When I first starting looking into the Conservative Movement with my wife and going to conversion classes with her our rabbi made the analogy of observance being like a ladder. Over time you could take on a new observance and take another step up the ladder. Slowly over time you would become more observant and not burn out by trying to take on too much at one time. Since then I’ve heard this analogy made by others and I have heard the idea behind it expressed in different ways. Whether it be “baby-steps” or “one step at a time”, or “small bites” it seems to be a plausible way to get to a goal that seems overwhelming without becoming overwhelmed.
As time went on I began hearing and reading about the idea of a “big tent”. Somehow the Conservative Movement would produce policies and accept decisions that would create a “big tent” under which Jews with diverse beliefs, interpretations, and practices would find shelter and Conservative shuls would serve as the catch-all synagogues for those with beliefs in the grey area between Orthodox and Reform. In my opinion, this has created one of the greatest problems for Conservative Judaism. We almost invariably describe ourselves as in-between Orthodox and Reform, or by what we are not, instead of defining what we are. Judging by the CJLS decisions and the various practices of Conservative shul I have visited there is no clear consensus as to what we are or what we believe. Emet ve-Emunah presents a nice statement of the principles of faith for the Conservative Movement, but even there much room is left for interpretation.
I read with interest many posts and articles concerning the Cohen Report on the JTS survey concerning the recent CJLS teshuvot on same-sex unions and gay ordination. I was really interested in the results of the survey regarding Observance of Shabbat and Kashrut. Actually, I was shocked by some of the results. The survey focused on Clergy (Rabbis and Cantors), Professional Leaders (educators, executive directors, etc), and Lay Leaders (congregational presidents, USCJ board members, congregational board members, etc).
Within any religion it seems that the clergy and leadership will always be somewhat more observant than the laity, but it seems in Conservative Judaism there is a wider gap (almost a chasm) than with other branches of Judaism. While the Cohen report does not address the observance of the membership
[1] it does address the ritual observance of the clergy and leadership.
It shows that a large number of respondents don’t believe Torah was written by God or by Divine inspiration. A quarter of the rabbis responded that Conservative Judaism should stop pretending it is a halakhic movement. And the responses concerning Kashrut are even more surprising. After reading the report I am surprised anyone in the movement considers Conservative Judaism to be halakhic. When I talk to lay members of synagogues I visit and self acknowledging Conservative Jews I am consistently surprised at how many consider themselves to be “good Jews” and leading a halakhic life while ignoring some of the most basic rules of halakha.
I am nowhere near perfect, nor am I anywhere close to where I want to be in my level of observance, but I recognize that I am not living up to the standards set by HaShem at Sinai and that everyday I wake up trying to do better.
I guess I have to change my position and acknowledge that without serious reforms Conservative Judaism cannot survive much longer. I can see no way for the movement to continue forward while it tries to apply the “big tent” principle to faith. Either the Conservative Movement needs to accept that it cannot accommodate every possible belief and interpretation or accept that it can no longer claim to be a halakhic movement.
I had a discussion with a gentleman at morning minyan last week about halakha and personal observance. He said he felt he was more than Conservative but less than Orthodox. I guess in some ways I agree. I just feel Conservative Judaism could be a viable alternative to Orthodoxy if it would just draw a line in the sand and say this far and no more. Yes, we would lose members; yes, some shuls would have to close, but Judaism would continue and eventually shuls would start to grow again and with a membership that was educated and observant.
Perhaps we need another Ezra to stand up and lay down the law, so-to-speak.
[1] see “Jewish Identity and Religious Commitment: The North American Study of Conservative Synagogues and Their Members, 1995-1996” edited by Jack Wertheimer for an excellent discussion about this observance gap.