There has been a lot of ink spilled over the last month or so about what is wrong with Conservative Judaism. Some synagogues have rebelled against the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism (USCJ) for its perceived inaction in these hard times. Some blame rabbis for the decline in membership and financial resources; others blame the “Movement” for not doing more to help. Some blame the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTSA) for not training better rabbis and some blame lay leadership and the members of our congregations for not demanding more from their spiritual leaders or for creating synagogues that cater to insuring that members remain members even if they have little or no interest in doing anything Jewish
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to go around. Rabbis can cite many examples of members who wanted a quick fix for a Bar or Bat Mitzvah with little or no preparation and then leave the congregation right after the last child has his or her ceremony. Lay leadership can tell stories of rabbis who don’t seem to understand “what congregants want these days”. Everyone wants to blame USCJ for not doing more to help congregations but there is very little specific that they want the USCJ to do (other than to stop charging dues when it’s perceived that they offer no services in exchange). Everyone wants change, but it seems that they want someone else to do the changing. In the end, as the song in this title, the more things change the more they stay the same.
My friend, Richard S. Moline, writing in the Jewish Week (5/21/09 “Conservatives must look in the mirror”)[ http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/21/1005348/op-ed-owning-the-conservative-movements-challenges-and-its-successes ] writes the following:

“But it does trouble me that we have not successfully created Shabbat Communities in most of our congregations. It troubles me that most students do not find the level of commitment in their home communities that they do in USY or Ramah or Koach. It does trouble me that if they do find it, it‘s likely not in the Conservative movement, so they may become involved in other communities not by design but by default. And it does trouble me that our clergy and laity become more concerned about institutional viability than about motivating themselves and others to live fully Jewish lives. “
“What can we do about it? It’s easy to assign responsibility, but is courageous to shoulder it. If I were speaking to the key leaders of the movement, professional and lay, I would start by handing each of them a mirror and asking them to take a long hard look. “
“It’s easy to blame the institutions – and there is plenty of blame to be assigned to them all. But how many rabbis tell their president that in order to be a more effective leader, the two must study together for an hour every other week? How many presidents tell their rabbi the same thing? How much time do we spend teaching and encouraging people to observe Shabbat or to keep kosher, compared to the amount of time we spend making the bar or bat mitzvah schedule or collecting membership dues?”

Sometimes I feel that congregations don’t understand the Prado Principle and end up spending 80% of their time catering to the bottom 20% of our congregants, who may or may not appreciate all that a synagogue is doing for them. I believe that every Jew is important, but there clearly is a much larger community out there that is looking for something more than just a ceremony for their children. Perhaps what they want is only a feeling deep inside that they can’t really express very well, but they know that they need to address that feeling and that our synagogues can (and sometimes do) fulfill that need, at least partially, at least some of the time, at least a couple of times a year. We need to do better. National organizations cannot do this for us. It is not a Lay or Rabbinic problem. It is nothing less than a redefinition of what a synagogue is and what it does. It has nothing to do with Jewish Law or ritual questions, it has to do with the nature of an organization and how we answer basic questions about life and meaning.
There are rabbis who think that our members want to know the details of the laws of Judaism. They need this information in order to accept those laws into their lives. Every place I turn to, however, I see lay leaders and ordinary Jews saying, “just tell me what I need to do and I will try my best to live by Jewish Law”. They don’t want uncertainty; they get enough of that on the internet. They want honest truth to live by and a way of looking at the world upon which they can build a life in which they can be proud.
There are lay members of our congregations who want us to be more “spiritual” without any understanding about what that means. God is all around them and yet they think that they need to do something esoteric to acquire spirituality. Rabbis talk about Mitzvot and Social Action as ways into the spiritual realm but nobody seems to be listening. Social Action and Political Action in our congregations is anemic and half hearted. Let us create a menu of items which lay members can incorporate into their lives and let them see how by doing God’s work, they can find the spiritual fulfillment they seek. As they grow in deeds, we can then reframe their actions as Mitzvot and Tikun Olam. As their actions become more spiritual so will their need to study and pray as well.
There are lay leaders who think that if they change the service then people will flock to the synagogue. I think that they are partially correct. Conservative services are boring. People are expected to sit quietly for hours at a time while things happen on the bima that they don’t understand. Opera had this problem that was solved by putting a screen above the stage and having a simultaneous translation of the opera on the screen. That might help our services, even though we do have translations (and transliterations) in our siddurim. We have lost the drama of the Torah reading. We have lost what stirs the soul in prayer. Our music is old, our approach is old and our membership is old and getting older. Synagogues compete today with multiplex movie theaters, weekly concerts, special events and exciting sporting events (football, NASCAR, even hunting!!) for our members’ time on Friday night and on Saturday morning. The good people at Synagogue 3000 [synagogue3000.org] say we can get thousands of people in our congregations, just like our colleagues in the mega churches down the street, if we learn the lessons that they have learned. It is not about the liturgy, that does not change; it is the approach to the liturgy, it is the possibility to participate in the service, to be a part of something exciting, in an exciting place. My congregation here in NY ripped out the pews in the first ten rows of the sanctuary (and it is an old venerated synagogue and building), and replaced the seating with moveable chairs arranged in a semi circle. They got off the bima and put the action right there on the floor, no more than a foot or two in front of the first row of chairs. The members lead parts of the service and everyone takes part in what is going on. The liturgy and the siddur are the same as any other synagogue but the atmosphere is dynamic.
It is not, as the comic character Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy and he is us” rather we need to stop trying to maintain the status quo. I have seen congregations replace a rabbi looking for a new approach to Judaism, only to find that the new guy is the same as the old one. The problem is not just the rabbi; it is the congregation, the leadership, the members and the rabbi. Each one has expectations of the other and is not prepared for the kind of personal change needed to help our communities grow.
First, we need to change ourselves, to break out of our old Jewish habits and see our faith in a new and deeper way.
Second, we need to challenge our friends and members to a Judaism that does make demands on them, but they will quickly see the spiritual growth that arises when they confront those demands
Third, we need to build a community where study, prayer and community service are the backbone of what we stand for. This kind of synagogue can compete with the multitude of distractions and will make a synagogue a place worthy of our time and energy; a place where every Jew is welcome and a place to where we can go to find our way in life.
And finally, we need to demand from our institutions the kind of support that will help us along the way. The educative resources, the connections to national service projects, the advice and support we need to help us transform our own lives and the lives of those in our community. These institutions can’t transform others on our behalf; they only can and should supply the resources that we need to do the job ourselves.
It is time to stop looking in the mirror to find the problem and to start looking forward and creating new and innovative solutions. Let us go forward, professionals and laity as partners to get the work done.

