, orthodox judaism is thriving. we have three new kosher resaturants opening in the next few months. we have three major modern orthodox shuls and over 15 other ones in less than a 2 mile radius of where i live. and one of those shuls is bnai david judea, which is the shining example of what happens when conservative jews want to be halachic but are completely surrounded by a non halachic movement (west coast conservative judaism). here, orthodoxy is swallowing conservative judaism whole, and not because we are insular, but because we as orthodox jews are learning to be members of the larger community. so you condescension against orthodoxy notwithstading, you should take a step back maybe and think.
Bears, from the conclusions you’ve drawn about me, I don’t think you understood a thing I wrote. For one thing, I am entirely at odds with the “not halachic and proud” movement. It has done nothing but create a version of CJ which is indistinguishable, to many people, from reform. Pushing mitzvot as “good deeds” (I get angry just writing that) is a case in point. This is a big part of what Kishkeman astutely terms “I’m ok you are ok we are all ok” Judaism, and it doesn’t work because it quickly turns into “I don’t have to ______, you don’t have to ______, we all don’t have to ______” and boom! even with women able to count in the minyan, you still can’t get one because everyone has something more important to do.
Regarding your JTS-elitist comment, I’m laughing. I feel very strongly that if Judaism is left in the hands of the ivory tower intellectuals, someday we’ll have a nice book about it and nothing more. I’m sorry that my cynicism toward JTS and its direction didn’t come through louder and clearer.
And about the issues with the orthodox movement I’ve made allusions to- please take some time and inform yourself about what’s going on in the world outside of Pico-Robertson. Your experience is not typical. While each Jewish community around the world is its own microcosm and has its own dynamics, a quick assessment of the politics at play between MO and more right-wing O is troubling. Come visit NYC some day and see what tacit approval of all things halachic (and the idea that no one can be frum enough) can do to people.
Look, as I wrote above, I’m orthodox in observance- shomer mitzvot, etc… But when we find ourselves cowtowing to Agudath et al, the kashrut agencies, etc. because we are so insecure in our own halachic practice that we look to theirs to guide our observance (while we financially support their communities & institutions and hold them as shining examples and keepers of the flame)- well, let’s just say that, at least for many people I know, it makes CJ look good, even with its flaws.
Which will be fixed when we put Kishkeman in charge.
C. Movement graduates, if they stay Jewishly observant, often won’t do it in a Conservative context.
Amit – you have got this right. I grew up in the Conservative Movement. Had a brief flirtation with MO in High School, was non-observant for just over a decade, and am now more observant as a Reform Jew than I ever was as a Conservative Jew.
Eisen’s comments strike me as a move toward Reform, especially this
Eisen also argued that Jewish life must be lived inside what he called a “plausibility structure†— the social and cultural context that makes religious claims meaningful and convincing.
“Jews are living in a time and space that is not Jewish,†he said. The claims of obligation “are not plausible unless they come in a situation of community.â€
The problem with this, from my POV, is that the Reform Movement already exists with this very notion as its raison d’etre. Reform communities have been trending toward greater observance recently too. So Eisen seems to be proposing that CJ become something that already exists.
And this has been the heart of CJ’s problem for as long as I can recall – it cannot decide whether it wants to be Orthodox-Lite, or Reform with Halacha. This uncertainty, more than anything, is what causes Jews who grew up in the movement to go to either Reform or Orthodoxy.
the movements are only interested in self-preservation
not any sort of ideals
its all the same 19th century bullcrap, regurgitated, repackaged, and renamed over and over and over again.
i say we move forward, and give a big f-u to the inter-movement politics that keeps labels like Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform around, as if the diversity within those labels wasnt greater than the differences between them.
Seems like Eisen has at least entered the 20th century. His critique of “top-down” teaching is indeed compatible with increasing observance… because from what I’ve seen, top-down teaching that “Judaism commands” is no more effective in 2007 than it was in 1907.
Where Orthodoxy promises social rewards for observance in this world and spiritual words in the next, and Reform has begun the discussion of doing mitzvot because they provide meaningful, the Conservative Judaism of Joel Roth and Ismar Schorsch offered Kantian imperatives: Do this because Judaism says to do it.
Such top-down preaching is remarkably out of touch with why anyone does anything, and is ineffective and counterproductive, whether the topic be intermarriage, kashrut, or halachically prohibited sexual practices.