ShefaNetwork.

org: The Conservative/Masorti Movement Dreaming from Within

ShefaJournal 5770:1
HaNefesh v'HaGuf:
The Relationship Between Conservative Judaism
and the Conservative Movement

Editor’s Note
Nina S. Kretzmer

“There is a large difference between Conservative Judaism and

the Conservative Movement. One is a system of ideas and commitments; The Mission of the ShefaNetwork is
the other is a series of institutions born during particular moments two-fold: To bring together dreamers
in attempts to give the dream a body, a vehicle for becoming real.” from within the Conservative
~Rabbi Menachem Creditor Movement and to give their dreams an
audible voice.
I believe that our identities as Conservative Jews are, without question, shaped We are part of the Conservative
by our experiences within the institutions of the Conservative Movement. I Movement and commit ourselves to
learned that I loved Conservative ritual by celebrating Shabbat and the chagim work towards its health. Be a part of
in shul; I became proud of my identity by truly living it every day as a Ramah our community of builders and
dreamers!
camper and staff member; I experienced and learned to celebrate the tension
between the secular and religious parts of my life through USY, especially as a
In this ShefaJournal:
Religion/Education Vice President of a chapter board; and I fell in love with
study because of the Jewish Theological Seminary. I’ve often wondered if we 1. Editor’s Note, by Nina S. Kretzmer
Conservative Jews take the shaping of our identities for granted, as if the 2. Shmirat HaGuf, by Rabbi Menachem
Creditor
institutions of the Movement will always be there to facilitate our growth. I
know that I did. Part I: The Shmirat HaGuf
Discussion
This question became ever more pertinent to me when I attended a lecture 3. Fred Passman
5. Rabbi David Bockman, response by
given by Rabbi Michael Greenbaum, vice chancellor of JTS, to promote the Fred Passman
second publication of his book Louis Finkelstein and the Conservative 6. Steven Katz
Movement: Conflict and Growth. I was troubled by the proven 7. Dr. Jonathan S. Woocher
8. Responses by Fred Passman, Paul
nondenominationalism of JTS in the Finkelstein era, a thirty-two year period;
Levine
after all, wasn’t JTS always the fountainhead of the Conservative Movement?
Wasn’t it always there to “give the dream” of Conservative Judaism “a vehicle Part II: An Issue of Past, An Issue of
for becoming real”? Present: Responses to
Previous ShefaJournals

Today, as we see the Conservative Movement losing numbers and struggling to 10. Rabbi Nicole Guzik, Response by
cope with the natural tensions of Conservative Judaism, Greenbaum’s book is Rabbi Neil Gillman
11. Rabbi Jim Rogozen, Larry Lenhoff,
extremely relevant. He discusses the past relationship between the Conservative Response by Rabbi Randall J.
Movement and Conservative Jews in a period of growth. As we revitalize the Konigsburg
Conservative Movement and reexamine Conservative Judaism, with the goal of 14. Jacob B. Ukeles, Responses by Paul
future growth, we must consider two questions that is extremely relevant to Levine & Jonah Rank
19. Paul Levine, Response by Fred
Greenbaum’s book: Do our institutions relate to Conservative Jews and Passman
Conservative Judaism today? How should our institutions do so?

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
1
Editor’s Note continued… Shmirat HaGuf: Caring for the Body of
Conservative Judaism
© Rabbi Menachem Creditor
In this journal, we discuss the past, present, and future relationship between
Conservative Judaism and the Conservative Movement and provide solutions to When you care about someone or
keep that relationship strong. We define the two entities according to Rabbi something, you do what you can, and
Menachem Creditor’s definition (shown above). The journal consists of two perhaps more, to make sure they thrive
parts: 1) an edited version of posts stemming from Shmirat HaGuf: Caring for and endure. Caring isn’t easy, it isn’t
simple, and it is demanding.
the Body of Conservative Judaism, the piece in which Rabbi Creditor’s definition
was written, and 2) responses to quotes from our previous journals, all with the I care about Conservative Judaism. I’ve
goal of responding to the question of relationship and relevance. grown up in its schools, shuls, and
camps. The melodies of my davening,
The two‐fold mission of the Shefa Network is: to bring together dreamers from the flavor of my teaching – everything I
do as a rabbi, as a Jew, as a person –
within the Conservative Movement, and to give their dreams an audible voice. I began as a gift of Conservative
sincerely hope that this journal, in addition to realizing our mission, continues Judaism’s ideas, programs and
to establish the ability of all dreamers to be part of a solution so desperately teachers. I have overflowing love and
needed. It’s time to ensure the ability of the Conservative Movement to gratitude in return.
channel Conservative Judaism and shape the lives of Conservative Jews to
Which is why we’re part of a fight for
ensure the legacy of the dreams we hold dear. its future.

My thanks to Rabbi Creditor for his guidance, support, and the opportunity to There is a large difference between
not just be a member of the Shefa Network, but to also guest-edit this journal. Conservative Judaism and the
Conservative Movement. One is a
system of ideas and commitments; the
Nina S. Kretzmer other is a series of institutions born
13 Shevat 5770 during particular moments in attempts
January 28, 2010 to give the dream a body, a vehicle for
Millwood, New York becoming real.

We believe in the eternity of the soul,

Nina S. Kretzmer is a senior at Horace Greeley High School in Chappaqua, New York. In the fall, she will
that a life doesn’t require a body to be
begin her freshman year at Barnard College and Albert A. List College of the Jewish Theological
Seminary of America.
connected to this world. But that’s not
good enough.

Conservative Judaism lives today in a

constellation of institutions, some of
which function well, and some which
do not. What is important to
remember, as the vitality of each is
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in assessed, is that each was born to
laws and constitutions. But laws and respond to a specific need. As
institutions must go hand in hand with the conditions (and therefore needs)
progress of the human mind. As that becomes change, institutional realities must
more developed, more enlightened, as new shift. And while that’s not how things
discoveries are made, new truths discovered usually work – institutions fight change
and manners and opinions change, with the at all costs – it is necessary to look
change of circumstances, institutions must beyond institutional survival if each is
advance also to keep pace with the times.” to truly function as a living body for the
spirit of Conservative Judaism.
- Thomas Jefferson, inscribed
on the Jefferson Memorial Rotunda
We can’t know what comes next in the
life of Conservative Judaism.

But, as with Noach, starting with a

redemptive part of what was is one
available path as the spirit of
Conservative Judaism reemerges.

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
2
 Part I: The Shmirat HaGuf Discussion

It Begins with the Local Community

Fred Passman

I confess that I’m a bit troubled by the assertion: “There is a large difference between Conservative Judaism and the
Conservative Movement. One is a system of ideas and commitments; the other is a series of institutions born during
particular moments in attempts to give the dream a body, a vehicle for becoming real.”

Perhaps my discomfort derives from the myriad ways one can define a movement. Some might argue that ideas and
commitments exist in an ether; separate from people who make those commitments and think/share those ideas. When I
think of the Conservative Movement, I think of all Conservative Jews who identify with Conservative Judaism. I’d argue
that the institutions are not the movement. Individually, they are what their community members make of them. No two
communities live Conservative Judaism the same way. What we hope all CJ communities share is an understanding that
CJ is meant to be a continuation of the Rabbinic tradition, in which our greatest rabbis render opinions in teshuvot and
takanot that define the boundaries of behavior that are within the domain of CJ, and that local rabbis interpret those
teshuvot and takanot into normative behavior within their respective communities.