Newsweek [4/13/2009] editor, Jon Meacham writes about “The End of Christian America”. He writes; “While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing, good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams … called, “the garden of the church” from the “wilderness of the world.”
I think that Jon Meacham could write similar words about Judaism in the State of Israel. In Israel, which has no separation of “church” and state, the fight over the role that the governmental Rabbanut plays is getting larger and more contentious every day. Rabbis who are part of the Rabbanut find themselves involved in political intrigues and often entangled in the same kind of corruption that all too often ensnares the politicians. More and more Israeli citizens find they can be spiritual without the kind of Orthodox Judaism that is being forced upon them by the Rabbanut.
I agree. When religion becomes political, it begins to undermine the very values that it is trying to impose on others. Religion is not meant to exist in the political sphere. The point is that a coercive religion will eventually undermine itself. The teaching of religion to adults and children depends less on coercing a person to believe, and more upon showing that what we believe is better taught through actions rather than words. A spiritual person is one who teaches through the example of his life. What we say or do in our personal lives is far more important in spreading the words of faith than all the political power in the world. For example, right wing Christians insisted that Public schools should begin the day with a prayer, one that more often than not included references to Jesus, prayers that were inappropriate to the non Christians who may also be attending the class. The members of the Christian Right believed that we could become a more prayerful, spiritual nation if we could only force our children into a moment of prayer. Forget for a moment that such prayer is illegal in our country where church and state are separate, consider the fact that public schools do not have the mission to teach about prayer and reinforce praying. By requiring a prayerful moment at the beginning of every day, the effect on students eventually would be to rebel against this kind of mandated prayer.
On the other hand, as I have often said, any prayer recited daily, 20 minutes earlier with the family at the kitchen table in the student’s home, that prayer will have a lasting effect in that child’s life.
The most important way a faith can change the course of a nation is to teach that faith through word and deed. When a person lives the faith he or she holds, such a person is an inspiration to others. When that person tries to pass legislation that will require society to hold a principle of faith, the society will eventually reject the attempt at religious coercion. The religious right in America has tried for many years to ban abortion, limit divorce and forbid gay marriage. In state after state such laws have been defeated. Similarly in Israel, the Rabbanut has struggled to maintain their grip on marriage, conversion and the money that the state pays to religious schools. The evidence grows each day about how corrupt the rabbis of the Rabbanut have become and the resentment that is rising in Israeli society. Without state sanctioned civil marriages which are opposed by the rabbis of the Rabbanut, Israelis go to the island of Cyprus to get married and avoiding the need to jump through the hoops required by the Rabbanut. The leaders of the Orthodox parties that control the Rabbanut have so soured citizens on Judaism, Israelis now visit India seeking spirituality rather than finding it in the holy land. A large majority of Israelis have nothing but contempt for the Rabbanut and all that they stand for.
A Religious leader who would want seminary students to have an impact in the world, should be steering them away from politics and into a ministry that will go out and live the very morality that they wish to bring to the world. Faith is best taught by example. People aspire to religious leadership because they themselves were inspired by the faith of a mentor. There is a famous story about a boy whose parents wanted him to be a student in the great yeshiva of the Hafetz Hayim. The boy had other ideas about what he wanted to do with his life. He went to the school and failed the entrance exam. The problem was, he needed to stay overnight so he could leave the next morning. The school had a policy that non-students could not stay overnight in the dorms. So the Hafez Hayim had the boy sleep over his own house. In the middle of the night, the sage came into the boy’s room, and noticing how cold the room was, took off his own coat and placed it over the boy. The boy became a successful businessman who always gave generously to charity. Why? He was impressed that the great Sage took the time to care about the welfare of a young boy. “That coat still keeps me warm.” The man would say.
In Judaism, religious leaders are “rabbis”. The word means “teacher”. We teach best when we teach by the example of our lives. Let us influence the politicians through our actions. If we believe in Justice, let us teach what our faith says about justice and judges and if enough people like what we say, they will create the support for better judicial qualifications. If we believe in education, let us teach what a school should instill in a child and if enough agree with us, they will create the support needed to evaluate curriculum or start a private school that teaches those values. If we despise Hate, let us bring people together to understand each other’s needs. If we feel for the homeless, let us teach others to develop a program to find the way to bring the destitute off the streets. Religious people can do this by teaching the fundamentals of their faith. When that faith speaks to enough of society, when that faith offers a solution to a problem that speaks to the needs of all citizens, then that faith can move mountains and make a real change in the world.
On a cold December night in 1983, 11-year-old Trevor Ferrell saw a TV newscast about people living on the streets of Philadelphia. Those images stirred Trevor and he pleaded with his parents to take him to downtown Philadelphia so he could give his blanket and pillow to the first homeless person he met. In ensuing weeks, with the help of his family, classmates and neighbors, Trevor made regular trips into Philadelphia to distribute food, clothing and blankets to those in need. Inspiring hundreds of generous citizens and businesses, this little “campaign” soon grew into shelters and an entire array of services for the homeless. The compassion of one small boy took on a life of its own and become a part of the vital services offered to the 24,000 homeless of Philadelphia. The Campaign has grown over the years in its approach and sophistication to best enable the homeless to become self-sufficient.
This is the kind of change that religions can perform when taken out of the political realm and into the real work of making a difference. Religious leaders can inspire in our country the commitment to make a real difference. Our country is filled with churches and synagogues that sponsor homeless shelters, provide food for the hungry, who extend a hand to those who are sick and support those who have suffered a loss. Religion provided the moral underpinnings of the Civil Rights Movement in this country. Religious leaders who oppose hate have created an atmosphere where those who spread hate are no longer welcome in our communities. I know that there are faith communities that do not welcome gays and lesbians into their communities, but it is also religious teachings about the equality of all humans under God that pushes acceptance of civil rights for homosexuals forward.
As for a religious agenda, Religious leaders need to stop speaking for the entire nation and start speaking for their own communities. Abortion may be legal in the United States, but a community that believes in adoption rather than abortion should teach that value so the members of that community will make good choices. Prayer may not be allowed in public schools, but a faith community that believes in prayer should teach that each family should begin each day with a prayer. No law could be passed in this country that could force a religious leader to perform a same sex marriage if that is not a teaching of his or her faith. Not everything that is legal is necessarily right. We cannot and should not try and coerce members of other faiths and beliefs to do what they hold to be wrong or to give up that which their community allows. Only when we teach our own faith community our religious tenets of what is right and what is wrong, can we hope to instill in them the faith to make good choices. And I should also point out that clergy should be the first to set the example. Clergy, who wish to be taken seriously, should be sure to always practice what they preach. The landscape is already littered with religious leaders who thought they were above and beyond the “divine” rules that they insisted others must obey.
This separation of church and state is not always easy. There are issues of public policy that challenge the wall of separation. What happens when a religious community says it is OK to batter a wife or a child? What should happen if a faith relies on prayer rather than medicine to cure someone afflicted with disease? Can the state force someone to have a blood transfusion that is against the teachings of his faith? Can the state forbid female circumcision, or even male circumcision as cruel in spite of teachings that make such surgery a religious ritual? That these remain difficult issues is testimony to the living faith that drives our country.
That religion has something to say about government is a given. That religion should change the world one soul at a time should be dogma. When we dabble in passing laws that will force others to obey our understanding of God’s will, we will drive people far away from a life of faith. Let us teach love and not coercion. For only when we live humbly according to teachings of our faith, we will draw others to our side.

My colleague Rabbi Jerry Sussman recently wrote:

Many of our struggles have to do with the disconnect between us as Rabbis and the members of our congregations. I think that Conservative Jews … like traditional ritual but do not want to be told what to do. While many of our members like services in Hebrew and traditional practices; they want to maintain their autonomy as to what they consider obligatory and what they do not. Which means that they do not accept Halacha as something they are obligated to do. They are thus ideologically Reform Jews who like tradition. The amount of tradition they can tolerate is however getting less and less with the generations (with more than a few exceptions). In this way we can regard our movement as a partial failure in that we have been trying to develop a laity committed to the Conservative approach to Halacha for close to a hundred years and have not succeeded. That’s a pretty big failure.

There are many directions we can go in. Founding a real community is one. Maybe we can consider the Chabad type of organization in which the Chabad houses are essentially franchises and the shelichim the franchisees who do not have to contend with our contentious structure where the Rabbi serves at the pleasure of the congregation.

What it all means is that we have to rethink some of our fundamentals including the question of whether or not a religious movement based on the Wissenschaft approach to Judaism can work. Until we clarify our own beliefs and approaches we won’t be able to change the picture.

I don’t want anyone to think that I am picking on my colleague. I am not. He is expressing an opinion that I hear a lot when I am around other rabbis. I have trouble believing that he really feels that way about lay people in Conservative Judaism. I think my other colleagues who repeat these accusations are also not really anti-lay people; they are only reflecting the frustration they feel when they realize the differences between themselves and the people in the congregations they serve.

Rabbis are unhappy these days; they are unhappy because our congregations are shrinking, our members don’t seem to want to hear what we have to teach and there is a big world out there that is doing a better job in reaching our members than we in the pulpit are doing.

The lay people in our movement are unhappy too. They look at Orthodox congregations and feel that the worship there is more “authentic” than what we have in our congregations. They look at Reform congregations and see that there some really important things are happening that don’t happen in our congregations. The other congregations seem to be filled with happy people and members of Conservative congregations seem to be so unhappy.

