Conservative Movement May Lurch Forward Despite its organizational leadership
Well, well, well, the laity (and rabbis, and cantors) appear to finally have had enough. Last week, a collection of about 50 rabbis, cantors and synagogue lay leaders calling itself “Hayom: Coalition for the Transformation of Conservative Judaism,” wrote a letter to United Synagogue in reaction to Ray Goldstein’s (the president of the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism) decision to keep the selection of a new United Synagogue executive strictly an internal process- unlike JTS, which during their search invited representatives of the movement’s other organizations to sit on the search committee.
This wasn’t just a fringe group, it includes rabbis like Rabbis David Wolpe of Los Angeles and Gordon Tucker of New York. The letter is a result of general dissatisfaction within the movement – ongoing complaints from congregations, clergy and lay leaders are often aired internally in groups that have been in discussion for years, such as the listserves Torat-Chayim and Shefa, where many active Conservative Jews have gathered to discuss their commitment to the Conservative movement, but also their dissatisfaction at its failure to set high standards for adherence to halakhah, to innovate in moving forward (including adopting technology), to be more inclusive while maintaining standards,and transparency in leadership.
According to AP as quoted in the Jewish Review, “The United Synagogue is far less inclusive than the other” arms of the movement, said one Conservative rabbi who signed the Hayom letter. “The United Synagogue deserves the attacks, honestly. They have failed in a major way to meet the major needs of Conservative Jews.”
There is clearly a burning and broad desire to have change happen.
But that’s not all. This week, the Forward reported that, “A group of presidents of Conservative synagogues is threatening rebellion and even possibly secession if the Conservative movement’s congregational arm does not make prompt and dramatic structural changes….In a letter addressed to the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism’s president, professional head and board, the synagogue presidents accuse the organization of being “opaque,” disorganized and even vengeful, and demand serious changes within 90 days.”
Actually, none of this should come as a surprise. This is not the first threat of secession from United Synagogue. About ten years ago, the Pacific Region on United Synagogue nearly seceded over some of the high handed tactics of the New York central office, including forcibly closing regional offices until they “paid up” money that the central office felt was owed them. A California Court reopened the office, but many congregations around the country were watching very carefully as the West Coast came very close to creating a new Conservative movement synagogue body.
Many congregations who had left United Synagogue for various reasons (and several who hadn’t but were thinking about it) were very interested in seeing if another synagogue body could spur the Conservative movement into forward motion. In the end, United Synagogue was saved by one incredibly generous rabbi who paved over the money issues out of his own pocket, a move several decried as possibly not helpful, despite its incredible menschlichkeit, as it prevented the problems which were coming out under pressure from being solved.
Washington DC’s largest Conservative congregation spearheaded the latest letter: Robert L. Rubin, the treasurer of Adas Israel and the primary drafter of the letter, said he began to write the letter after calling many other Conservative congregations and finding that none of them were pleased with the services they received from USCJ. Adas Israel’s president, Edward Kopf, also signed the letter. It would be interesting to know whether Rabbi Jeffrey Wohlberg, formerly the Senior Rabbi of Adas Israel, and currently the president of the Rabbinical Assembly, knew of this letter.
None of this should be particularly shocking. Complaints have been voiced for years that United Synagogue – and the Conservative Movement in general- suffers from New York-centrality; The farther from New York city your congregation lies, the less notice is taken of it. Congregations have long complained that their dues are too high (of course, everyone complains of that) but resources for small congregations in particular outside of large Jewish metropolitan areas have long been problematic.
It will be interesting to see if these hard economic times will force change of a movement whose members and clergy are pushing hard for change.
It’s interesting that as the URJ voluntarily restructures itself this week, the USCJ lumbers about, unwilling to do the same.
Definitely agree with David. While the Conservative movement has “borrowed” from Reform in abandoning a committment to halakha as binding, and a drive leftward, it refuses to learn from the Reform movement’s success — namely the institutional organization of the URJ and the URJ (and the movement as a whole)’s embrace of technology, new media, and yes, social trends (when it doesn’t come to changing halakha)
Washington DC’s largest Conservative congregation spearheaded the latest letter: Robert L. Rubin, the treasurer of Adas Israel and the primary drafter of the letter…
And in case you are wondering, no it isn’t. I looked it up, and the famous one is Robert E. Rubin.
amechad- when did the conservative movement abandon a commitment halakhah as binding? (assuming we’re talking about movement standards, rather than the practice of its congregants)
Two ideas: 1) Synagogues should take their USCJ dues money and put that money towards the health care and living wage needs of their own non clergy staff. I will not support the Heksher Tzedek initiative until the Conservative movement practices what it preaches. We should not tell kosher food producers to provide better working conditions and benefits for their own employees without us doing the same within our own congregations, schools, seminaries, etc. The Conservative synagogue I belong to does not provide employer aided health benefits and whenever our rabbis talk about how wonderful the heksher tzedek initiative is, I walk out of the sanctuary. I truly hate this hypocrisy. Since no one really knows what the USCJ does except arrange some shabbatons and conferences for the youth and run a boring website, taking the hefty dues money and putting that towards the well being of our non-clergy staff, who are not unionized and not supported by the USCJ in their contractual negotiations unlike all the times when USCJ goes to the wall for the rabbis and the cantors in their negotiations, would signal an attitude that real justice will start to finally be served within the Conservative movement.
