Conservatism

Conservative Judaism is reactive.

Originally, our movement began as a reaction against Reform Jews, who were awash with all possibilities that the freedom allowed in the late 1800s. Germanic Jews arriving in New York brought with them the Reform movement. Reform grew at an alarming rate, for those of a more traditional bent.

Wanting to conserve the core of Jewish values, a few committed Jews banded together to form Conservative Judaism. Their goal was simple; preserve traditional Judaism while allowing for integration into the fabric of American society. One of the early cogitators of conservatism, Solomon Schechter, called our brand of Judaism, Catholic Israel. Schechter used this term to indicate that we are at once a community with our own practices, which must be preserved while allowing for modern and thoughts and additions to be considered. It was, in short, a reaction against Reform Judaism and a worn and complacent Orthodoxy.

The truth is, Conservative Judaism has created many changes in our century and the one before.  Did you just have occurred over four generations. Yet, and our generation, there is a greater Porsche than ever for more rapid change. I am amazed for example that while a new prayer book is “hot off the press” new versions are already being circulated.

The major changes in this new edition are the move toward alternative rights and practices. The prayer book that we use now contains only the Shabbat and festival liturgy. There are no weekday prayers found.

In the past few decades or movement has seen many changes.  Questions for you to consider: do you feel we are too slow to embrace change? Or to quick?

Factionalism in Israel

Israel's charter states that every Jew has the right to return home. Fleeing from horrors of hatred, the passport control at Ben Gurion airport turns no Jew away . Hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands have arrived in the holy land with little else but the clothes on their back.

Simply stated, the Law of Return stipulates and provides a home for any and every Jew. But the law recognizes that an “oleh” is not merely someone who has made a decision to settle in Israel, it has a higher value for it is about someone  returning home.  After centuries of wandering, several restricted or expelled at the whim of warlords and kings there was finally a resting place established in 1948 where all Jews could find a place from which they could never be thrown out.

The historic connection between the diaspora and the Land is like that of a parent and an estranged child.  The offspring has moved away.  They have long forgotten their roots.  Yet, once in while they have a pang of conscience and send a card.  The parent hopes that one day the child will make the long journey home.  Those days of yearning are over.  The family of Israel can be whole once more.  

For many years Orthodox groups have been trying to amend the Law of Return to include on people whose identity can be proven (it used to be just a person’s word that they were Jewish was enough) or converted according by an Orthodox rabbi.  Needless to say this amendment would exclude all non-Orthodox conversions in addition to calling into question marriages as well as many Orthodox (as the latter vie for control) conversions and marriages.

The pivotal question that lies at the heart of broad acceptance of evert professing Jews is the validity of rabbinic authority outside the sphere of the political machinations of Israeli religious politics.  Imagine if Israel became a de jure religious state under the thumb of Orthodoxy.  As Jews, we are inextricably connected with the land. While the Orthodox community would largely embrace such a change in the Law of Return, Conservative and Reform communities would recoil in horror and begin to feel distance from Israel.  It is a real danger is when the non-Orthodox community begins to feel threatened and withdraw not only their support from Israel but develop an antagonistic attitude toward Orthodoxy, out brothers and sisters.

Presently, we are held together in a precarious balance; each side vying for domination. The consensus uniting Israel is fragile.

Many times in our history our people have been divided over the interpretation of law. One example with which we are all familiar is when the Maccabees brought about an end to Greek rule. The Maccabean rebellion was essentially against the Greeks and the Jews who sided with the Greek overlords.  It was a terrible war. Another time was when Jews split which during the revolt against Rome a few centuries later.    This time the rift produced Christianity.  At first they called themselves Jews and were accepted as such until the gulf between them became bridgeable.

In the diaspora, our differences are kept in check, as no one group has power over another. In the Jewish land, the sword of Damocles hangs over our heads as it did long ago with the Pharisees and the Sadducees and, before them, with the Maccabees and the Hellenizers.  Sinat hinam, baseless antagonism, enmity between Jew and Jew, brought about the destruction of the Second Temple.  Could such hatred bring about more destruction?