Okay, that’s the fantasy. It’s also at the heart of what it means to be a CJ. Do we as individual Conservative Jews accept
the authority of the Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards (CLJS)? Do we even know that it exists? Have we inherited
a single line of tradition or have we really inherited an amalgam of traditions each derived from the regions from which
our forbearers emigrated? I’d argue that one aspect of the CJ big tent concept reflects the diverse regional customs that
comprise CJ. This is CJ and the Conservative Movement. They are inseparable. Recognizing that on many specific topics
CLJS has issued conflicting teshuvot, we risk disenfranchising many Conservative Jews when we assert that a single set of
practices defines Conservative Judaism. It’s not the practices, it’s how each community came to adopt them – are they
within the pale of CJ as defined by the nearly 100 years of opinions and rulings provide by the CJLS?

(A point of clarification: Acknowledging the authority of the CJLS and the definition of Mitzvah as commandment is not
equivalent to 100 % compliance with halacha. We are human and we invariable choose not to obey the law…It is having
an understanding that: a) you know the law; b) you are aware that you are violating the law when you violate halacha; 3)
you have a sense that in the grand scheme of things, it really does matter.)

Now, if we look at the various ubercommunities within CJ, we can easily get distracted. Organizations like the Federation
of Men’s Clubs, Women’s League and USCJ are simply confederacies of community groups. As confederacies, they try to
meet specific needs of their member groups: congregational Men’s Clubs, Sisterhoods and Board, respectively. Although
they are often (especially USCJ) accused of willful negligence, they are a reflection of the communities that they serve.
They are slow to change because they serve the often conflicting priorities, needs and desires of communities with over
600 members. Each uber-organization (meta-organization?) addresses specific aspects of CJ community life. In trying to
meet the median needs of their member organizations, they invariable generate dissatisfaction.

The more I examine the dynamics between congregations and an organization like USCJ, the more parallels I see between
those dynamics and the dynamics between congregational leaders and their fellow congregants. At the congregational
level, leaders are frequent confronted with: “Why should I pay dues?”, “Why should I devote my time and emotional
energy to this community?”, “Why should I make contributions over and above the dues that you charge me?” Why
should I participate in programming?”, “Why do you keep the shul so hot/cold (this tends to be an age and gender debate
in almost every sanctuary)?” Okay, I don’t recall any posts on the USCJ Presidents Listserv complaining about the
thermostat’s setting. But in general, the malaise affecting the movement reflects the malaise within individual
communities.
continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
3
Fred Passman, continued…

My hard-nosed impression is that in our attempt to build membership, rather than

community, we have tread very lightly on explaining to current and prospective
members of our communities what we expect of them as Conservative Jews. Some
years ago, there was an attempt to set standards for synagogue lay leaders. It died
quickly on the vine as soon as it became clear that there wasn’t a sufficient pool of volunteers who were willing to accept
the precepts of normative Conservative Judaism. This is the movement today.

Over the past six months I’ve had an opportunity to visit quite a few congregations; mostly due to my travel schedule –
not as a USCJ fact finder. A recurring theme is that the young folks tend to spend Shabbat at nearby Orthodox
congregations. Listening to these complaints about the lost youth, I don’t get a sense that the kids are looking for
Kabbalat Shabbat with musical instruments, or a shortened service. I get a sense that they are looking for a meaningful
prayer experience that enables them to be immersed in the liturgy, rather than treated as a semi-passive audience. But
wait! These kids aren’t our primary benefactors. Creating a liturgical experience that resonates with our day-school
graduates and products of Ramah, USY on Wheels, Nativ and the other cultural immersion programs that today’s young
adults have experienced might chase away the passive crowd. We might temporarily lose revenues if members choose
not to be challenged to grow Jewishly. And so our movement faces a situation: do we dare to be passionate about CJ and
encourage our fellow community members to share our passion, or do we wonder why folks are drifting in and out of our
communities without ever really making a commitment? If we choose the former course, how do we foster a supportive
environment that wins people’s engagement, rather than attempts to cajole folks out of their current state?

Taking the long view, I feel that we are beginning to see a new generation of young rabbis who understand how to
balance the more intellectual/cerebral aspects of Jewish learning with an unabashed embrace of the emotional/spiritual
side of Jewish living. In time, Menachem, you and your contemporaries will become normative. Your communities will
also become normative and the overly cerebral CJ of the 20th century will be part of our history; valued for its
contributions to Jewish life in that time, but critiqued for the challenges that it created. To those who argue that we don’t
have time, I commend them to Josephus Flavius. I find that his observations on the Jewish community of his time are
quite reassuring. He writes about the same issues that we discuss today. Americanization/Westernization has replaced
Hellenization as the major threat to Jewish continuity, but most of the other issues are remarkably similar. We’ve been
dealing with them for nearly 2,000 years.

As our individual communities evolve, so with the meta-institutions that try to provide some harmonization of custom
and process among the member communities. But at any given point in time, CJ will be what the CM makes it. It begins
with the local community and that community’s leadership.

Bididut,
Fred Passman
Fred Passman is Vice President of the New Jersey Region of United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.

“Security is mostly superstition. It does not exist in nature,

nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding
danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life
is either a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces
toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of
fate is strength undefeatable.”
-Helen Keller continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
4
Body or Method
Rabbi David Bockman

“When I think of the Conservative Movement, I think of all Conservative Jews

who identify with Conservative Judaism. I’d argue that the institutions are not
the movement. Individually, they are what their community members make of
them. No two communities live Conservative Judaism the same way. This is a
profound discussion, but to me the question is not ‘how do we embody an
authentic Conservative Judaism,’ but rather ‘how do we embody an authentic
Judaism?’”
~Fred Passman

The answer to the first question might have something to do with institutions, but the answer to the second question is -
for me - a resounding "as Conservative Jews."

I don't think Conservative Judaism is the body that needs to be protected, shielded and nurtured. It is, rather the method
by which we protect, shield and nurture Jews and Judaism in general, which to me is much more deserving of our heart
and soul.

Or, to put it another way: God made a covenant with the Jews, and through my Conservative Jewish eyes, I live out that
covenant in my life.

Or, to put it in yet another further way: Conservative Judaism is not a new and separate religion (as some Orthodox in
Israel might express it), but rather it is the most authentic and traditional reading I can find of the Judaism that's been
flowing for thousands of years as lived in this world. Both Orthodoxy (as it expresses itself these days) and Reform are
aberrations.

Do our synagogues' members live up to that?

Many (maybe most) do not, but there is a truth to be found there. Even if all the CJ institutions were to disappear
(rahmana litzlan), it would still be the truest expression of Judaism in our time.

That's why in some ways I'm not worried about the fate of Conservative Judaism, but in others I am extremely worried.
________________________________________________________________________________________
A Response to Rabbi Bockman from Fred Passman
David: Your comment, “I don't think Conservative Judaism is the body that needs to be protected, shielded and
nurtured. It is, rather the method by which we protect, shield and nurture Jews and Judaism in general, which to me is
much more deserving of our heart and soul” is very intriguing.

How does one go about preserving a particular approach to Judaism without inspiring and maintaining a community
that shares that approach, or at least subscribes to it and affirms its validity? That’s the issue which, for me, makes it
difficult to separate the Nefesh & Guf of CJ. I fully agree with you that CJ as we understand it represents the
conservation of the rabbinic model as it has been practiced at least since the Mishnaic period. Since it’s the community of
congregations that share a similar understanding of the tradition that we are conserving, that sustains congregations,
centers of learning and networks for interaction among those communities that identify themselves as sharing the model
of Judaism espoused by CJ, how do we sustain our approach without an institutional existence?