2) Maybe in my next lifetime we will address how Conservative clergy can continue to make 6 figure salaries in an era when Conservative shuls are bleeding members in all areas with the basic exceptions of those shuls who have great preschools whose teachers, many of whom with college or masters degrees in their own right provide wonderful care for our children but only make $10-11 an hour without health benefits. The teachers bring in those families. And over time our clergy are doing a great job of losing these families once the need for pre-school is done. It seems that the best unions anywhere are the Rabbinical and Cantors Assemblies. Once we dismantle the USCJ, let’s keep the momentum going and form a truly egalitarian and truly merit-based pay Conservative Movement.
when did the conservative movement abandon a commitment halakhah as binding? (assuming we’re talking about movement standards, rather than the practice of its congregants)
When they said that individual congregations could continue discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation, rather than declaring that egalitarianism was binding for the movement.
Also, maybe I missed the memo, but is the URJ using more new media than the UCSJ? Maybe they did the e-dvar torah emails first, but do they use a lot more technology? Maybe I missed the memo?
BZ-
while I assume I have the same position you do on the issue, the movement does say that egalitarianism is a binding “valid option” and discrimination is also a binding “valid option”. Listen, I think it’s ridiculous as well, but as far as the movement standards are concerned, the movement considers itself to hold halakhah as binding, no?
“When they said that individual congregations could continue discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation, rather than declaring that egalitarianism was binding for the movement.”
BZ: Please slow down: Why should egalitarianism=halacha? If anything halacha has had a long standing commitment to giving different groups of people rights and opportunities while saying that others can’t engage in certain practices at different points of their lives and yes at times because of their gender and sexual orienation.
On a tangential note: It would be interesting to know how many homosexual male commitment ceremonies have taken place in the Conservative movement since December 2006. And how many gay Conservative males have taken it upon themselves not to engage in certain sexual activities as the Nevins and Dorff teshuva still demand male homosexual couples to refrain from to remain within the bounds of their teshuva. Even within that teshuva females are allowed to engage in certain sexual acts that males are still prohibited to do. And the teshuva only calls for committent ceremonies to be performed and not marriages. Which I guess is a good thing because right now there is nothing on the books equivalent to a Get that could halchically dissovle gay commitment ceremonies by Conservative rabbis. So the teshuva that everyone hangs their hat on to say that gays and lesbians are fully accepted in the movement is certainly not true.
BZ — are you saying that egalitarianism as a principle is halacha? Otherwise I don’t really understand your statement.
@Justin – I’ve heard enough movement leaders (including some rabbis on Jewschool) say that the Conservative movement takes halakha into consideration but it’s not the final word. Prof. Gillman has said this several times. On the Shefa listserv Rabbi Andy Sacks said that the Conservative movement took halakha into consideration (need to find the exact message). That’s how – it’s halakhic-style not halakhic (like kosher-style isn’t kosher). I don’t like this and, because theologically I am Conservative, it means I don’t have a religious home or movement to identify, but this is from leaders of the Conservative movement (Prof. Gillman, Rabbi Roth, Rabbi Sacks, and others)
It would be interesting to know … how many gay Conservative males have taken it upon themselves not to engage in certain sexual activities as the Nevins and Dorff teshuva still demand male homosexual couples to refrain from to remain within the bounds of their teshuva.
It would also be interesting to know how many heterosexual males and females of childbearing age have taken it upon themselves not to engage in sexual activities during certain times of the month as most halachic literature still demands heterosexual couples to refrain from.
Of course, no one is going to do that study either.
amechad-
it seems to me that the conservative movement, as i understand it, follows its approach to halakhah. you may disagree with that approach, but the movement itself considers itself halakhic. it makes its decisions of laws and standards based on a halakhic process. its standards include traditional observance of mitzvot and utilizing a halakhic process that is informed by traditional halakhic sources and contemporary experience and science. the difference between what you call ‘halakhic style’ and kosher-style, is that kosher-style is mamash not kosher, but the conservative movements approach to halakhah is very much halakhah, just not necessarily what you would like to see it be… there’s a difference there. and out of curiosity, why is identifying with a movement important?
