Rabbi Leon A. Morris, Conservative Judaism, May 2007
It is a matter of debate whether or not Jewish life in America is becoming “post-denominational.” While the leadership of the religious movements in American Judaism is nogeah b’davar and cannot be expected to confirm or embrace this trend, it has obvious ramifications for our movements and its institutions. Regardless of whether or not the Jewish denominations have ultimate staying power, the leadership of Conservative Judaism is nonetheless consequential for the American Jewish community.
A blossoming of post-denominational Judaism would represent both a loss as well as an opportunity for the Seminary’s new chancellor. Since fewer American Jews feel a great measure of loyalty to a particular movement, the new leader of the Conservative Judaism will need to create and speak a language that offers a compelling message to American Jews at large. There may be a shrinking loyal base of highly identified Conservative Jews, those for whom the chancellor’s words or statements have an immediate relevance. However, the post~denominational phenomenon, in which jews are open to wisdom and guidance from wherever it comes, provides an even larger and more diverse potential audience of those looking for thoughtful leadership in American Jewish life. In an increasingly post-denominational ]ewish world, the potential for ideological and programmatic influence gen— _erated by the Seminary and its new chancellor will extend far beyond the rriovernent’s reach. In this reality, the proliferation of ideas is central, and labels and institutions are secondary. In this regard, the new chancellor should consider closely the role of Dr. Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain. In books, articles, radio broadcasts, podcasts, and interviews, Rabbi Sacks’ intellectual leadership and relevance has extended far beyond the mainline Orthodox United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, the body he actually represents, to become an eloquent and forceful representative of judaism and religious life in Britain for much of the Jewish community and beyond. America is ripe for such Jewish leadership. Particularly at a time when, for many Americans, religion is most often synonymous with extremism and fundamentalism, the chancellor has the opportunity to publicly promulgate a vision of faith that thrives upon the dynamic tensions created between tradition and contemporary life.
For the time being, as long as the major religious denominations in American Jewish life do remain more or less intact, I would urge the new chancellor to engage and respectfully challenge the Reform movement in ways that will benefit them, the Conservative movement and American Jewish life. Do not mistake pluralism for disengagement. It seems that aftermath of the fallout from the Central Conference of American Rabbis’ resolution Patrilineal Descent in 1983, the modus vivendi between the Reform and Conservative movements was “an agreement to disagree.” In an effort to foster good communal relations within the Jewish community, and under a banner of Jewish pluralism, the Conservative movement has had virtually nothing to say to the Reform movement for more than twenty years.
While there are many examples of informal cross-fertilization occurring between the individuals in the movements (Reform scholars featured in Conservative synagogues, personal connections between rabbis in local communities, etc.), there is no formalized institutional exchange on ideological and legal approaches. The Conservative movement would do well to address the Reform movement directly, and vice versa.
Jack Wertheimer, in his study, “All Quiet on the Religious Front: Jewish Unity, Denominationalism, and Postdenominationalism in the United States” (American Jewish Committee pamphlet, 2005) expressed a fear that the “determination to avoid conflict” that characterizes American Jewish life today will result in “the danger that the rich and multilayered culture 0f Judaism will be stripped of its authenticity and meaning.” The price for paving over major differences between the movements is that a “healthy debate has been silenced.” On this point, Wertheimer offers a very compelling argument. One must bear in mind, however, that the internecine jewish battles of yore were almost never waged in ways that represented mutual respect for the other movement’s positions. What we need today is a respectful and ongoing debate between Conservative and Reform that is a dialogue between brothers and sisters, and one in which the issues discussed seem to matter greatly.
There may even be an element of condescension in the reluctance of the Conservative and Reform movements to challenge each other. Do not dismiss them as less knowledgeable accommodationists, just as they should not dismiss you as unrealistically clinging to halakhah in an age of autonomy.
The Reform movement and American judaism will be stronger as a result of your respectful public challenge, debate and critique. Closely follow the policy decisions of the Reform movement and respond publicly and forcefully. Make comments and critiques of Reform responsa. Invite them to do the same of Conservative judaism. Demonstrate to the Reform movement how creative religious decisions can be made within a halakhic framework. Show the Reform movement that a commitment to halakhah can take a variety of forms. Provide paradigms for halakhic engagement that raise the bar for all American Jews who take our sources seriously.
In the context of a renewed emphasis on jewish peoplehood throughout all of Jewish life, emphasize to the Reform movement the centrality of Hebrew language in prayer and study. Put forward arguments to the Reform movement about the dangers of placing too much emphasis upon the self and too little emphasis on the community. As many in the Reform movement assert that there is practically little difference between the Reform and Conservative movements, indicate clearly and boldly where such ideological differences lie.
By initiating such a debate, the ideology of both movements will become sharper. More constituents of each movement will perceive the ideas of each movement in a more refined way. And the increasing numbers who define themselves as “post-denominational” will be animated by the intellectual and textual debates that ensue. For them and for all of American Jewry the message conveyed will be that there is indeed something in Jewish life worth arguing about, that Judaism is alive and vibrant, that there is something at stake here.