The reaction to all of this is to asses blame. Congregations go looking for “new, young rabbis” who may have new ideas and casting out the older rabbis who seem so, well, old. Rabbis go blaming congregations who don’t know what they want and they blame the “movement” for not helping them figure out what they want and they blame their training for not having the skill to figure it out for themselves.

So it is time to stop the blaming and begin to change fundamentally what our rabbis and congregations are all about.

First of all, it is time Rabbis challenged our lay leadership. Rabbis need to ask our board members to write a statement about what Judaism means to them and something about their own Jewish journey. If they can’t write it, Rabbis should give them the background and vocabulary to write a spiritual statement that belongs on the synagogue website.

Next, Rabbis should look at the entire congregation and find the spiritual stories that get to the heart of what it means to be a Jew, especially a Conservative Jew, today. Those stories should be told in public at services (Shabbat and/or Holiday) and then put on the website and published in the bulletin. Rabbis may need to edit these stories to keep them focused and to help the authors find the right words that will not lead to ridicule or embarrassment by others. Conservative Jews need to see the faces of those who are just like them but who have made good spiritual decisions.

Every Conservative congregation needs to have a social action/political action program that the leadership not only supports but participates in. The track to leadership needs to go through work on/with this committee. There should be a long list of projects going on all the time and lots of ways to get involved. It should become the most important work our congregations do. Services are important and so is education, but I believe that they are only really effective if there is a social action program that backs them up so we can practice what we preach.

Synagogues need to train as many members as we can in synagogue skills and in writing/delivering a d’var Torah. Adult Education should be as important as Religious School and have similar funding. The road to synagogue leadership should pass through education as well.

Rabbis should save the sermon for a really important event/topic/holiday. Otherwise there should be more discussion with the congregation and stories that relate to everyday life. If a rabbi feels a need to comment on what is going on in the news, the rabbi should use the website, email or bulletin. Rabbis cannot compete with news pundits and cable television to comment on the news. Rabbis should stick to teaching our members how to live life better, a topic that you can’t get from the secular media.

Congregations need to invest in technology. Websites need to be better; filled with pictures of people having fun, not only pictures of the building. It should have a list serve or social networking site so members can chat and share day to day information with each other. The synagogue should have a “virtual office” that is open 24 hours a day so members can sign up and pay for upcoming events when they finally get to go online after the kids are asleep or they are home from evening meetings. Save postage and send out an online weekly bulletin. The Rabbi and Cantor and other staff members should write a blog linked to the website. The school, social action groups, and the board (at least the President) should be updating their webpage at least weekly.

Synagogues need to be more user friendly. Think about your facility. Does a newcomer know which door is used during the week for the office and which door is used on Shabbat for services? Can a visitor find the office, Rabbi’s study, restrooms and chapel once they are inside? Is there someone, with a nametag, that will find a visitor and help them find their way once they are inside the building? If a new person shows up for services will someone welcome them and help them get settled in their seat, offering those not familiar with the service to sit with someone who can help them or will the visitor be told to sit somewhere else because “that is MY seat”?

Where did I learn all of this? I assure you they don’t teach it at any seminary. But all of this information is out there if we take the time to look for it. My friend Dr. Ron Wolfson has a rule that any congregation of any religion that has hundreds of people coming every week must be doing something right. We need to find those congregations and just do what they do. We all know about these congregations like Hadar, B’nai Jeshurun, IKAR, Anshe Chesed, (even the mega Christian churches with thousands of members have something to teach us.) We know about STAR and Synagogue 3000. The information is right there on the internet and so many rabbis and congregations just close their eyes to it and expect someone else to tell them what they need to do/change to be successful when, all too often, rabbis and congregations are too comfortable with the way things are or too scared that someone will be unhappy to try something new.

This is not about Halacha. Our members will follow us with Halacha if we give them a reason to follow us. If people see our congregations as irrelevant, then Halacha will be seen as irrelevant. If people see us as dynamic and we are an important part of their life, then the Halacha will also become an important part of their lives. The issue today is not if we have musical instruments on Shabbat or not, nor is it if we include imahot or not; the real issues are if our congregations are relevant to the lives of our members. The world out there is filled with dangerous ideas and a culture where “the one who dies with the most toys wins”. Our Jewish people don’t buy that philosophy but don’t know what their own religion has to say about it. Synagogues that don’t address this need will find themselves aging and shrinking. If that describes our Movement, then we know what the movement needs to be addressing as well. Chancellor Eisen at the Jewish Theological Seminary gets it. He is creating a Mitzvah project for the movement. USCJ and the RA now have new leadership. We will see if they get it or not soon. But why wait?

There is no point in crying that everything is pretty bad. We know what we need to do. We know where we can go for answers. What we need now is the will to get it all done.

I should warn you, this is a long comment!

Matthew Housman, a commentator from Arutz Sheva, wrote a column called, “Whither Conservative Judaism” on March 9 of this year (here is the link to the whole article): http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8639 ) I am tired of this kind of rant that Conservative Jews get all the time from Orthodox Jews who seem to think that we are an enemy as their Rabbis lead them down a path that separates one Jew from another. Below is the end of his article and my response.

Mr. Housman starts off with a brief history of Zehariah Frankel and the Positive Historical School in Breslau Germany in the 19th Century. He seems to think that the early history of Conservative Judaism was the reason for all the issues he lists at the end of the article. I have included below only this part of his article in bold italics and add my comments and defense in regular type in between.

Mr. Housman writes: As a consequence, and in response to the demands of an increasingly uneducated and acculturated constituency, the movement’s Committee on Law and Standards over the years has sanctioned many sweeping departures from normative halacha, issuing responsa that have strained the parameters of the law, all the while claiming to be guided by it. The conceit of this process is that it purports to be guided by halacha while clearly ignoring the law when deemed politically expedient, socially desirable or simply convenient.

The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS), is the committee that rabbis turn to for guidance on questions that may be too complicated or too difficult for the local rabbi to address. Lay leadership is not allowed to send questions to the committee, such requests are given back to the local rabbi for a rabbinic ruling. (Disclosure here: My daughter is currently the Secretary of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards.) I believe that they started to meet in 1927. They are NOT the final rule in Conservative Judaism, only a guide to local rabbis who need help in making a decision. Over the years the composition and role of the committee has changed but not its mandate. It is more inclusive of the different streams in our pluralistic movement and reflects the wide range of ages of rabbis. Just as the Congress of the United States took years to find the limits of their office and the proper track for this country, the CJLS also has a history of struggling to find the proper balance between tradition and change. The key here is “normative Halacha”. Halacha over the centuries has grown and changed in certain ways. Orthodox Halacha is an approach. The Positive-Historical school proposed a different approach, where Halacha can be decided by how it was applied in certain historical contexts. In different places, at different times, Halacha has been decided differently. Orthodox Halacha is determined by rabbis who are accepted Sages. Historical Halacha is determined by the rabbi who was faced with a local issue. Sometimes the larger Halacha validated this interpretation, sometimes it did not. The CJLS is indeed guided by “normative Halacha” but not always in the same way as Orthodox rabbis would apply it. I also should add that there are some rabbis in Conservative Judaism who think that we should ONLY use “normative Halacha”. We will see more about this later in the article.

Although the Conservative Movement still claims to be guided by halacha, it is difficult to see how its myriad of changes – starting with the official endorsement of driving on Shabbat to its recent conflicting responsa on homosexuality and the ordination of gay rabbis – can be justified or even rationalized on halachic grounds. Indeed, many of these changes fall so far outside the boundaries of the law that they are clearly motivated by external concerns and values, not halachic logic or precedent.



The CJLS is guided by Halacha. It just does not use the same guides that Orthodox Judaism uses. When appropriate, a minority opinion may be used to validate a practice. Sometimes there is disagreement over the definitions in a decision. Concerning riding on Shabbat, one of the first times the CJLS varied from Orthodox Halacha, one difference was in the definition of “riding.” The CJLS felt that cars were not the same as horses and the rules should be different. Since that ruling (which was a minority opinion) there have been Conservative rabbis who have disagreed and not held by it. Some say they would like it changed; but an opinion of the CJLS is not binding on all rabbis. It is only an opinion. There have been, actually very few CJLS opinions that vary from normative Halacha and most, at least, give halachic reasoning for the change. (There is no reason a rabbi can’t use a more liberal position rather than a strict one). One such change was the recent ruling on Homosexuality. It took years to create the position and many positions were suggested and rejected. In the end, Halacha could not help Conservative Judaism become more inclusive, and in a very rare moment, the CJLS accepted positions that were outside normal halachic processes. It was very controversial, as one might expect, and some rabbis on the committee quit the committee because of it. But in this case, opinions that said that human dignity trumps Halacha won.