Would ours or any other collective understanding of Judaism persist without institutions designed to teach, practice and
promote that understanding, whether it be ultra-fundamentalist Haredi theology, Humanistic Judaism or CJ? If you can
envision how that would work, and can share you vision with us, I think it would be the start of a fascinating discussion
string among us Shefanicks.
continued on next page…

© 2 0to
My personal feeling is that our institutions have done CJ a disservice by downplaying what it means 1 0be
, sahCJ
e f ainnwhat
etwork.org
was probably a misguided strategy to be all things to all Jews.5 The focus was on what some have characterized as
nostalgic Judaism and others have classified as cerebral Judaism; neither of which has a valence unless they exist at the
Fred Passman, continued…

We need our institutions to cultivate a critical mass of Jews who share

a similar understanding of Judaism and who are willing to invest of
themselves spiritually, physically and intellectually in a balanced
way that results in living rich, rewarding lives. Easy to say, but
quite complex to pull off. If we can’t pull it off, I’m afraid that our
institutions will collapse. If our institutions collapse then I’m afraid that CJ’s current adherents will disperse and be
absorbed into movements who have a different perspective on Jewish tradition than we do. That’s only a significant loss
if we believe that our approach to Judaism is unique and worth promoting.

Thank you for your thought provoking comments,

Fred Passman
__________________________________________________________________________________________

A Response to Fred Passman from Steven Katz

Fred, you bring up some interesting points.

I personally do agree with the assertion that “There is a large difference between Conservative Judaism and the
Conservative Movement. One is a system of ideas and commitments; the other is a series of institutions born during
particular moments in attempts to give the dream a body, a vehicle for becoming real.”

Could one exist without the other? Most definitely for those that understand what CJ is and want to practice their
Judaism via that lens. Would this cause CJ to grow as the lens of choice among most Jews? Probably likely not because
whether one likes it or not you need institutions that are properly structures to connect people to Judaism via the
conservative lens or any other Jewish lens. Our issue in my opinion has not been one of not having a wonderful way of
viewing and practicing Judaism it has been that our institutions have not adopted themselves to modern times. I find it
constantly paradoxical that CJ which prides itself on viewing Judaism through the lens of tradition and change has as a
movement associated with it (that series of institutions) that seem to have for many years stubbornly forgot the change
part of that equation.

The ideas and commitments of CJ have their boundaries and yet are flexible enough to adopt themselves to modern
times and the needs to Jews today including the blessing and challenges of being Jewish in a free and secular society with
many choices. The institutions (and I will include in this both the national institutions and many synagogues themselves)
have not been able to adopt to changes in our modern society very well. They have been slow to change in a time when
changes in organizations to meet the needs of their constituents occur more quickly than any other time in history. This
does not mean a sacrifice of the ideals of CJ but it does mean changes into how those ideals are taught, practiced and
delivered to connect with and meet the needs of Jews in today’s society so they can move up their own escalator of
Judaism looking ahead with a CJ lens.

Steven Katz

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
6
The Compelling Idea
Dr. Jonathan S. Woocher
Chief Ideas Officer
Director, Lippman Kanfer Institute
JESNA

As always, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this Shefa discussion. I’d like to contribute two additional ideas:

1. When we speak about our religious or denominational “movements” today, I believe we are really speaking about at
least five distinct, though overlapping, elements:

a) an ideology and set of practices that reflect that ideology (what I think is meant when people speak of
“Conservative Judaism”);
b) a program, which is a set of actions and activities being pursued by and urged on those connected to the
“movement” and which may (should) reflect the ideology, but is generally selective and focused, not
encompassing of the entire ideology (what is the Conservative movement’s program today?);
c) a set of institutions (what has been referred to in this discussion as the “guf”);
d) people: leaders, teachers, fellow congregants, people we were in camp or youth group or Schechter with – a
major factor when individuals or families decide which “movement” to identify with; and
e) what for lack of a better term, I will call a “style” – different movements definitely have different styles of
worship, study, discourse, etc., even when their ideologies or programs are similar, and movements may have
more than one “style,” with some adherents strongly favoring one style over another to the point of seeing it
as the only legitimate style for that movement. A thorough assessment of where the Conservative
“movement” stands today, why it is attracting some and not others, requires an examination of all of these
elements. As an example: When we bemoan the fact that many Jews who identify as Conservative do not
appear to share, or at least to practice, its currently normative ideology, we may be failing to recognize that
other elements of the movement are more important to them. The question I would pose is: Do we want to
make one of these elements (say, ideology or loyalty to the movement’s institutions) a litmus test, or are we
prepared to say that one can be a “Conservative Jew” in a variety of ways (e.g., by joining in its prayer and
study regardless of the ideology one holds and practices)?

2. More generally, I think we need to look at our use of the word “movement” altogether to see whether our current
reality really fits what a “movement” means. Although words can mean whatever we want them to (as long as others
accept the usage), when I think of great “movements” in Jewish and human history (Hasidism, the Enlightenment,
Zionism, women’s rights, civil rights), what characterized them even more than the five elements I listed above was a
powerful and simple animating idea around which people could be galvanized. (One could, e.g., argue that the civil rights
movement in its heyday had many ideologies – ranging from the Urban League’s to SNCC’s – but that what animated it
was the simple idea of “equal rights regardless of race.” So too with the Zionist movement.) An animating idea is more
than a slogan or a tag line. It’s a compelling articulation of a vision that can motivate action. In this sense, I don’t think
there is a Conservative movement – at least I cannot identify the compelling idea that calls us to action. That doesn’t
mean the Conservative “movement” is doomed; we don’t spend all or even most of our lives in movements. But, it is, I
think, something for us to be aware of as we discuss our ideology and institutions. In the end, neither of these may
suffice to reinvigorate Conservative Judaism unless we can identify the compelling idea and vision that will excite and
engage.

Dr. Jonathan S. Woocher

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
7
A Response to Dr. Jonathan S. Woocher from Fred Passman
Jonathan:

I think your analysis truly helps to clarify the discussion. If I understand your explanation, the concept of movement is
informed by each of the five elements you describe. The theology of our (CJ’s) approach to the Jewish tradition is not the
movement, but is an integral part of what defines the movement.

I like your breakdown of the concept into five interwoven elements. I suggest that the synthesis of the 1st and 4th
element represents the Nefesh; while the synthesis of the 3rd and 4th elements constitutes the Guf. The engaged people
contribute to both Nefesh and Guf, though if I were to draw a Venn diagram, 90 to 95% of the people element would be
in Guf; the balance in Nefesh. That may simply be a personal perspective.

What’s particularly helpful about your having divided the discussion into 5 categories is that it highlights the need to have
separate, but connected, conversations about each of the elements.

I see your point about how CJ pales against other movements in that we don’t have a clearly and broadly articulated
unifying concept. During his first speech to USCJ (December 2007 Biennial Convention), Chancellor Eisen clearly and
unequivocally articulated his belief that CJ is the most authentic continuation of the rabbinic tradition as it has been
handed down to us though the generations of rabbinic Judaism, from its inception to our day. That’s pretty clear. The
more challenging parts are getting it more broadly communicated and embraced by those who currently identify
themselves as being Conservative Jews. Historically, CJ congregations have been a bit timid about articulating what it
means to be a CJ. According to Neil Gillman, this reticence was intentional, in order to attract diverse Jews into the
synagogue community. I suspect strong, valid arguments can be made both for becoming more vocal and more overt
about expressing what it means to be a CJ, or for continuing the policy of trying to be all things to all people. Personally, I
feel that for us to thrive in the future, we need to risk further thinning of our ranks by articulating our unifying concept.

There will undoubtedly be some who feel that CJ is not the approach to Judaism that resonates with them. They will look
elsewhere. Others who hadn’t realized that CJ truly aligns with their personal approach may then be drawn to a
movement that has a clearly articulated unifying concept. In case study after case study, organizations who drift from
their core concepts grow weak. Those that passionately embrace the core concept tend to thrive. You cited some
excellent examples. I might add the Kibbutz Movement as an example of a concept that flourished during a period when
it was sustained by a compelling, unifying vision. It’s not a vision that is compelling to the current generation, and in
consequence, kibbutzim are either reinventing themselves or disappearing.

