Slate's Samantha Shapiro documents the recent decline of Conservative Judaism, which despite its name is actually a moderate denomination that seeks to carve out a middle ground between liberal Reform Judaism and traditionalistic Orthodoxy. Conservatism has lost its previous status as the largest single Jewish denomination in the United States to Reform, and has also lost ground to Orthodoxy. Shapiro argues that Conservatism's problems are partly due to its inability to carve out coherent positions on important religious and moral issues:
[T]he JTS [Conservative rabbinical seminary] never figured out a way to generate the kind of passion that is evident at most Orthodox yeshivas. The logical extension of Conservative Judaism's academic scholarship is that to obey Halakha [Jewish religious law] just because "God says so" is intellectually dishonest. But if that's the case, then why not throw over religious law, like Reform Jews do? The middle-ground movement has come up with no satisfactory answer. It makes do with guilt and a sort of schmaltzy ode to tradition a la Fiddler on the Roof.
Take the issue of the ordination of gay rabbis. It's a no-brainer for Reform Jews, who allow it because they place precedence on personal choice above biblical mandates, and for the Orthodox, who bar it because they believe that the Torah strictly prohibits gay sex. But for Conservatives, it's a crisis, because the movement lacks a clear theology to navigate between the poles of tradition and change, even as the gap between them becomes ever wider....
. . . Conservative Judaism has never adequately explained how its rabbis or congregants should decide which aspects of modern times are worth adjusting the law to, and which aren't. The decision in 1972 to ordain women rabbis at JTS wasn't advocated by the institutions' Talmudic scholars but by a committee of lay people. They made many strong moral and ethical arguments for ordaining women, but they couldn't ground their stance coherently in Jewish law.
The problems of Conservative Judaism are similar to those faced by moderate political movements. Scholars such as political scientist Moe Fiorina have repeatedly demonstrated that most voters hold relatively moderate, nonideological views. But studies have also repeatedly shown that political activists, intellectuals, and of course academics tend to be attracted to more extreme views because they are more coherent and provide a clear worldview. The same seems to be true of the Jewish rabbinical students described by Shapiro - the religious analogues of political activists. Neither political nor religious movements are likely to succeed in the long run without committed activists and intellectuals. But attracting their support will often mean sacrificing moderation for the sake of ideological coherence. For this reason, both the Republican and Democratic parties tend to be significantly more extreme than the median voter in the general population. Successful religious denominations also tend to avoid the theological center.
This need not be a bad thing. As a libertarian and an atheist, I'm by no means convinced that moderation is always the way to go in either politics or religion. But it does promote a higher degree of both political and religious polarization than we might have otherwise.
UPDATE: Commenter Joel B notes: "It sounds as though Conservative Judaism is suffering from much the same problems the mainline Protestant denominations suffer from." Yes, I agree.
Is that really the Reform rationale? I heard a Rabbi speak once and he said that the Bible considered homosexuality to be wrong but that this shouldn't be overstated. He said that the Bible teaches that eating cheeseburgers is wrong too, but we don't have a label to single out people who eat cheeseburgers, or tell them they're not welcome at synagogue or things like that. It's something the person in question has to work out between himself and God, like he would with any other aspect of his personal behavior. Not sure if this Rabbi was Orthodox, Conservative or Reform though and I don't know enough about Judaism (well basically nothing) to make a guess based on those comments. That seems to me to suggest a different rationale for allowing gay or female clergy beyond simply "emphasizing personal choice."
2) The historic Reform movement has supported the idea of studying tradition and then picking the things that are meaningful or significant to you. As such, they would have no problem with gay ordination (unless you're someone who happens to find that to be significantly meaningful to you). The reason for Reform Judaism being more conservative (lower case c) in the last 20 or so years is that "Classical Reform" did a lot of things as kneejerk reactions to religious law- take for example push-button arks, rather than ones with curtain pulls, specifically to flout Shabbat. In the last 20 years a certain security has emerged and that has allowed Reform Jews to re-adopt practices that they might have previously discarded.