Alarmingly, when attempting to justify changes in practice and observance that clearly contravene halacha, today’s Conservative rabbis often seem unfamiliar with the traditional rabbinic sources; and when discussing their movement’s evolving positions they are informed more by inter-movement politics than substantive halacha. Thus, in response to the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism’s continuing claims to be a halachic movement, many of its critics now refer to it as “halachic style.” That is, just as “kosher style” restaurants are not truly kosher, neither is a “halachic-style movement” truly guided or constrained by Jewish law.



Conservative Judaism has never held by the opinion that the Halacha is “all or nothing”. We believe that just because we disagree on certain halachic definitions and processes that we use occasionally, does not make us non-halachic. The CJLS is very aware of traditional Rabbinic sources and also of the needs of Jews living in North America (there are different committees that rule in South America and Israel/Europe). The only people who call Conservative Judaism “halachic style” are those who disagree with our interpretation of Jewish law. We believe that Orthodox rabbis do not have a “lock” on what is “normative Halacha” and that, as we see in Israel, they too are all too often ruling based on inter-movement politics. (I would ask the Rabbanut in Israel about their recent rulings on Conversion.) Mr. Housman here reveals his Orthodox bias.



So, what are the practical consequences of this evolution? Perhaps most significant is the sense of alienation felt by people who grew up in “traditional” Conservative synagogues. Because of their observant orientation, they could not reconcile themselves with the relaxation of standards that came with the liberalization of ritual and practice – from the wholesale disregard of family purity laws to the relaxation of standards of kashrut, conversion, divorce and education. Indeed, one need only look to the small and shrinking percentage of Conservative congregants who actually keep kosher, attend services regularly or observe Shabbat to see that even the most minimal tokens of observance are no longer a priority for the vast majority of the movement’s constituents.



Unlike the Orthodox who “drum out” anyone who disagrees with their rulings (for example Rabbi Druckman of the Conversion court and Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman z’l who ruled on Agunot) Conservative Judaism has never abandoned a rabbi or lay person for being “too strict” or “too traditional”. Our movement has never ruled to “disregard” family purity laws, and as for the “relaxation of standards” referred to above, what he is talking about are standards imposed by Orthodox rabbis with whom we disagree. If an Orthodox rabbi says that it is OK for autopsy rules to be relaxed in cases of transplant, that is “normative Halacha” but if a Conservative rabbi says that a convert who is sincere and willing to learn and grow in their practice of Jewish law, should be accepted as a convert, then we are “disregarding standards”. If our laypeople are not practicing as strictly as Orthodox rabbis, that is not a flaw. There are plenty of Orthodox Jews who ride to shul on Shabbat and park around the corner where no one will see. There are plenty who do not always eat up to Orthodox Kashrut standards. Conversion and Divorce in Orthodox ritual courts is more often than not politically motivated (a member of the congregation or a child of a big donor) than based on halachic considerations. I am not saying that Conservative Judaism does not have challenges to face with our members, only that we are willing to face the challenges where Orthodox rabbis tend to ignore them.



Paradoxically, for many people born in the 1960s and later who are not personally observant, but who received more traditional education (i.e., those who came of age during the most extreme period of liberalization from the 1970s to 1990s), the intellectual disconnect between the halachic process and the movement’s evolution is difficult to reconcile; and the nagging inconsistency between many of the movement’s changes and the halacha by which it claims still to be guided is viewed even by many non-observant people as intellectually dishonest. Moreover, the concomitant rise in intermarriage amongst people reared within the Conservative fold has provided a stark realization of where less observance and education ultimately leads. And this realization has stimulated a return to observance by many, albeit in varying forms and degrees.

Observance has indeed experienced many twists and turns over the past 50 years, as it has had over the past 1000 years. The Halacha of Dutch Jews were different than eastern European Jews. Hasidim had different standards from Mitnagdim. Sephardic practice is very different from Ashkenazic practice. Orthodox Judaism before 1960 was more liberal than it is now, 50 years later. The 19th century saw three halachic guides, the “Kitzur Shulchan Aruch” which was strict, the “Mishna Berura” which was more moderate, and the “Aruch HaShulchan” the most liberal of the three. I find it intellectually dishonest that the most liberal opinions are the ones excluded from halachic discussions. The only people who claim that Conservative Jews are intellectually dishonest are those who disagree with our positions. I can’t say, any more than any other halachic authority can say, that the system is perfect. We have our problems like any other movement. Is it intellectually dishonest to say that we disagree with a ruling by an Orthodox rabbi? I think it is intellectually dishonest for a person who has no connection with Orthodox Halacha, someone who disregards Shabbat, Kashrut and family purity laws, but insists that the only “real” law in Judaism is Orthodox law, THAT person is intellectually dishonest. Someone who chooses the strictest interpretation of the Law and then says they will not follow it; such a person is no more representative of Orthodox Judaism than is the person, who has a traditional education and thinks that we are intellectually dishonest, a Conservative Jew.

In an increasingly common pattern, those who aspire to greater observance often find that they cannot live more committed lifestyles within the culture of today’s Conservative Movement. Although the movement’s hierarchy routinely trumpets the beauty of diversity in belief and practice, and claims that there is room in the tent for all levels of observance, those who hold more traditional beliefs and values are generally marginalized, made to feel unwelcome and ultimately excluded. The usual litmus test for whether one’s ritual orientation is outside of the movement’s mainstream is the acceptance or rejection of “egalitarian minyanim”, with those who do not accept the practice usually being branded as misogynists, reactionaries or extremists.



As I mentioned before, there are some, after the difficult deliberations over homosexuality in the CJLS who have removed themselves from the committee. They have not left Conservative Judaism. Far more people have been made to feel there is no room for them in Orthodox Judaism than those who feel that way in Conservative Judaism; the Orthodox have shut them out, we have not. Our ranks are filled with those who have been told there is no place for them in their Orthodox synagogue. We don’t ask anyone at any door if they are misogynists, reactionary or extremists. Our tent remains open to all. There are some who find that Orthodoxy speaks to their religious feelings and some who feel that Reform Judaism is better for their family; in the same way that there are Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews who have found a home in Conservative Judaism. The real difference here is that the leadership of Orthodox Judaism does not accept anything less than an Orthodox interpretation of Judaism. Conservative Judaism is happy to help people find their place in the Jewish spectrum; it is Orthodox Judaism that has litmus tests for its Jews (even looking in the windows of people’s homes to make sure that, behind closed doors, they are not watching TV on Shabbat).



As a consequence, many congregants have left their Conservative synagogues to search for spiritual meaning within a more traditional institutional framework. Interestingly, while many emigres from the movement still believe that level of observance is a personal matter between them and the Almighty, they are also increasingly guided by a sense of the vitality of halacha and a belief in revelation, both of which set goals to which they can aspire and by which they can measure their achievement and growth as Jews. It is difficult, if not impossible, to do that when the law is treated merely as tradition or simply as a sociological construct. It is then subject to drastic change even outside the logical boundary of its own structure, particularly when the engine for change is fueled by external considerations rather than internal process and consistency.