Jonathan, thank you for your very insightful contribution to the conversation.

Bididut,
Fred Passman
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Global Vision and Mission
Paul Levine

I think that Chancellor Eisen’s articulation may help form the basis of a much needed globally unifying vision for CJ.

The only CJ vision statement that I am familiar with is the USCJ vision that promotes the role of the synagogue in Jewish
life in order to motivate Conservative Jews to perform mitzvot …” resulting in the USCJ mission to strengthen and serve
affiliated congregations and their members.

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
8
Paul Levine, continued…

Despite this limited institutional mission, USCJ has somehow been afforded the opportunity
to publicly define what the Eight Behavioral Characteristics of a Conservative Jew.

I find a disconnect and even dissonance between this widely publicized characterization
and what might characterize a Conservative Jew aspiring to Chancellor Eisen’s clear
and unequivocal articulation that CJ is the most authentic continuation of the
rabbinic tradition … from its inception to our day.

I hope not to offend, with my personal comments as I try to express where I feel the characterization is lacking. It just
seems that we could aspire to something more compelling and inspiring.

The Eight Behavioral Characteristics of a Conservative Jew – as portrayed in CJ: Voices of Conservative/Masorti Judaism,
Summer 2009:

1. Support a Conservative synagogue by participating in its activities. Here the first principal is institutional support,
flowing from the USCJ mission, followed by leadership development and congregational board training to help
members become more involved. This may be alluding to more than management and political development, but this
is not very clear.
2. Study as a Conservative Jew at least one hour per week. I have enjoyed the online resources provided by JTSA over
the years. However, individual study was never the preferred method for learning. Maybe this should be study with a
Conservative Jew at least one hour per week. I don’t see any one CJ synagogue able to sustain, or a community of CJ
synagogues with resources committed to offer, an authentic and routine yeshiva-style partners program engaged in
textual study as Conservative Jews beyond the weekly parsha study groups. Does this exist anywhere?
3. Employ Jewish values to guide your behavior. Are we afraid to suggest that halacha guide behavior? How many Jews
could articulate what Jewish values are without having to grapple with halacha? (We will do and we will learn.) Where
do Jewish values come from if not by being guided by a legal system, informed by (Torah) study, and inspired by
prayer?
4. Increase your personal Jewish living by adding a minimum of three mitzvot a year. What is the goal here? Lubavitch
starts with Shabbat (candles), Tefillin (tefilah) and kashrut - and it is pretty clear where they are heading with this. USCJ
begins by talking about helping us live according to the Jewish calendar, and recognize the temporal and seasonal
nature of mitzvot. I read that USJ has a Commission to Inspire Commitment to Halacha. How does this flow from a
vision/mission limited to institutional support?
5. Employ the values of tikkun olam to help in the world’s continual repair. Is Tikkun Olam a value, or a concept/call to
action? (One could employ the concept of Tikun Olam in daily actions and as a community to help in the world’s
continual repair as guided by Jewish teachings and values.)
6. Make decisions about Jewish behavior only after considering the effect these decisions will have on Klal Yisrael.
Only Jewish behavior … and what about halacha? If we are guided by halacha, than all decisions become Jewish, and
will ultimately honor Klal Yisrael. (And since CJ integrates community and Rabbinic leadership into the dynamics of
halachic decision-making, laity should be involved and able to make informed decisions.)
7. Increase ties and connections to Israel. Agreed. It is worth noting that because CJ is the most authentic continuation
of the rabbinic tradition … from its inception to our day, that only CJ was able to immediately and consistently support
of the modern State of Israel. (Staying at the Agron Street Guest House should be more widely publicized and
promoted as a direct benefit for CJ congregational members.)
8. Study to increase our knowledge of Hebrew. How is this a characteristic or goal in itself? How about, “Learn Hebrew
to improve your participation in prayer, understanding in study, and connection to Israel and Klal Yisrael.”

So, how would these characteristics be displayed differently if they flowed from a global vision and mission of CJ as
opposed to an institutional one? Also, where does the centrality of Torah fit in when it comes to defining CJ or
characterizing CJ synagogue members?
Paul Levine

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
9
 Part II: An Issue of Past, An Issue of Present
Responses to Previous Journals

“The hope for the Conservative movement does not lie within the listing of numbers; rather, our
success as a movement lies within our continued efforts to make Torah relevant, real, heartfelt, and
constant…Our movement will develop and mature when we…realize how connected our souls are to
the tradition that we choose to uphold and to the people that maintain that tradition.”
~Rabbi Nicole Guzik, ShefaJournal 5766, p. 75

Response by Rabbi Neil Gillman

For decades now, I have been teaching Clifford Geertz’s seminal essay “Religion as a Cultural System” as the classical
statement of what a religion is supposed to do. The key to that statement lies in Geertz’s definition of religion as a system
of symbols designed to create a sense of a pervasive order in our experience of the world. Buttressed with an extended
citation from the work of Suzanne Langer, Geertz claims that the one thing we humans can not tolerate is a sense that
the world is chaotic, that we have no way of orienting ourselves to reality. Religion is, according to Geertz, an ordering
device and it works because the need – indeed the demand – for order comes from deeply within ourselves. That’s why,
to quote a student of mine, “Communities create religions like apple trees produce apples.”

Writing in an entirely different context, more recently, I found myself arguing that the distinctive mark of our
Conservative Movement is that it thrives on tension. All of our central theological and ideological positions, as I
understand them, stress their inherent ambiguity. We can’t know precisely what God is like, we don’t know what really
happened at Sinai if anything, so we can’t know what it is that God wants from us. Tension, ambiguity - therefore
pluralism, no sense of the very possibility of attaining truth with an upper case “T” because there is no single truth, just
my truth, your truth, their truth.

I’ve just recently come to appreciate how subversive my reading of Conservative Judaism becomes, particularly in the
light of Geertz’s prescriptions. I argue that what we have to offer is a mature reading of Jewish religion, that some of our
congregants may well appreciate the value of tension, that tension can be productive, creative, even inspiring and mainly
intellectually honest. My sense is that these qualities may override the need for an ordered reading of reality.

On the other hand, these very qualities may explain first, the wide gap between our laypeople’s reading of Conservative
Judaism and that of our rabbis and professors; our lay congregants seem to be drifting to the left, and in somewhat
smaller numbers, to the right. Both groups seem to want to avoid the tension. Second, it may explain why Conservative
Judaism may always remain an elitist movement. We may never become a mass movement, nor should we want to, nor
should we mourn our diminishing numbers.

Neil Gillman is Emeritus Professor of Jewish Philosophy at the Jewish Theological Seminary.

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
10
 “Who is Catholic Israel today? We need to know the target audience
better, or perhaps reshape the current audience, or even choose a
different target audience, before we publish yet another pronouncement
that will confuse more than clarify.”
~Rabbi Jim Rogozen, ShefaJournal 5768:2, p. 12

“Solomon Schechter presented the idea of ‘Catholic Israel,’ his translation for K’lal Yisrael, as the living
body which is the center of authority. Schechter said that ‘This living body, however is not represented
by any section of the nation, or any corporate priesthood, or Rabbihood, but by the collective
conscience of Catholic Israel as embodied in the Universal Synagogue.’ This teshuvah follows the
reinterpretation of Robert Gordis, as quoted by Dorff—that we consider ‘only the practices of Jews
who try to observe Jewish law in making our decisions.’”
~Larry Lennhoff, ShefaJournal 5768:2, p. 12

Response by Rabbi Randall J. Konigsburg: For the Times, They Are A-Changin’

Who is Catholic Israel? To Solomon Schechter, they were the most committed and knowledgeable Jews who were
connected to Conservative Judaism. Conservative congregations, however, were communities that extended far beyond
the core of the “knowledgeable few”. Good Conservative Jews, at the most basic level, were those who paid their
synagogue dues to a Conservative synagogue. Some of these were active in committees relating to the building, raising
money, tending to the education of children and/or adults and seeing to the social program. The ritual side of the
synagogue was left to those who fit the old description of Schechter. These “religious” members often deliberated as if
the rest of the congregation did not exist and in turn the others in the congregation left them alone as if what they were
doing was not very important to the social/financial/political life of the synagogue.