@Justin – It’s not about me agreeing with the approach of the Conservative movement or not, but rather (sadly and with tremendous pain over the past few years) realizing that the Conservative movement’s claim to be a halakhic movement, as you expressed and as I believed and also expressed for so many years, is simply not a true claim. Professor Gillman said that this claim dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
Rabbi Gillman’s speech a few years ago about the C movement not being a halakhic movement (http://www.uscj.org/COMMITMENT_TO_HALAKH7000.html) also is worth listening to – when I last listened to it (a year ago), I sadly agreed with his description.
See also Rabbi Andy Sacks’s response to me (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shefa/message/2168), where he wrote “We are, in reality, a halakhically informed movement, but not bound by halakha in formulating policy”. I think his description is also correct.
Do I like this? No, and this has caused me great personal pain as someone who long wanted to be a Conservative rabbi and who has several friends graduating from JTS in two months.
Am I suggesting, as Avi Shafran did in the Conservative Lie article, that we should all become Orthodox? Absolutely not, as I believe what Rabbi Roth has long said that the Conservative movement – as he understands it – is authentic historical Judaism. Of course, and why I think movements are important, this has left me without a comfortable religious community (in Jerusalem, no less, with a few sane voices of religious and intellectual openness).
And yes, kosher style is mamash not kosher. And, sadly, the Conservative movement is mamash not halakhic. Where does that leave one? In the wake of religious fundamentalism that is mainstream (and ultra-Orthodox) Judaism? I don’t know – I hope that the pressure on the USCJ can lead to some place for the Conservative ‘traditionalists’ but I doubt it more and more.
“Even within that teshuva females are allowed to engage in certain sexual acts that males are still prohibited to do.”
Women are not capable of those activities which are prohibited to males.
Last I checked, and admittedly it has been a while, ladies can take it up the pooper just as much as the men can.
I admit to not being fluent in internal Conservative movement politics… but it feels like the scope of the bureaucracy might itself be a problem. I think it’s very unwise for congregations to be so dependent on a both distant and far-flung organization that of necessity has little time to devote to any individual member.
In any event I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Conservative Jews can describe what the USCJ does or has any interaction or involvement with its employees. Project reconnect is a cool idea I guess…. but no matter where you go the Conservative movement and its bureaucracy radiate all the excitement of diet vanilla yogurt.
USCJ is totally inside baseball and it doesn’t do much to interest people who aren’t already on the field. Changing the executive selection process isn’t going to help the movement’s real strategic problems at all.
“Last I checked, and admittedly it has been a while, ladies can take it up the pooper just as much as the men can.”
not with one another; and with a husband, it’s permitted to turn the table.
with a husband, it’s permitted to turn the table.
…which is precisely what Kishkeman meant by “Even within that teshuva females are allowed to engage in certain sexual acts that males are still prohibited to do.”
with a husband, it’s permitted to turn the table.
…which is precisely what Kishkeman meant by “Even within that teshuva females are allowed to engage in certain sexual acts that males are still prohibited to do.”
BZ, that’s nothing to do with the Tshuvah. It’s talmudic.
UNless I’m misunderstanding your objection.
This is not the first threat of secession from United Synagogue.
Indeed. A number of the largest Conservative congregations in Canada have already left the USCJ. The Conservative movement here tends to be much more traditional in all respects than in the USA.
Lets all accept the fact that there no longer is a “Conservative Movement” and move on. It is still a “halachkic” movement only because some of the folks on the CJLS say so. The effort to be pluralistic has led to the complete abandonment of any standards. The same logic which Dorff et als use for their tshuva on homosexuality can be used to end kashrut. Today, at best, USCJ is an organization providing services to an association of congregations, of broadly varying flavors, calling themselves Conservative. But there is no unifying theology or practice which reflects a “movement”.
Steve, how is that any different from the many flavors of Orthodoxy or Reform?
KFJ — Please understand, I make my comments as someone who was raised within, and still lives within, the Conservative fold. I’m an active member of a c-affiliated congregation which only recently made the leap to egalitarianism, but sponsoring dual egal & non-egal minyanim each shabbat and yom tov. I send my children to Ramah and Schecter.
In answer to your question — regrettably, I have come to accept that there is no meaningful halachik difference between Reform and Conserv. They may articulate things a little differently, but as a practical matter, there is no binding halacha. The Orthos are different. The range between MO and Ultra is rather narrow, institutionally. And the community supports/enforces observance of halacha. This is not to say that individuals aren’t doing their own thing, certainly in private, but for the most part the issue is more HOW mitzvot are performed, rather than if they are performed.