A legal system has its routine ways of growing and changing, and when those routines no longer work, a secular system will amend the law. Religious law, coming from God, clearly can’t be amended. Rabbis in every generation have struggled to find ways to keep the law growing and relevant within the routine of the law, but have not hesitated to make changes when needed. The logical structure of the law is not divine, it is a human construction. All changes in the law are fueled by external considerations. The Prozbul was fueled by the change from agricultural to urban settlements. The ruling by Rabbenu Gershon ending polygamy was fueled by the politics of Christian Europe. The rulings of the Hatam Sofer on the minimum standards of wine, matzah and maror in the 19th and early 20th century were fueled by the rise of Reform and Conservative Judaism. The ruling by the CJLS on homosexuality was fueled by scientific changes in the way we understand the nature of homosexuality. Yes there are Jews who prefer the Orthodox style of Jewish Law, but those who do not accept Orthodox law and who feel that Orthodoxy has nothing to say to them, and who find intellectual honesty and support in the Conservative movement are also Jews who do not hold as Mr. Housman. What is striking is that we are willing to admit that there are positions in Jewish Law that sometimes are stricter than those discussed at the CJLS. Orthodox authorities do not offer us the same consideration. I ask you, my readers, who do you think is really intellectually dishonest?

One of the Masorti Rabbis in Jerusalem, had a group of Rabbis visiting his congregation just before the Rabbinical Assembly convention. He took the opportunity to tell his colleagues that they need to teach more mitzvot to the members of our congregations. He noted that as the Orthodox groups shift farther to the right, we should take up the name and position of “modern orthodox” and leave behind the name “Conservative Judaism”. He said we should be teaching our congregations the real Judaism that can be found when we practice more mitzvot and more rituals.
I was troubled by his comments because I do not think he was seeing the full picture. I do not believe that performing rituals alone will make a more committed, traditional Jew.
A few months ago, I heard a debate between Rabbi Neil Gillman and Rabbi Joel Roth. Both are professors at the Jewish Theological Seminary but they teach from different sides of the Conservative spectrum. Rabbi Roth represented the traditional camp, explaining that the Jewish Legal system is designed to permit certain kinds of changes and not others. In the beginning there is Halacha, Jewish Law, and then one has to work with the system to resolve whatever issues modern living creates. Rabbi Gillman took a different track. He stated that first there has to be a reason for the Mitzvah. It should be impossible for there to be a Jewish Law that is immoral. If the Halacha we have today becomes identified as immoral or unethical at its core, then that law needs to be changed no matter what the implications inside the legal system may be. Rabbis Gillman and Roth debated that night and it ended in a draw, no minds were changed either way. I thought to myself, they are both right, but are speaking to different audiences. For those outside the Halachic system, Rabbi Gillman offers a way in. For those who come from a Halachic background, Rabbi Roth presents the most effective way to grow Jewishly. I just don’t see how both sides can work together. Yet our movement must make room for both approaches.
We live in an age where the usual Jewish denominations no longer really mean anything to the Jews of North America. Jews in this country change congregations for all kinds of reasons but theology is not usually considered. Modern Jews may leave a congregation if they have a disagreement with the Rabbi, if they move away, if they need a different kind of school, if they are looking for new friends. These are the most common reasons a family will move from one congregation to another. Theological discussions don’t usually come into the picture. Sometimes someone will not feel comfortable with the way one congregation performs one ritual or another but for the most part, North American Jews move pretty freely from one synagogue to another.
It is the Roth/Gillman debate that, in my opinion, is the real division in Judaism here in the United States. Some Jews are looking for a place where there is a great deal of respect for the Halachic system. They want to do more and more Mitzvot and they understand that the meaning for the rituals will come once they are fully into living as Jews. The Halachic system will, when fully engaged, bring structure, meaning and direction into the lives of those so dedicated. Mitzvot and modernity, tradition and change, ritual and being open to new ideas are what this approach is all about. Not everything may be possible, but when one is committed to the system, we do what we can and learn to live with what we cannot do.
But for those outside the system, the Gillman approach makes more sense. What are we doing? Why are we doing that? What does it mean? These are all important questions to be asked before one begins a ritual life. For example, a person would see someone wearing tephillin and be moved to consider wearing tephillin themselves if they thought that the person they are looking at, is in a spiritual place that they, the newcomer, wants to achieve. Only later, the newcomer would realize all the implications that come when one wears tephillin on a regular basis.
But there are also times when the law no longer represents a moral or ethical position, when the gap between what is permitted and prohibited is so great that only something outside the legal system can help us bring the system back to a sensible place. Something needs to be done or there is a danger that Jews will reject the entire system without giving it a second look.
One such issue might be the acceptance/creation of lifecycle rituals for gay and lesbian Jews. To exclude homosexual Jews from Jewish ritual is considered to be wrong by many modern, serious Jews. Such Jews claim that if we understand the Torah to say that homosexual Jews should be excluded, then we must not be understanding the Torah correctly. If these laws can’t be changed to bring gay and lesbian Jews fully into the Jewish people, then what is the use for Jewish Law at all? A Halacha that excludes Jews can’t be a moral law and if Jewish Law can’t be moral, than what use is it to a modern Jew?
We are a wide tent that includes Jews that are all over the ritual spectrum. What unites us is that we are still searching for meaning in our lives, that what we do should not be useless and futile. There is much in Judaism, in the ritual and Halacha that can give purpose and meaning to life. I don’t believe that we can teach this to our fellow Jews without offering meaning and reasons for why we do what we do. And when, issues like gender and sexual orientation threaten to throw the whole system into the realm of irrelevance, bold changes are needed. Even if such changes occasionally take us outside the official framework of the Halachic system.
I don’t think that what our movement needs is “orthodoxy”. I think we should stay with “massorti” (traditional) Judaism or “Conservative” Judaism, where we seek to “conserve” the tradition and live in the modern world. I understand that a legal system is what gives Judaism its continuity with generations in the past, but without the ability to transcend the system from time to time, we will lose our connection with Jews in the future. Halacha is not a perfect system. We need to remember that and not be afraid to act lest Judaism lose all relevance in the modern world.

The war in Gaza is over, except for the recriminations and Monday morning quarterbacking.

• Did Israel have the right to start this fight? I think so. In fact I don’t think they started this fight at all. Hamas resumed intense rocket attacks and Israel responded.

• Did Israel force Hamas to attack with their border closings? It seems hard for me to understand how the border closings hurt Hamas and the people of Gaza. The closings did not seem to stop the flow of rockets and ammunition into Gaza. The same tunnels used to rearm Hamas could have been used to bring in needed supplies. That they chose to use them for arms smuggling and not to help the people is the terrorist way.

• Did too many civilians get hurt? Yes.

• Was that Israel’s fault? Some may turn out to be Israel’s fault. There were even some friendly fire deaths early on in the war. I think it is also clear that Hamas used civilians as human shields. I also believe that in the coming days we will see that the entire number of deaths claimed by Hamas is inflated and the real numbers are much less. Any civilian death is a tragedy for the family and for both countries. Israel did not purposely attack civilians. Hamas rockets were not targeting military installations. They targeted cities and towns in southern Israel.

• Did Israel achieve anything with this war? That is a question for diplomats. We will see how the future will shape up as both sides now try to get the most from this war.

I have to admit that I never seem to understand the Palestinian side of their relationship with Israel. If the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results, then the leaders of Hamas certainly seem to be unbalanced. There was a disconnect this time in Hamas between the leadership hiding in Damascus and those on the ground in Gaza. Damascus wanted to fight on, but those in Gaza had enough. I think there will be a more practical ceasefire between Hamas and Israel this time and Hamas has lost a lot in this war. Fatah, their rivals, will patrol the Rafah crossing. Europeans will patrol the border looking for violations of the ceasefire, meaning smuggling tunnels. The United States will provide Egypt with technology to help them find and destroy future tunnels and those civilians who were used as human shields will take a long time to trust Hamas again. Hamas understands that they had no support from other Arab countries (except maybe Iran) and even Hezbollah, who does Iran’s dirty work, did not intervene to help Hamas.

But Israel also has not come away unscathed. For now, the rockets have stopped and that makes Israeli life easier. But as Gaza is opened to the flow of goods and services, Israel will wonder how much the EU will really intervene and stop the flow of ammunition and rockets into Gaza. Great Britain and the United States are talking about interdicting the arms as they leave Iran, but we will see how that will work out. Egypt has a problem with the Bedouins. They make a good living smuggling in the desert and they can respond with their own acts of terror (the Sharm el Sheik hotel bombings) if their livelihood is disrupted. It is unlikely Egypt will take on the Bedouins anytime soon. Gaza is not secure from terrorism and the only alternative is for Israel to take over Gaza again. It is not a very good choice for Israel.