Conservative congregations in the 1950s were successful because they appealed to families; couples in their middle
twenties with young children and their parents who had some connection to Jewish observance but had long ago left
Orthodox Judaism. This became the foundation of the Conservative synagogue. In an appeal to families with young
children, Conservative congregations gave them the school and the pre-school that these families needed to educate
their children, and the parents would then give at least five to seven years of their time volunteering for the
congregation. If Jewish families could come in at the pre-school level and stay as their teens joined USY, this window
could be extended somewhat. But in a mobile society, eventually the empty nesters would move to a retirement
community and the congregation would recruit new young families to take their place. Congregations moved from the
city to the suburbs and from one suburb to a different suburb, following the places with affordable housing where young
Jewish families were choosing to live.

Today’s demographics are entirely different. Most young Jews are not married at age 25. They remain single, or live with
their partner, unmarried for five to nine or more years. I am convinced that in many cases, the only reason they marry at
all is because they want to have children, a decision that is made when the couple is in their mid-thirties. Thus, we see
pre-school parents in their forties and parents of religious school students in their fifties. This leaves synagogues with a
ten-year gap on the front end, waiting for young Jews to have children to send to religious schools and join
congregations. For the past fifty years, the primary reason to join a Conservative synagogue was to send children to the
school. Today, we need to find other reasons for young Jews to connect with our community.

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
11
Rabbi Randall J. Konigsburg, continued…

In addition to this demographic shift, there was also a shift in American social behavior.
The anti-Semitism of the mid-twentieth century slowly began to give way and Jews
found greater acceptance in the larger American social scene. Young Jews needed
the Jewish community less and less for social meetings and friendships. College and business contacts began to take the
place of Jewish connections. Adult Education classes became too elementary for these Jews with advanced degrees.
Instead, these students, when they looked for classes, turned to universities for serious learning. Without bigger budgets,
the congregations could not create programs that would interest these young Jewish professionals. Young Jews today
have a tendency to set up their homes in the inner city’s gentrifying neighborhoods rather than go out to the suburbs,
where most Conservative congregations are located. We see that young Jews, once the most important group for
Conservative synagogue membership, are now single, living in new center city condominiums or rentals and feel that they
have no need for a suburban synagogue.

Conservative congregations find themselves wondering where all their usual customers have gone. The programming of a
congregation, Sisterhood, Men’s Club and Adult Education do not address the interests of these 21st Century Jews. It
seems that the needs of Jews in all age brackets, except maybe the 75-95 age group, have changed so dramatically that
our congregations are having trouble keeping up with the changes. Many synagogues only send out by mail a monthly
bulletin in spite of the fact that many Jews today get their news online. Synagogue websites often are out of date even
though more and more Jews plan their day using the internet. As a result, the essence of a synagogue’s mission is lost or
not accessible to the Jews they wish to attract. We have a demographic problem, a major social shift and an antiquated
communication system. Is it any wonder the Movement is not attracting new membership?
All is not lost, however. There are thing we can do to improve our congregations and to once again be attractive to the
“Catholic Israel” we seek to join our community. The key to bringing in these Jews is not locked up in some dusty back
room at JTS. It is out there, staring us in the face, if we take the time to acknowledge the work done by those who have
been concerned about our Movement for a long time. The work by Ron Wolfson and the Synagogue 3000 people; the
STAR Synagogue Initiative; and work published by the ShefaNetwork, Rabbi Sharon Brous, and Kehillat Hadar all point to
the things that need to happen to revitalize our Movement. The Alban Institute also publishes volumes on dealing with a
congregation’s stickiest problems.
The simplest and easiest beginning would be for our congregations to build a better web presence. We need to update
and upgrade our technology so that we can be in “business” 24/6. We should be looking to promote not just programs,
but social networking so that we can be of better service to our members. Forums, listserves and Facebook pages can
create online communities sharing information both of a religious and social nature. We need a place where, in the
middle of the night, individuals can get information about and purchase tickets to the next concert, where they can find a
babysitter someone can recommend for the evening and the location and details of a shiva minyan taking place later that
week.
Our tefillot on Shabbat need a makeover. We have new prayer books but not new ways of praying. Music is the key. It is
less about instruments (I think instruments on Shabbat is a matter of taste) but the actual music itself. I know that there
are hazzanim who don’t agree with me, but there is a Golden Age of Jewish Liturgical Music going on right under our
noses, and we are missing out on it. Rabbis have begun to come off the bima, breaking the “fifth wall” that often
separates the rabbi from the congregation. We can do more. We need to take on the spiritual issues that make up the
lives of our members, helping them find meaning and find direction in a fast-changing world.

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
12
Rabbi Randall J. Konigsburg, continued…

Storahtelling has shown that the Torah reading itself can become exciting theater. Jews will
stay at services, even for three hours, if the program is compelling. We are also finding that
one size does not fit all when it comes to prayer. Congregations may need to run
multiple services to meet the different spiritual needs in our community. A lay-run
service, a Carlebach service, a young family service may all need to be running at the
same time.

Conservative congregations have never really been deep into social action. This is an area that we can no longer ignore.
Jews at almost every age are very busy but are quick to admit that their lives are spread way too thin, without any depth
at all. This requires more than just another Mitzvah Day. IKAR and Hadar and Ansche Chesed in New York City have
shown that ongoing social action/political action projects build a strong commitment to the community. This alone may
be the key to attracting the young single Jews that we crave so deeply. We are not talking about an annual event, but
regular commitments to food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, nursing homes, hospitals, and Magen Tzedek.
Political action means more than just a sermon on Israel; it requires ongoing projects that support Masorti’s work with
the disabled, AIPAC, Darfur, discrimination and immigration reform to mention just a few causes.

There is also some talk today about stressing less the dues/membership model of a congregation and using instead the
“community organization” model. In this model, synagogue leadership trains a central core of committed Jews
empowering this core to go out and teach other Jews in their homes and businesses. There is not just one adult
education class with twenty students but a core of ten trained teachers who go out and lead ten study groups extending
our reach to a hundred Jews. These study groups, in turn create small havurah type groups that can come to services
together, attend social action events together and create community. And yes, in return for the flow of support that
comes from the home synagogue, these groups, in turn, send their donations to the synagogue in appreciation for all the
support they receive. This model, perhaps, can once again help us train and grow a new community of Jews who are
serious about living a modern Jewish life and who will appreciate a Movement dedicated to the needs of this “Catholic
Israel”.

We know what we need to do to grow our Movement. The only question that remains is if we have the lay and
professional leadership to make it happen.

Rabbi Randall J. Konigsburg is the Senior Rabbi of Temple Emeth of Delray Beach, Florida.

Credit is definitely due to both JTS and Zeigler for exploring the organizing model with its
students. I believe that it is precisely this kind of training that all of our professionals need
to make Conservative Judaism successful. Using organizing principles like one-to-one
relationships, leadership development and coalition-building, our movement can stimulate
a new sense of purpose where individuals and institutions can publicly commit to an
emergent vision of Conservative Judaism.