3) Conservative Judaism doesn't have an ideology, which is part of the whole problem. There's no set theology, there's no set halachic standard, and when a "statement of principles" was attempted, it came out as a book-by-committee known as "emet v'emunah". Camp Ramah (and to a lesser extent USY) push observance and experience, which is completely unsupported by most Conservative communities. JTS is not dissimilar from the Upper West Side crowd, which is not mirrored anywhere else in the U.S.
The problem that Conservative Judaism is having is not merely the loss of people who are dissafected and drop out of religion, but that whenever they succeed with creating observant people, those people leave the movement (with the exception of the UWS, Brookline, a couple of DC and Baltimore suburbs, and maybe one or two other places). There are no minyanim or synagogues to support them, and as such, they decide not to be lonely and to go join the shul with the people who have the most in common with them- the local Orthodox shul.
Reform Judaism used to anti traditional ritual, but in recent years has become much more live-and-let-live and tolerant of it. Also, Orthodox Judaism has a liberal wing (in relative terms) which has been active in recent years, although less so than more traditionalist elements of Orthodoxy. Thus, Jews interested in a traditional synagogue ritual within a liberal context can be much more comfortable in a Reform setting than they used to be, while Jews interested in more passion/commitment/tradition can be a bit more comfortable with Orthodoxy.
Cornellian, I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make. Halacha does indeed condemn both eating cheeseburgers and homosexuality (though it does not place equal weight on each), but Reform Jews don't believe in halacha as binding (but rather that it's up to each individual to decide on appropriate observance); that's the point the author was making. Orthodox, of course, do believe that halacha is fully binding. Conservativism is ultimately an untenable hybrid, in which halacha is binding... sometimes. (The differences stem from the movements' respective views on the source of halacha -- whether the bible is actually the literal word of God.)
People in Reform Temples and those now in Conservative Temples in NJ are saying, "Oh, the Conservative Temples want too much of us. They have weekly Junior Congregation for the kids on Saturdays when the kids have soccer games. They want kosher rules followed at Temple events, even when there aren't services being performed. It just seems too...rigid." A friend who is an Executive Director at a Reform Temple in southern California says the only Reform Temple he knows with truly increasing membership does singalong and ping pong Friday night and Sat morning services. It's a feel good scene, remincient of a fair--which I am unsure is really much different than how ancient folks saw their Temples in a society we moderns can even imagine...
But please indulge my soapboxing a bit here:
Yes, the Conservative movement is in between Orthodox and Reform. However, one can easily say Reform is without ideology, too, and yet, I would not say that because, apart from the above, what is the practical difference between modern Conservative and Reform shuls for members--particularly families?
My view is that there are, in descending order, three things contributing to the larger phenomenon that many people of Jewish "descent" are not in Temples at all: (1) a large number of those who are Jewish by descent are not enamored with organized religion as a whole; (2) such persons don't have that Likud-nik attachment to Israel I see in too many people in Reform and Consevative Temples alike; and (3) are not obsessed with the Holocaust (see Peter Novick's book on the subject). The last two reasons are intertwined, but are not anywhere near as significant as the first sociological observation, which admittedly in some cases, leads to the 2nd and 3rd reasons.
Me, I'm a minority in any Temple I've belonged to because I am not a Likudnik on Israel and I think the job of recording the memory of the Holocaust is essentially complete such that we should avoid giving off a sensibility of Holocaust-mongering. I also define myself as more heretical than secular in my sensibility, which is another topic altogether.
Pet peeve in modern Temples: Singing new prayer melodies every week and giving me Mariah Carey versions that neither I, nor most folks, can keep up with. Geez, what's next: Rap versions of Vishamru? And please don't tell me that it brings in people. I've seen the results. It doesn't. Remember the singalong Temple, which is precisely the opposite. Just give us back the more simple melodies and place the "jazz" into a more robust Talmudic discussion of the Five Books. There's a lot of thinking Jews out there who are not Amidah-based ("Oh, powerful Wizard of Oz, please don't kill us or bring on the locust..."). I just wonder whether that's enough...