In my opinion Israel needs to start its own counter insurgency program. Instead of fighting the Palestinians, they need to work to improve their lot, in Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza. Arab sections of Israel are second class to the nearby Jewish neighborhoods. Investing in Israel’s Arabs may be the way to start a new relationship with those we usually consider enemies. If Israel’s Arabs had a greater stake in Israel’s economic growth, perhaps they would cut the Jewish State a break.

One thing is certain; war will not bring a lasting peace to this part of the world. It will take the patient work of dedicated diplomats to create a framework for peace and there has to be willing parties on both sides, to stop acts of incitement that undermine whatever progress has been made. War may get the attention, but behind the scenes, it is quiet diplomacy that will bring about the changes needed to resolve the tough differences that still exist between Israeli and Palestinian.

May the two sides make peace and not war.

Brenda Horowitz is a good friend and while she does not post commentary to me often, when she does, I always have to pause to reflect on the issues she raises. She sent me the following comments and I have asked her permission to share them on my blog.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the issues that you raised in your latest Jewish Common Sense blog. I think part of what’s holding back even those (few) congregations who are theoretically open to and able to do these things is the whole business model problem. After all, these efforts are not likely, especially in the short-term, to generate new paid members or other revenue streams for the host site. And while vibrancy and continuity are certainly on almost everyone’s checklist for their goals for their congregations, it’s far from certain that these efforts would actually bring more bodies (never mind paying ones) into the building . . . although it’s almost equally certain that continuing with the status quo will not!

Specifically, given the global nature of social networking and online education, why would I turn to my local synagogue for these programs when I could just as easily find and participate in them through a synagogue or other Jewish institution in New York or LA or Cleveland or Jerusalem? And why should my local synagogue make the investment in infrastructure and technology and manpower when those who are availing themselves of what I create are just as likely to live so far away and never contribute back to or affiliate with or directly benefit my synagogue?

Is it truly necessary or desirable or beneficial or an efficient use of community resources to have every (or even most or many) of our synagogues offering these programs individually, or is there some way to leverage each other’s contributions and create some type of economies of scale in these endeavors? How much of what we’re trying to accomplish is effectively “industry marketing” (Conservative Judaism or even Judaism in general), and how much is “product marketing” (our specific program or institution)? What can we learn from other industries about the industry marketing component? (Remember the national dairy boards’ “Got Milk” advertisement?)

How should or can we join together? How should or can we specialize? These are some of the interesting questions and discussions that need to be (and hopefully are) taking place at the institutional, communal, and movement levels. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on these issues.

Regards,– Brenda Horowitz

I only wish that what makes synagogues move slowly in the area of technology is a business model issue. I would love to have a conversation with congregations about business models and budgets. Far too often the real issues are money spent on “programs” and how will we raise the money for new technology. I have found that synagogues get stuck on where they are and forget (or get lazy) and no longer continue the outreach that helped the congregation grow in the first place. I am not being cynical here. The problem that many non-profits have is that they develop a core of funders and members and then, when they reach a good place, suspend the outreach that made it all possible. It is then that they begin to die. Without new members to replace those who move away, leave for other organizations and those who die, the membership begins to decrease. Funders are developed; they do not grow on trees. How many synagogues fail to continue to work with younger members to help them grow into major funders?

The reality is that outreach work today depends on a web presence. Young people, those who are 25-35 depend on the internet for their entire social life. They invite others to parties, find out the latest information and look for good ideas on the internet. These are young professionals with money to donate and synagogues are invisible to them because we have no web presence or a poor one that does not invite them into the fold. Parents today need the web because they have little time during the day to take care of business matters. They pay bills online, exchange email, share pictures and shop online well after most synagogue offices are closed. They often don’t go online until the children are in bed and they have the time (and access to the computer). Our entire communication structure with our current members as well as outreach to people who may be moving to the community and those who are ready to find a synagogue depends on our web presence. We will also see that holding on to these members will increasingly depend on being able to reach them online.

Rather than see the online resources available from distant organizations as a problem, synagogues should see this as an enhancement for their own local programs. We need to link our sites to those that share our outlook and point of view. Conservative Judaism is far behind many other more fundamentalist Jewish groups and we need to pool together and expand the content of Conservative Judaism online. But while it is possible to get information online from places all over the world, there will always be a need for a local presence as a source for that information (links) and as a personal place where the people know your name, your needs and can link you up with others who are on a similar path, to share experiences in a more personal way than can be done online. As we grow in understanding and in ritual, we want to have the personal contact that is needed to really understand. Jewish living is an art, not a science, and sharing a Shabbat meal, celebrating holidays together and talking about prayer are still strong ways to make Jewish Ritual our own. One parent recently asked me what we could do to make parents in our schools more connected to the congregation. I replied that if we increase the rituals they do in their own homes, we can foster a connection with the synagogue since Judaism can’t be done alone for long. We need the social contact to refine our practice and to learn what will work and what will not work for our families. Some of this can be done online, but some needs the sharing of ideas and practices face to face.

I think that there is room for shared community resources. A synagogue should link to sites from the Jewish Theological Seminary, United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism, the Woman’s League for Conservative Judaism, The Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs, Masorti, Mercaz and the World Council of Synagogues. United Synagogue already has a hosting service for those congregations who want to establish websites. It would be nice if they were to offer templates for synagogues to get online faster but it is a start. There are more and more online resources from Conservative Jewish sites and the synagogue website should be the first place to go to find reliable Jewish advice and learning. We are not there yet.

Beyond “industry marketing” synagogues need to have a web presence just to show up on the community radar. On a local level, while there are many social and political venues for seeking spirituality and finding meaning in life, a synagogue is still the best place to focus our efforts. Not every synagogue can help everyone in their search, but it can be a base out of which we can explore the world to help us in our searching. Many synagogues today try to out-program the rest of the world. But we are unique in important ways that people often forget, burying their spiritual search under a pursuit of “happiness” or some material venture. Real peace comes from being a part of a community that aspires to find a religious path in life. We can help people grow spiritually and grow our religious communities, but we will need to communicate who we are and what we are about better, and that means an investment in technology.

Congregations are now trying to address these needs. I am leaning these days to change the position of “program director” or “communication director” into a technology director. This is a start but it would be helpful if there was direction from the national movement. We need to call upon United Synagogue, both nationally and regionally, to support congregations as they seek to establish a presence on the internet.

Brenda, these are great questions you ask, but there is much to do before congregations can even ask themselves the questions you raise.

I got a great compliment from my daughter a few days ago. She said that I was more technologically savvy than most other Rabbis. I write blogs, I have a website, I can navigate the web and I understand social networking and messaging. Most of the time, my daughter, the soon to be Rabbi, thinks that I don’t understand what Jews today want so I am happy when she admits that there are things that I do right in my rabbinate.

Most of our discussions focus on young, professional Jews and their needs and why the usual synagogue experience just doesn’t cut it. I have to admit that she is usually right. She is a “member” of Kehillat Hadar, the “independent” minyan here in New York City. She shares with me the concerns of its leadership core and how they are seeking out new answers to the issues that the Minyan encounters. There can be hundreds of young Jews at Shabbat Services in the basement of the church in which they meet.

I am member of Anshe Chesed. It is the home of several minyanim, each with its own flavor and style. And yet, Hadar is not part of their constellation, and the members of each minyan at Anshe Chesed are not attracting the same demographic. Shabbat at Anshe Chesed is dynamic and participatory. Still it is not enough to attract the Jewish Young Professionals that frequent Hadar. I know that young Jewish professionals are not the entire Jewish community. There are many different age and denominational groups in Judaism, but there is a sense in the larger community that without the young Jews, the institutions will have a limited lifespan.

So my colleagues, some older, some younger, bemoan the fact that synagogues are not what they used to be. Cantors are struggling with ritual music. Sisterhood and Men’s Clubs can’t seem to attract new leadership. Synagogue boards are aging and young people are not yet ready to take on the challenge of running and fundraising for a congregation. Clearly there is a major transformation in synagogue life that is taking place, and Rabbis, Cantors and Synagogue Leadership ignore it at their own peril.