What will be the new vision of Conservative Judaism? It’s impossible to say, and that’s the
beauty of community organizing. It begins with the open-ended question to every
individual: What makes you passionate about being a Conservative Jew? Unless we
undertake a campaign that reaches into the homes of our Conservative constituency, we
run the risk of simply changing policies without renewing the mandate to lead. I am not
sure that is a risk we can afford.
-Rabbi Noah Farkas, “The Re-founding Of Conservative Judaism”, The New York Jewish Week, 12/22/2009
continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
13
 “The Conservative movement is the logical home for the large numbers
of American Jews who are committed to Judaism as their religion and
who seek a middle ground between the rigors of Orthodoxy and the
laissez-faire of Reform Judaism. And the solution to the current malaise
of the Conservative movement…is not about fixing ideology; it is about
making Conservative synagogues exciting, compelling, and engaging
places that will draw the finest graduates of the movement’s
outstanding educational and youth programs.”
~Jacob B. Ukeles, ShefaJournal 5769:2 (p. 9)

Responses by Paul Levine & Jonah Rank:

Paul Levine: View From the Pew

In the post-war years, most American Jews strongly identified with a middle ground between the rigors of
Orthodoxy and the laissez-faire of Reform Judaism. They aspired to be an accepted part of America without
disassociating from the normative Jewish ritual practice familiar to their largely immigrant parents and
comfortable to their youthful memories. They were Conservative because they knew what they were rejecting
about Orthodoxy and the then-culturally assimilated Reform Judaism.

By the 1960s, families flocked to the Conservative synagogues where they felt comfortable participating in
normative American Jewry. In practice, most households were laissez-faire, and many baby-boom children
became anti-institutional, with some attracted to personal discovery within the camaraderie of smaller havurot.
Conservative religious schools had not taught the boomer generation how and why to adhere to halacha
philosophically or emotionally. Most grew up comfortable with being tangentially and situationally affiliated
Jews.

By the late 1970s, the Orthodox had seized the crown of kehunah. They claimed to offer the real deal spiritually
and ritually. Instead of defending itself as normative Judaism, Conservative Judaism reacted by becoming more
particularistic. JTS jettisoned its more traditional faculty and students (who formed the Union for Traditional
Judaism), and United Synagogue attempted to more narrowly define Conservative Judaism.

And while after-school religious schools reduced classroom hours and became less demanding of families,
Conservative regional and international USY, Ramah and day schools held an exclusive group of young people to
a much more demanding standard than that of the adults who participated in regional and international
activities, or who were advised by Conservative professionals in lay leadership and institutional management.

In most cases, adult leadership continued to court the laissez-faire majority, most of whom had no compelling
reason to prefer a Conservative setting over the increasingly tradition-sensitive Reform. Some Conservative
synagogues moved toward nontraditional services, forfeiting one of the distinguishing characteristics of
Conservative synagogues; attendees could feel comfortable following services worldwide in any traditional
setting.

It now appears that Conservative Judaism has ceded the crown kingship of being normative American Jewry to
the growing ranks of the Reform, as Conservative synagogues and temples in America look to their Reform
competition for programming ideas and events that will continue to attract attendance.

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
14
Paul Levine, continued…

Fortunately, Conservative Judaism still wears the crown of Torah in its unparalleled, unfiltered and unabashed
modern and rational approach to scholarship and the dynamics of halacha. I believe that protecting and
defending the integrity of conserving Rabbinic Judaism is essential to future relevance of the Conservative
Judaism. Hence, it is not about fixing ideology, it is about conveying it to the current and emerging generations.

By creating personal involvement and communal connection committed to this ideological framework,
Conservative synagogues can then become PURPOSEFULLY exciting, compelling, and engaging places that will
draw the finest graduates of the most outstanding Conservative educational and youth programs, along with
new recruits attracted by the integrity and sincerity of the community adhering to this authentic tradition and
heritage of Torah-true Rabbinic Judaism for our times.

This is a completely different paradigm from the current emphasis on popular event-oriented programming.
Adherents to this heightened level of commitment would need to be encouraged and welcomed at a grassroots
level, with strong and vocal support from the “movement” to make a place within the Conservative communities
for these otherwise independent outlying groups.

If successful, Conservative Judaism might then be reestablished as normative for those seeking a unique and
credible alternative to the over-zealous Orthodoxy and the laissez-faire Reform.

Paul Levine is an active Shefanik.

Jonah Rank: Bringing the Soul Back to the Body of Conservative Judaism: A History of Symptoms, and Some
Working Prescriptions

Among the meditations recited upon waking up, the traditional Siddur (prayer book) includes a passage that begins,
Elohai, neshamah shennatatta bi tehorah hi (“My God, the soul which You have given me is pure”). We may be familiar
with a melody for these six words since modern Jewish musicians have often set these opening words to appropriately
inspirational music, but less well known is the berakhah (blessing) that ends the passage: Barukh Attah Adonai,
hammahazir neshamot lifgarim metim (“Blessed are You, LORD, who returns souls to their lifeless corpses”). We are well
aware that our Neshamah or Nefesh (soul) is pure, but finding the pure Nefesh within our Guf (body) is a step in the
process.

The Nefesh that is Conservative Jewish philosophy and the Guf that is, I would add, the population of Conservative Jewry,
are inseparable. Conservative Jewish philosophy has, throughout its history, appealed mostly to a select minority of
adherents who were taught the values of Conservative Jewish philosophy by its founders, or by those who learned
directly from its founders. Conservative Jewish leaders must both believe in Conservative Jewish philosophy and
recognize that they, as parts of the Rosh (head), cannot work without the rest of the Guf." Where is the Lev (heart) that
pumps the blood of passion into the Guf? Where are the Zero’ot (arms) that embrace our values? And without Raglayim
(legs), can we speak of a halichah (movement) within halachah (Jewish law)?

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
15
Jonah Rank, continued…

One of the greatest failures of Orthodox Judaism has been its abundance of insular
communities, communities that don’t reach out to the unaffiliated and the
unconvinced, but reach in and preach to the converted. Although the essence of this
problem is apparent in Conservative Judaism, its caliber is heavier; Conservative
synagogues and schools usually contain a preacher who can preach to her or his
own “choir,” but—in most cases—that core group of believers makes up fewer than
5% of the synagogue membership.

Although “Not Orthodox and Not Reform” is an insufficient religious dogma, the truth is that most Conservative
synagogues historically were founded on that very vague idea; for whatever reason, these Jews had had enough of
Orthodoxy and had had enough of Reform. In the majority of these cases, the philosophies and beliefs (or lack of concern
thereof) of the founders of Conservative synagogues was very much in line with that of the primary membership of
Reform synagogues. With little regard for halacha, theology or philosophy, the early “Conservative Jews” maintained a
certain respect for certain elements of traditional Judaism (understood as traditional, rather than obligatory) such as
Kashrut, Passover, Shabbat, Hebrew prayer, or marriage between fellow Jews. Although these Jews did not practice
Orthodoxy, they were uncomfortable in the Reform community where these traditions were seen as simply ignored
rather than seriously re-evaluated. At heart, the founders of the Conservative synagogues were not Reform Jews, and
they were not Orthodox Jews. But quite frankly, they might not have been Conservative Jews either.

Although the founders of Conservative synagogues may have been lucky enough to find clergy and educators who were
trained in those theoretical principles of Conservative Judaism, the Conservative rabbi was faced with a task unlike that of
their Reform and Orthodox colleagues. An Orthodox rabbi could step foot inside a synagogue com-posed of Jews who
cared to know that their religious principles and actions were in line with the rabbi’s Piskei Halachah (halachic rulings). A
Reform rabbi knew that the synagogue’s clientele cared to maintain the moral imperative and spiritual awareness which
are inseparable from Judaism and, like the rabbi, these Jews needed something totally un-Orthodox in the realm of
rituals. On the other hand, a Conservative rabbi would walk into a synagogue wherein most congregants were
sympathetic to Judaism but often not very actively engaged; even if they were more observant in ways than their Reform
peers, they were not strict adherents to the principles of Conservative Judaism. A Conservative rabbi entered a
synagogue where the congregants had limited knowledge of Hebrew and little interest in fulfilling Mitzvot; however,
going to a shul and going through the motions of traditionalism had stayed important to them through the years. Yet
making something new and meaningful out of “Conservative” Judaism was never the common goal among the majority
of the earliest members of Conservative synagogues.

