the Conservative movement
Dec. 18th, 2005 11:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioOur local Jewish newspaper had an article this week on the Conservative movement's recent big conference. Now mind, this newspaper also covered the Reform movement's biennial a few weeks back and, I'm told, blew things rather out of proportion, fixating on one small part of the plenary speech as if it was the whole thing. So maybe that's what's going on here. I hope.
This article said, essentially, that there is serious debate within the Conservative movement about whether it should be, or view itself as, a halachic movement. WTF? I thought that was part of the core definition of the movement. From this article, it sounds like there are some in the movement (who are big enough to rate mike time at the convention) who feel that, say, keeping kosher or Shabbat isn't as important as making people feel comfortable (as if that dichotomy actually exists).
I'm kind of curious about what was actually discussed and what has mainstream backing as opposed to being out on the fringes.
This article said, essentially, that there is serious debate within the Conservative movement about whether it should be, or view itself as, a halachic movement. WTF? I thought that was part of the core definition of the movement. From this article, it sounds like there are some in the movement (who are big enough to rate mike time at the convention) who feel that, say, keeping kosher or Shabbat isn't as important as making people feel comfortable (as if that dichotomy actually exists).
I'm kind of curious about what was actually discussed and what has mainstream backing as opposed to being out on the fringes.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-19 03:36 pm (UTC)How mainstream it is can be gauged by the fact that a) it's news because he's the first person to propose this openly -- but it hasn't happened in a serious way before, which may be a surprise; b) most laity have no idea what this "halachic" thing is; c) somewhere in between are the lay and clerical leaders. There's nothing here that wasn't posited by Mordechai Kaplan a long time ago. Most Conservative Jews are Reconstructionists without knowing it, but in terms of leadership, the movement is committed to something along the lines of halacha, and I don't think Gillman's statement will change that.
What's happening is that alarm over the numbers combined with Schorsch's leaving is opening the floodgates for everyone to trot out their own pet theories for why what they don't like about the movement is what's causing its "collapse." A lot of people chafed under Schorsch's traditionalism and are really eager to smash it down. There will be a lot of turmoil and there could be a schism. On the other hand, there is a reason Reconstructionism did not conquer Conservatism fifty years ago. The big tent or mushy center will always have an appeal, and Reconstructionism is too detailed for it to be that, so I suspect fealty to halacha will continue to define the movement, regardless of Gillman.