It is not that there was no warning about the changes. Demographics were the first indication that things were going to be different soon. Young Jews were marrying later, ten years later, and having children ten years later. They were not moving to the suburbs but were staying in urban downtown apartments so they could be near work and the nightlife.

Star and Synagogue 2000/3000 started ten years ago to experiment with different models of congregational life and few paid any attention. Even today, I know colleagues who see the good things that have come from their work, but insist that “It could never work here.”
My friend and colleague Rabbi Jack Moline of Alexandria, VA once admonished Rabbis who were bemoaning the fact that their synagogues were not the kind of places they would want to join if they were free to join a synagogue. He told them that if they were unhappy with their congregation then they needed to make the changes necessary to make it the kind of place where they would be proud to pray. Many have not heeded his advice.

I have written about Conservative congregations who are struggling with the question of whether or not to have instrumental music at Shabbat Services. It is the wrong question. The real issue is not whether or not to have instruments but the kind of music they are playing. If the music is right, it will not matter whether or not there are instruments. Unfortunately the music remains the same and even older Jews find themselves less interested in services.

I was in a discussion with a friend the other day about the big three auto makers who need a loan from the Federal Government but it is looking like they will not get it all. They have been behind the curve for so many years that so many people would rather they fail and start the entire auto industry over again. Even with all the people who would be out of work, it would be better for them to fail than to have people keep working at jobs that are doomed to the dustbin of history. My friend noted that the lesson here is not just for the auto industry. It is a story that we need to be aware of in the Jewish community as well. The “big three” sell cars nobody wants; we are selling a faith that people need but packaging it, Pro Israel, fight anti-Semitism, we are all responsible for each other, we need to stand together, etc., with slogans that just don’t cut it anymore for young Jews. There is a major change going on in Jewish life and if we Rabbis can’t change, if the community can’t change, then we will fade into history.

At least the car companies took surveys to see what the coveted young demographic wanted in a car. We may think that many of the newer models are ugly and strange, but that is what sells to the people they are targeting. We are still targeting our congregations to married couples with children. We fail when it comes to younger singles and married without children. We also fail when it comes to intermarried couples, single Jews by choice, divorced families, blended families, single seniors and anyone with a Jewish education beyond Hebrew School.

Many congregations were formed by founders who worked hard for many years to get the synagogue right where they wanted it and then they froze it in place as they aged. It is upsetting, I know, to wake up one morning and find that the music you love, the music you grew up with, the music that drove your parents crazy and the music where you memorized every lyric and guitar chord, now being played on the “oldies station”. What ‘s the matter with kids today that they don’t appreciate “good music” anymore? “Why can’t they be like we were, perfect in every way? What’s the matter with kids today?” (That is a quote from a musical that is so outdated it is not even a candidate for a revival).

We Rabbis and lay leadership know what we need to do. We need to face the frontier that is before us and mold our congregations for the age and territory that lie ahead. First and foremost on the list is social action programming. We trained our children to fill their lives with social action and community service. Now they are in the workforce and are still looking for ways to make a difference in the world. Don’t expect young Jews to come to administrative meetings, house committee meetings, preschool or religious school parent meetings. They want to make a difference in their lives and if our congregations are not ready to make a difference, they will go where there are Jews who are out there making the world a better place.

Second are changes to worship. Forget pews and facing the front. Try movable chairs set where those in the congregation can see other worshipers. These graduates of day schools and Ramah know nusach but they want different melodies. Carlbach tunes work because it is the same melody over and over, so it is easy to learn. It ends with La-la-la so one can sing and not know Hebrew. It is often upbeat in tempo but can be slow and spiritual. Craig Taubman and Debbie Friedman have been doing this for years as well as some lesser known songwriters. A Cantor today needs to be a bit of a composer, and the service need not be the same every week, it need not be led by the same people every week and should reflect what is going on in the wider world. The time a service begins or ends less relevant. It only needs to be engaging to those who come .

Beyond this there are many other changes that need to be made. Forget websites that open up to a picture of a building. Home pages should have pictures of people having fun. Websites must be updated weekly and have up to the minute information. It should be possible to sign up for a program and even pay for it online. You can mail notices to seniors, but young people want their messages by email. Don’t even bother with a monthly bulletin in print. Adult Education classes should be recorded and placed as podcasts on the website, for those who missed, in a timely fashion. Even better, video the class and post it as a webcast. Rabbis, Cantors, and Educators need to use blogs and the web to stay in touch and teach modern Jews. Event pictures and video should be posted on the web within days if not hours. And why not have a section of the synagogue website for members only?

How many congregations have free “wifi” in the lobby or in a meeting room so waiting parents can use their laptops while they wait for children in lessons? How many synagogues serve good coffee? And we wonder why our members are at the local coffee shop and not in shul? Ron Wolfson and the Synagogue 3000 team keep asking us why it is so hard for newcomers to find their way around an unfamiliar synagogue. Where are our greeters? Where are our nametags so our members can learn one another’s names? Where is the signage that will help visitors find their way to the sanctuary and the restroom? Do we even mark the front door and the office door for those unfamiliar or do we make them walk around the building looking for the entrance? Do we greet people at the door or do we wait until they find the sanctuary before someone says “hello”?

Do congregants share information online through a listserv? Is there a social network group so they can see which friends will be attending a program this week. Do we tell our congregation what we will be offering or do we talk to our congregants about what they need and help them organize the right group around that need?

Jews today have choices, not just the young Jews, but all Jews. We offer something with meaning and purpose to fill a life that can be so empty at times. With all the internet connections, people are lonely and want to fill their time with something that is not vapid entertainment (vapid entertainment has its uses, but nobody wants to spend all day there. Jews today want to know how Israel treats its Arab citizens and Israel’s gay/lesbian community as well. They want to know if Kosher food is more than killed properly, but maintains high moral standards. They are willing to give their money to causes that are really making the world a better place, and they will give their hands and feet to such causes as well. Do our synagogues have Habitat for Humanity work days? Do we go out and serve the hungry? Do we staff homeless shelters? Have we changed our communal light bulbs to compact fluorescents? Do we recycle at the synagogue? Does the leftover food go to the hungry? Where does the Jewish community stand in relation to Burma, Darfur, the war in the DRC and Iran? Do we send volunteers to read to children, to mentor at risk kids and help teachers in the classrooms? Are our celebrations filled with excess or is there a mitzvah project that gives it meaning beyond the walls of our community?
Have we gotten the message?
It is as old as Bob Dylan:

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.

The times indeed are a-changin’

Lisa Miller, who writes about religion for Newsweek magazine, wrote the cover story for the Dec. 15, 2008 magazine. If you would like to read the article yourself, you can find it by clicking on this link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

Let me put my biases on the table right up front. I used to write for student newspapers in high school and college. I seriously contemplated a career in journalism but got my “call” to be a rabbi and to the surprise of no one but myself, I was ordained as Rabbi and not hired as a reporter. I discovered in my writing days that religion is very hard for a journalist to cover. A reporter wants to know the “who, what, where, when, why and how” of a story. Religion just does not fit into those categories. I was very happy to see that Newsweek has a regular religion column, yet it is still pretty impossible to write a meaningful article on religion since it tends to sound like a sermon or a church bulletin rather than part of a real religious discussion between believers.
That being said, Ms. Miller tries to give a take on the gay marriage question by stating that, while religious conservatives use the Bible to claim that gay marriage is not permitted by the Bible, that actually the Bible can be used to make the claim that it supports gay marriage more than it opposes it. I think that she has a good concept, but her supporting arguments just don’t do the job she wants.