Three sociological problems seem to have resulted in the Conservative Judaism that will be remembered at the end of
2009: (1) because the majority of early Conservative shul-goers did not actively seek transformational experiences or
rituals, they never demanded a practical definition of Conservative Judaism; (2) because Conservative Judaism was born
out of studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary—and not out of a form of Jewish life that was practiced by an actual
community per se—Conservative Jewish leaders who had studied with masters and founders of Conservative Judaism
never saw a clear model of Conservative Judaism; and (3) the majority of Conservative leadership spoke of but never
effectively preached and inspired their communities to accept the principles of their theoretical Conservative Judaism,
perhaps out of ineptitude or fear of controversy. The cerebral theory of Conservative Judaism never filtered out of the
Rosh and spread properly through the rest of the Guf. Perhaps the Rosh did not speak clearly, or did not think clearly, or
just did not chew up enough of Conservative Judaism so that the Guf could digest it.

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
16
Jonah Rank, continued…

Over a good number of decades, the Guf of Conservative Judaism has suffered the
vicious cycle of the Rosh becoming enamored with ideas for which the rest of the Guf
simply was not prepared. So—if we’re going to make it, and I sincerely believe we
can—what can we do about the uninitiated Jew? Initiate. Teach the uninitiated, and
learn from the uninitiated. Inspire the uninitiated and be inspired by the uninitiated.
Challenge the uninitiated, and let the uninitiated challenge us.

For as long as Jews are expected to enter a Conservative shul and to find inspiration solely from the music of prayer and
the foreign words on the pages, the uninitiated will remain incapable and illiterate in the written languages of Judaism—
uninitiated. For as long as Jews are just expected to enter a Conservative shul on Shabbat and to earn their entire weekly
dosage of Torah study from the words of the rabbi, they will not feel encouraged to open a Tanach (Bible) and to ask the
questions that Jews must ask and to seek the answers that Jews must seek; the uninitiated will then remain uninitiated.
And as long as Jews are expected to become the community of a Conservative shul without ever learning that
Conservative Judaism is a new (and improved) Judaism, and that we each have to undergo some transforming in order
for us to become honest and coherent Jews, the uninitiated will remain Not Orthodox and Not Reform and nothing more:
uninitiated.

The Orthodox might give the radically right-winged answers, and the Reform might give the radically left-winged answers,
but we will never find the middle-grounds if we cannot find the edges. True Conservative Judaism needs, as Pirkei Avot
4:1 prescribes, the Hakham (Wise Person): Hallomed Mikkol Adam (the Student of All Humanity). We must constantly
balance the questions of the right with the answers of the left, and vice versa; however, though we might not each
become a Hakham, we are all able to be Talmidim (Students) and Talmidei Hakhamim (Students of Wise People). It is
insufficient to produce only a Hakham who adjoins the Rosh of the Guf. It is time for the limbs of the Guf of Conservative
Judaism to become Talmidei Hakhamim, and they can’t do it without an educated Rosh.

After the community learns that the Introduction to Judaism class is not where Jewish learning and living end, we must
turn the Conservative Beit Tefillah (House of Prayer) into a Conservative Beit Midrash (House of Study). Though the task
may sound overwhelming, it is a fine line that separates prayer and study. Rabbi Louis Finkelstein once said, “When I
pray, I talk to God; when I study, God talks to me.” This understanding of prayer and study as the Eternal Jewish dialogue
with the Divine is among the oldest principles of Judaism. Classical Rabbinic literature records Jewish prayer in the Beit
Midrash and Jewish study in the Beit Tefillah, and Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jewry have often built a Beit Tefillah called a
“Beit Midrash” and vice versa.

Fortunately, Conservative synagogues generally are comfortable finding a proper prayer quorum on a regular basis—even
if it is not the traditional 3 times a day. And, though serious study of Jewish texts and principles is more rare in the
Conservative synagogue, our communities are finding ways to become engaged in Jewish texts, principles and rituals.
Difficulty with reading Hebrew and unfamiliarity traditional melodies or the rhythm of tefillah prevents many Jews from
taking an active part in prayer services, so Cantor Jen Cohen of Temple Beth Sholom in Cherry Hill has been teaching
classes on “How to Lead and Participate in a Shiva Minyan.” Because the Hebrew of tefillah—even when we can read it—
might not mean much, Dena Bodian has been teaching “Hebrew of the Siddur” focusing on “basic grammar and common
siddur vocabulary” at Anshe Emet Synagogue in Chicago.

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
17
Jonah Rank, continued…

Since many Jews have never been exposed to the vast sea of rabbinic literature,
Rabbi Martin Cohen of Shelter Rock Jewish Center in Long Island has been holding
several classes at his shul where congregants can study Talmud, the words of
Maimonides, Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, and more. Because study of Torah
during the Torah reading services is never enough, the rabbis of Temple Aliya in Los
Angeles, California lead a weekly Lunch and Learn to gain further insight into the
weekly Torah reading. The ultimate goal of these projects cannot possibly be
dependency, that Conservative shul-goers will forever rely on the Rosh. These programs all aim for independence. I
am proud that my own shul, Midway Jewish Center, has recently purchased Hebrew-English sets of the Mishnah, the
Talmud, and other Jewish codes and commentaries and has placed these sefarim (books) in a Chapel so as to annex
one Beit Tefillah into a Beit Midrash. Though my shul may be a few years away from a clientele literate in Hebrew, we
are not far from a community of Talmidei Hakhamim. All it will take is a Jew who opens a book and is able to ask and
answer questions like a Conservative Jew.

Conservative Judaism exists outside of texts though. The social actions we take for Darfur or for Israel, the friendships we
build through youth groups or havurot (social gatherings - for study, prayer and ritual life), the folksongs and children’s
songs we have and pass on from generation to generation: these are all Conservative Judaism. Rabbi Harold Schulweis
has spoken of the “Head Jew” (the intellectual Jew), the “Heart Jew” (the passionate Jew), and the “Hand Jew” (the active
Jew). For too long, Conservative Judaism has been Head Jews stuck in the Rosh, and the Rosh has stuck to the Head Jews.
The Rosh must now awaken the rest of the Guf.
When I recite Barukh Attah Adonai, hammahazir neshamot lifgarim metim, I am less concerned with my body than the
bodies I see in shul. Everyday, I hope that the Jews—with or without kishkes—will not only remain Jewish, but I hope that
the Conservative Jewish community, with God’s grace, will endow itself with the tools, the passions and the
commitments of Conservative Jewish thinking: a Nefesh greater than the love of s’tam (simply) Yiddishkeit.
In Mishnah Yoma 1:5, we read that, when it came time to preparing the Temple for Yom Kippur, the High Priest was
entrusted with a secret formula for performing the sacrificial rites through which Israel's sins would be cleansed from the
soul of the people:
The Elders of the Courthouse passed the message along to the Elders of the Priesthood, and they had gone up to
receive these words from the House of Avtinas. They swore to the House of Avtinas that they had the message
straight, and the Elders left to go their way. The Elders would then say to the High Priest in the Temple, “My
Master: the High Priest! We are messengers of the Courthouse, and you are both our messenger and the
messenger of the Courthouse. We trust that you—sworn to the One whose Name dwells in this House—will not
change a word from all that we have said to you.” The High Priest would depart and weep, and they too would
depart and weep.
Conservative Judaism is not a secret formula of the Temple, but sometimes it feels like it. We have Elder-like masters
trained by particular Houses (of Study) where the essence of Conservative Judaism is taught. In the days of the Temple,
the High Priest was overwhelmed by the burden of the secret intricacies involved in purifying the soul of the people, and
today the Rosh of our Guf can feel overwhelmed by the mission of giving our young Guf a Nefesh, for such a task takes an
entire community - not just the Rosh.