The convervative congregation of which I was a member growing up almost died for a while. I remember that for about seven years, my brothers and I were the only people in Shabbat services under 40. However, it's been on a small upswing now that they're trying to get families involved.
I've had some occasion lately to see how the Reform movement is doing these days; I went to Israel with a largely Reform group. I went to Reform services one Shabbat after I got back as a social thing; it was a lot more traditional than I experienced in day school, although it still wasn't as much as there was in the Conservative shul I attended as a child. I still don't like the instruments, though.
However, I'm 23 now. I'm engaged. My fiance isn't Jewish, although she is converting. We're going to be married in the shul I grew up in.
As for results, just think of a group of Buddhist children singing "Buddha loves me / This I know / For the Sutra tells me so..."
The remarkable thing to me is how the various religions maintain their identity while making such major adaptions to national cultures.
>It sounds as though Conservative Judaism is suffering from much the same problems the mainline Protestant denominations suffer from. Moderation is hard to attract people to precisely because it is too easy.<
I'd say because it's the most succeptible to logical rational attacks. You can either embrace rationality and logic in regard to religion, and then you're not religious, or you can reject it altogether, in which case you're likely to be a fundamentalist. It's hard to just be kind of reasonable where it's useful, or to just follow the religious law some of the time. Or at least it is when people start to pound you with the logical inconsistency.
It's not a problem with being a moderate in general, or even moderation, I think. The problem is when you're a moderate simply because you don't really want to choose either of the sides. Unless you can come up with some specific justification for that, you're going to have a hard time justifying yourself to either of the extremists (either of whom have a much easier time justifying themselves).
There's also "An entire fast day is devoted to mourning the tragedy of the smashing of those tablets", which is completely off the wall.
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Open/OpenAccess12.pdf
One of the numerous events that the Fast of the 17th of Tammuz commemorates is Moshe's destruction of the first set of Tablets. It was inaccurate for the article to imply that that is the only reason for the fast, however.
That might be the closest view to mine, but while it works for me intellectually, it gives little sustenance. In fact, I find myself at a modern orthodox shul -- every day, in fact, because I'm saying kaddish.
The same goes for political movements. The Bush admin being a fine example. I think few doubt that Bush will be viewed as a non-moderate by history (I don't want to use the loaded terms of "radical" or "extremist"). Yet there are countless examples of him straying from the orthodoxies of those tenets (fiscal irresponsibility, failure to veto any spending bills, immigration reform, etc.)
As a political matter, I don't bregrudge Bush's departure from the orthodoxy of his political strain. But it is unfair to describe moderates struggles with dogma as "crisis" in this light, I think.
I don't agree with the Orthodox viewpoint. It's a little too strict and extreme, and sometimes it doesn't make any sense - the 39 melakhot, for example, are simply ludicrous. Only an Orthodox Rabbinate could propose that when HaShem forbade work on Shabbat, He was far more concerned about whether I might tie my shoes than He was about whether I might be rearranging furniture.
So I'd really like to be part of a Conservative congregation. Unfortunately, there really aren't that many of them, so they tend not to be convenient options. When you stack on top of that the general suspicion Jews express toward anyone and everyone who isn't blood related or well-known to someone else in the congregation, it's simply not worth it. I would rather express my faith at home, with my family, than try to fight my way into a group that doesn't exactly go out of its way to welcome me.
By the way, as long as we're tossing out our peeves, what is it with the crappy and pedestrian English translations replacing the beautiful and poetic ones? We've gone from the beautiful iambs of "Bring to naught designs of those who seek to do me ill" to completely unmemorable hash that sounds like "Protect me from the unkind bad people."
If you want inviting and orthodox you have to go to the Lubuvich. Even aside from the issue that half of them are no longer Jewish (the messianic ones), all of them make a fetish of minhag that is quite unnecessary and burdensome. There is nothing in Jewish Law (oral, written or otherwise) that says you have to dress like a 17th century polish nobleman. Abraham and Moses certainly didn't wear black hats.