Most of her case is built on the fact that marriage in the Bible is a complicated institution, due to polygamy, surrogate mothering and the Christian Bible’s preference for staying unmarried and forbidding divorce. Gay marriage is just not mentioned. She also makes the claims that all the passages that support a ban on homosexual behavior, Genesis chapter one and Leviticus, chapters 19 and 20, are not problems because the Bible was not handed down by God; the command to have children does not take into account modern reproductive techniques; and, she asks, who follows the details listed in Leviticus anymore when it comes to haircuts and blood sacrifices? Therefore, why follow the prohibitions calling homosexuality an “abomination”?
She is of course absolutely right, but her arguments just miss the point. She is talking to those who don’t really believe in the message of the Bible anymore and for them, it really doesn’t matter what the Bible says. They just try and do what they think is “right” without depending on the Bible to help them in their search.

But for believers, who feel that no matter who wrote the Bible, it is still a divine document that has a profound message to people today, they will not have anything to do with the arguments she puts forward.

So let me help her a little.

As far as the Jewish Bible is concerned, there are plenty of married people in the Bible, but no mention at all as to what the rules of marriage are or should be. The only wedding we really have is Jacob’s and we learn that it lasted seven days and the bride wore a veil. It is not much to go on. Lots of people “take a wife” but the Bible never tells us how they did it. Ms. Miller is also correct that in the United States, marriage is a two part process. “Marriage in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two.” The civil part is easier to discuss. In this country, civil marriage is not really about love and devotion, even though we try and put this into the ceremony. A civil marriage license is about a financial union (what I call the “seamy underbelly” of marriage); it is about who will be responsible for the family debts and from what moment they will be eligible for the advantages of marriage. Ms. Miller writes, “As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights and inheritance.” These are not small benefits. Can we really blame gay couples for wanting to have these “civil rights” for their relationships as do the heterosexual couples in this country? To deny gay couples these rights seems to be just another form of bigotry, not really different than racial, sexual or religious bigotry that tries to exclude from society those we just don’t like. [It reminds me of a poem, THE HANGMAN by Maurice Ogden]. We can quibble about the name of the relationship, “marriage”, “partnerships” , “companionship”, “relationship”, but we fool ourselves if we deny health insurance, tax relief, child visitation and inheritance rights to those who are in a committed relationship but just not one that is heterosexual and we think that we are not prejudiced.

As for religious arguments, there are none that could not be refuted by some other believer. That is the nature of religion, that there are multiple paths to God and we find our way through a mixture of personal seeking and tradition received from our ancestors. No two people have exactly the same mix and those who are more conservative /traditional in their faith, will never find the way to allow homosexuality and gay relationships in their faith community. That is our reality. It is also what makes gay marriage/partnerships possible in this country.

We live in a nation that allows all faiths to practice without government intrusion. As long as civilly, gay men and women have the same rights as heterosexual couples, then any faith can impose on their faithful the rules of the community as they interpret them. We already know that some faiths are more open to gay relationships and are willing to bless these unions with appropriate rites. Those that don’t are free to practice alongside those who do. The GLBTQ communities will vote with their feet where they will choose to practice their faith. Communities that don’t welcome them will have to go on without them. Those that don’t provide for the spiritual needs of the gay community will find themselves poorer for excluding them. I can’t fault any denomination that holds a genuine theological problem with homosexuality, but I also can’t blame homosexuals who will prefer to have their spiritual needs met elsewhere. Gay couples should also be free to find a faith community that will welcome them and who will serve their spiritual needs. If there is no faith community that meets those needs or if they don’t have unfulfilled spiritual needs, there should be a civil ceremony to mark the creation of a partnership (or whatever one would like to call it); civil authorities should issue such a license and a proper procedure as to how to end it if the committed relationship fails.

What I can never condone is any faith community, or any civil community, that tries to make its own personal or theological preferences the only choice in our society. Leviticus is a big issue to the traditionalists in our society. Marriage is a sacred institution in some faith communities. There are some who feel that homosexuality is not a way to live a life of the spirit. These people have to have the respect and the understanding of those who disagree with them. But we need to adjust our laws and civil society so that we don’t leave anyone unprotected by law and disadvantaged because of prejudice. Let there be gay marriage/partnerships/committed relationships. And let these couples have the rights and responsibilities that go with it. This is a big country and we need to make room for everyone.

I have never been to Mumbai. I don’t know the landmarks of the city, the sights to see or the places that make the city unique. I had no interest in visiting Mumbai and while there is a Jewish community in India that is ancient and interesting, I never put India on my list of places I would like to visit. Acts of terror do not make me want to travel there nor does it discourage my visiting. I have never varied my travel plans based on a terrorist attack. I don’t believe that a small band of crazy people should prevent me from altering my plans. There have been terror attacks in Israel and England and I have traveled to both places. I now live in a city that was the site of a horrendous terror attack. To be honest, I fear more the random criminal acts that come with living in a large city than a planned terror attack.
All of this does not change my feelings for the people of Mumbai and my heart extends to all those from all over the world who have lost their loved ones in this terrible act of murder. Muslims and Hindus have attacked each other in India before but every citizen of that country understands that this time was different, so different that the Muslim community in India, the second largest Muslim community in the world, has indicated that they will not provide religious burial space for the terrorists who were killed by Indian security forces. The community has said that Islam is a religion of peace, and these killers violated that religious tenet so dramatically, that they do not deserve sacred burial space.
The Jewish Community was one of the targets of the attack. Five Jews were killed in the invasion of the Chabad House. They were not hostages. They were murdered as the terrorists entered the door. Only the quick thinking and bravery of a nanny saved the infant son of the Rabbi from certain death. Even children were not exempt from the killing.
Habad is not part of the old Jewish community of India. They are relatively newcomers to the small Jewish Community. They serve mostly the needs of visitors to Mumbai offering Jews a place to daven, kosher meals and some Jewish services. Over the years I have had my differences with Chabad, but those differences were not ones deserving death. That Jews were singled out and were killed is a great tragedy. And it is a tragedy that will now take its place in the long sordid list of all those who died because they were Jews. In the early hours of the attack, it was thought that the terrorists were targeting British, American and Jewish residents. It turns out that they killed everyone who crossed their path. But the Jews were targeted. They did not just find Jews in the street, they went looking for the Chabad house to kill the Jews who were inside.
Why does it always have to be open season on Jews? What is it that Jews do that is so radically different from the rest of society that our people have been sorted out for special killing? There is no logical or theological reason for such killing. It seems to be a baseline when it comes to bigotry. Kill the Jews and see if anyone notices or cares. Our people seem to be the canary in the coal mine, for if someone can get away with killing Jews, they will move on to killing other “undesirable” people. It is a situation that makes us Jews paranoid that any little thing that a Jew does wrong will ignite a pogrom, senseless killings and murder of women and children.
As a people, we are not so different from everyone else in society. We have our sinners and saints. We have geniuses and drunks. We have Nobel Prize winners and gangsters. We have our religious Jews and atheists. We are no different than any other people, only that we have a unique system of law and morality that at times sets us apart from those who have neither. Is it our Torah, our Laws or our morality that makes us so often the target of hatred and violence? Is it some curse that we live with? I don’t buy any of that. For too long people in Europe and around the world thought that Jews were vulnerable and unprotected. We could be killed without consequences. Today we are defended by the civilized world and by our own state of Israel. How long will it take before the hatred and bigotry will disappear?
What remains dangerous is the possibility that we might become as angry and bigoted as those who seek our harm. That would be a terrible mistake. We have an obligation to defend ourselves against Muslim extremism and fundamentalism. We need to address directly the implications of Wahhabism, the strict form of Sunni Islam taught in Saudi Arabia and the extreme form or Shia Islam that is being exported by Iran. But Islam is much bigger than these denominations and the largest Islamic nations are not in the Middle East but in Asia. We need to reach out to those who do not support extremism and discover the theology that both our faiths share.
Our world is far from perfect. There remains in this world too much hunger and poverty. There are too many people that are left behind when economies boom; and too much greed and corruption that keep those out of power, out of power. I do not blame those left behind for rising up in anger and seeking to change the odds that seem to be stacked against them. India and Pakistan are slowly moving to resolve the differences between them both in the political realm and in the religious realm. But those who would kill innocent men women and children must not have their concerns addressed until they are ready to give up their arms. Terror must not be rewarded in any way or form. And we who are not terrorists need to work harder at changing the conditions and policies that breed terror.
This is the only true path to peace.