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
18
Jonah Rank, continued…

Conservative Judaism is a young religion, and infants are subject to infirmities that doctors hope the young will overcome
with proper treatment. It should be no surprise that, in a few years, we will outgrow the struggles of the Conservative
Judaism of 2009. With proper dosages of education, experience and action, everything that has found a place in our Rosh
will gradually digest and flow into the rest of our Guf. And when that happens, we will not need to pray that God returns
the Nefesh to the Guf, but we can finally thank God for having returned the Nefesh to the Guf.

Jonah Rank is a Senior at the Columbia University School of General Studies and Albert A. List College of the Jewish
Theological Seminary of America.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“I have observed that the strength of the Conservative movement came out of a dynamic interplay
between an educated clergy capable of articulating and teaching from the historically authentic
academic approach to learning and halacha that is ever evolving from the seminary community, along
with the local expressions of a diversity of affiliated congregations throughout the world. I don't think
anyone benefits from the imposition of top-down marketing. This institutional movement-building is a
misguided attempt at support at best, and perhaps a misappropriation of local synagogue dues to
empower and sustain a centralized bureaucracy when viewed critically.”
~Paul Levine , 5769:2 (p. 11)

The following is an excerpt from Fred Passman’s “Conservative Judaism – Where are We Heading and How Do We
Get There”.

If we think of our congregants and prospective congregants as consumers, they will think of us as suppliers. If we are
selling Judaism we will send out one set of signals. If we decide to create environments that are incubators for cultivating
passionate Judaism, then we will send out a different set of signals. I suggest that we need to work on creating a holistic,
compelling congregational experience. What makes the Conservative Jewish congregational experience unique is our
approach to Jewish living and learning. What we market is almost irrelevant. Each congregation should clearly identify
their community norms, and ensure that all members are intimately aware of those norms. It’s okay for folks who aren’t
comfortable with our community’s norms to look elsewhere. Once a congregation lives its norms unequivocally, it will
attract people who accept them. It must ask, How are our norms expressed in our community life? How do we promote
engagement in Jewish living, across the various demographic groups that our community wishes to serve? I’m not
suggesting that there is one right path. I am suggesting that both lay and professional leaders spend so much time
focusing on budgets, cash-flow and operations, that we tend to forget why we exist. Inevitably, members and perspective
members sense that we aren’t focused on the mission of building vibrant Jewish community, but in the business of
marketing Jewish services. We simplify our liturgy so that we won’t lose the unengaged, thereby disenfranchising those
who are serious about the liturgical experience. We open our doors to the general community in order to increase
revenues, but blur the message of who we are and what we stand for in the process. Why do we keep trying to spend
more money on marketing efforts that are fruitless, rather than take a step back and assess who we are and how we are
perceived? Each community will have a unique set of answers to these questions. Many will dismiss them as being
irrelevant. Those who do dismiss the questions will most likely see their numbers continue to dwindle and rail against the
outside forces responsible for their losses.

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
19
Fred Passman, continued…

I feel that top-down marketing is irrelevant. People show up at a synagogue or independent Minyan for many different
reasons. However, their decisions whether to show up a second time, to join the community, to become personally
invested in the community and its lifestyle are all driven by their personal experience of their relationship with the
community. Communities that know how to embrace members and the unfamiliar face tend to flourish. Those who
depend on marketing, catch phrases and other such devices, but don’t excel in building interpersonal connections, tend
to wither. Most remarkably, while they are withering, their leadership invests tremendous energy trying to figure out
better membership recruitment strategies. Congregational leaders must understand that no one is engaged by saw-dust
Judaism. Few people are fooled by superficial outreach programs. Congregations whose members are passionate about
living Jewish lives tend to be member-magnets. These congregations don’t focus on turning every prospect into a
member. They focus on continually building community. They have well attended Minyanim. They have intellectually
stimulating life-long learning opportunities. The majority of congregants do their best to emulate Jewish living in the
model demonstrated by their professional clergy. I won’t try to list all of the other characteristics of a thriving Jewish
community, but there are probably at least another dozen characteristics that they share.
When you walk into this type of congregation the feeling of positive energy is palpable. When you walk into a
dysfunctional, failing congregation, the feeling is equally palpable. Most Conservative Jewish communities are
somewhere along the continuum between thriving and failing. I feel that there are some things that the meta-
organizations of the Conservative Movement can do to help move towards the thriving end of the spectrum, but no
outside organization can infuse a congregation with this dynamic. It has to come from within. The lay members and the
clergy have to work together to become this type of community.

Once individual congregations have answered the required questions and created the thriving Jewish community they
seek to become, they need to be a part of a collective so that we can enjoy the dialogues among communities; provide
mechanisms to ensure that the resources and ideas developed in thriving communities can be communicated to and
adopted by struggling communities; and, as demographics change in formerly Jewish communities, as a movement to be
able to help its remaining members know that they are part of a larger community. I sense that Conservative Judaism
continues to exist today in part because of our passionate debates on the meaning of mitzvah in our lives, the meaning
and role of our liturgy, and the ethical implications of Jewish living. The various movement affiliates provide the
framework and context for inter-community dialogue and support. The role of the Conservative Movement affiliates has
never been static, nor is it today. Within all of the key entities, there is lively debate on what exactly are that entity’s
contribution to and role within Conservative Judaism and the Conservative Movement. Increasingly, these debates
address the relationships among the key entities. None of the movement structures can exist for their own sake. Each
affiliate organization serves a unique, important role in serving the Jewish community, particularly the members of the
Conservative Jewish community. There’s certainly overlap and competition. Sadly, there are also movement-wide needs
that have fallen through the cracks, that aren’t being served adequately by any movement-wide organization. But the
discussions that we are having are proof of our vitality and of the myriad perspectives they we have on just about every
imaginable issue.

continued on next page…

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
20
Fred Passman, continued…

The power of Conservative Judaism is in its blend of spirituality and scholastic rigor.
Conservative Jews are expected to be able to embrace a concept of a living God,
while grappling with the many complex, conflicting and sometimes troubling ideas
contained in Tanakh and in our vast literature. The meta-institutions of Conservative
Judaism each play a role in supporting local communities and bringing members of
geographically dispersed communities into contact. This is movement building in the
best sense. It pools resources and makes possible programs and relationships that
couldn’t exist otherwise.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and the other leading entities of the Conservative Movement offer
training and educational programs that are difficult to replicate within any but the largest congregations. Ramah, Nativ,
Schechter, USY on Wheels, SULAM, IMUN, the various Men’s Club and Women’s League retreats, the Rabbinical and
Cantor Assemblies’ continuing education programs for rabbis and cantors all provide substance that participants can
bring back to their respective congregations. It’s up to those who return from these programs carrying a certain spark of
Torah to make it infectious within their congregations. How do we help increase the odds of their success? I believe that’s
the question on which we need to focus our energies, not on developing an uber ad campaign or new movement name. A
rose by any other name… and so too a cow-flop.

The Mission of the ShefaNetwork is two-fold: To bring together

dreamers from within the Conservative Movement and to give their
dreams an audible voice. We are part of the Conservative Movement
and commit ourselves to work towards its health. Be a part of our
community of builders and dreamers!

www.shefanetwork.org

© 2010, shefanetwork.org
21