This comes down to the definition of a moderate. Many people are called political moderates because they agree with some Republican positions and some Democrat positions, but they may not be moderates - they may be ideologues who find different parties adhering to their ideological principles on different issues. Take libertarians for instance - a true libertarian will side with the Republicans on most economic issues, but when it comes to flag burning, or the Patriot Act, will jump to the other camp. Does that make him a moderate? Thus, someone who chooses the middle consistently, out of a distaste for taking a principled stance on any issue, who just wants a lack of controversy and polarization, is the real moderate, who can only be so out of a desire not to choose a side. He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
This is more stereotype than truth. I'm a non-Jew married to a Jew. Before we got married, our Reform rabbi required me to go through a three-month course on Judaism, which the rabbi taught. In that course, the rabbi's disagreements with Orthodox and Conservative rabbis were differences over following post-Torah commentary, not over following Torah.
Unlike Orthodox and some Conservative Rabbis, the Reform are willing to look at the text of the Torah and ask, "Did that 15th Century Rabbi interpret this correctly?" The rabbi was always careful to root his arguments in Torah, not "personal choice," and the text of the Torah was always central to his argument.
He also predicted that the Conservative Movement would be squeezed out by the Reform and Orthodox.
One practical problem that the Conservative Movement faces (which was not in the article) is that its rabbis won't conduct interfaith marriages. HUGE numbers of Jews intermarry. And they remember which synagogues spurned them at one of the most joyous times of their lives. Our (growing) Reform synagogue is about 1/3 to 1/2 interfaith families, with a large number of the rest converts. (Those converts are readily accepted in Reform synagogues. Conservatives have traditionally been less welcoming, both theologically and socially.)
Conservative synagogues will have a hard time keeping members if they continue to sprurn interfaith couples and converts.
Since--as much as we may wish otherwise--nothing supernatural has ever really happened, that's all that really exists.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
A key reason for the rise in Reform is the sheer rise of intermarriage and synthetic-religion families. Conversative Judaism, like Orthodox Judaism, has opposed this. But whereas Orthodox Judaism has managed to persuade most of its adherents to marry within the faith, Conservative Judaism has often simply managed to push intermarried families out into something more liberal. Conservative Judaism's position on homosexuality may have produced similar (although smaller-scale) results. In this respect, Conservative Judaism has held to official positions to the right of what increasing numbers of its constitutuents are comfortable with. And the trickle of newly converted Jews that have come with intermarriage has largely gone to Reform.
A second reason is the birth rate among Orthodox families. Haredi Orthodox, the most traditionalist Orthodox, who believe in distancing themselves from secular society and culture entirely and have distinctive clothing styles and other customs, also tend to have large families. Conservative Jews, like Reform and for that matter Modern Orthodox, have tended to have smaller families. Large families have demographic impact. This trend is also relevant to the relative role of Orthodox vs. secular Jews in Israel.
I am sorry for problems people have had with my movement, the Conservative movement, though no Syngagogue I have ever been a member of has over "shunned" anyone. Further, officially, the Conservative movement does not differentiate between Jews who converted to Judaism and those who were born Jewish. If you are Jewish, you are Jewish. I am sorry someone has had such an experience, but that is not the norm or the majority view. Blame and entire movement for the acts of a few is a big prejudiced.
You are the only person who used the word, "shunned." I said that Conservative congregations "spurn" interfaith couples at the time of marriage. That was the experience of my wife and I in our town and where my wife grew up (she was raised in a Conservative synagogue). Are you saying that Conservative rabbis are now generally willing to perform interfaith marriages? If that's correct, then I withdraw my comment and apologize.
But when my wife and I were looking to get married, only Reform congregations would welcome us. We could join a Conservative congregation, but their rabbis wouldn't perform the ceremony. That's their right, but they can't realistically tell us that our marriage isn't good enough for their rabbi to officiate, but that our dues would be welcome after the ceremony.
As a result, our children will be raised in a Reform synagogue. And Conservative Judaism has lost one more family.