Rosner's Domain: Rabbi Joanna Samuels on the stagnation of the Jewish Conservative movement

Follow Rosner's Domain on Twitter!!!

Rabbi Joanna Samuels is a teacher, writer, and mother of two small children.  A graduate of Barnard College, she was ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary where she was a Wexner Graduate Fellow.  Until 2008 she served as the spiritual leader of Congregation Habonim on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. I asked her questions regarding the things she's said at the Jewish Theological Seminary, in an evening dedicated to "Conservative Judaism: The Next Generation."

1. In the "Conservative Judaism" event, you've said (or quoted as saying) this: "We need to do something bigger than ourselves," she told the audience. "My goal is for us to get people out in the world to help heal the world. That's the best kind of Conservative practice." Can you please explain what you mean? What is it that you suggested?

This quote is taken from a larger discussion of ways that we might engage our constituents.  Clearly, synagogues, schools, camps, adult learning programs like the Melton mini-schools are some of the avenues that have been offered to Jewish adults and children who affiliate with the Conservative movement.  In some cases, these institutions have worked very well. There are individual synagogues that have been transformative in the lives of their constituents, for instance, and certainly Camp Ramah and the Solomon Schechter schools are strong models in educating and acculturating Jewish children.  

I think, though, that we are reaching people in a limited way. 

We in the observant world are at risk of modeling a fragmented and actually un-Jewish ideology which says that our communities are places where certain Jewish activity happens -- tefillah and talmud torah, for instance -- but not whole swaths of other Jewish obligations. It was very clear to me in rabbinical school that I was expected to observe and to help others observe certain mitzvot -- Shabbat, tefillah, kashrut, limmud. Rarely if at all did we talk about our obligations to help the poor, to advocate for the defenseless, to give tzedakah in a consistent and conscious way.    

In our world, there are two narratives. One is how broken everything is, how much suffering there is, how much violence and poverty and despair.  This is a desecration of God and the world that God created. The other narrative is about the people who are actually trying to solve some of these problems in a systemic way -- people like Jeffrey Sachs, Victoria Hale, Paul Farmer, Ruth Messinger, and Wendy Kopp (and if you do not know who these people are, google them, they are heroes). The Jewish people should be actors in the narrative of repair, instead of anguished and passive participants in the narrative of destruction.  

The fact is that in every study of civic engagement and concern for the other, Jews rate the highest of any religious group.  We should be so proud of this! And we should see the desire to engage in the repair of the world as something authentically Jewish, without any apology.  Do we have to explain why the study of Torah is an obligation? So why do we participate in the marginalization of the work of bringing justice to the world?  Why do we have to explain why Jews are obligated to this?  Why not just go and do it, and bring with us our kosher food, our siddurim, our tefillot -- and see how our Judaism is renewed when, after a long day in service to the other, we daven and say "l'taken olam b'malchut Shaddai"? 

2. Is this not an agenda that is already "taken" by the competition. - Reform Judaism's extensive work on Tikkun Olam?

The Jewish community as a whole has a lot to learn from the Reform movement's commitment to social action and social justice. In many Jewish circles, it is fashionable and even a mark of honor to disparage this work, and to say that it is not sufficiently "Jewish." I would refer those who hold this opinion to such marginal Jewish texts as the Chumash and the Nevi'im. So if what I am suggesting for the Conservative movement sounds like an imitation, I would say: if only.

So why is social action important for the Conservative movement?  First of all, it is an obligation. Secondly, I think the intersection of social action and traditional practice will teach us deep lessons about both.  

3. Do you want to "get people out" because you believe this will be a way to get them in the conservative tent - or because you think it is a mission inherent to Conservative Judaism? In other words: is this a mean to an end, or your real goal?

I think that working towards a more just world is a value inherent to Judaism, period. If this action can take place within the context of traditional egalitarian Jewish living, it would be grant us the opportunity to live fully as Jews. A Judaism that asks us to daven but to ignore the front page of the newspaper, or to study Torah but not live out the values of Torah, is not enabling us to bring our full selves to the table. Why should it be ok to ignore what is happening in Darfur, but still get points for davening? The better question is what could our davening feel like if we were really working for justice in the world?   

4. Can you give me your (short) analysis of the much-talked-about crisis in Conservative Judaism: where does it come from, why is it not solved in the many-years passed since all realized that it is, indeed, a crisis?

Living in the world and living as a traditionally minded Jew is a great blessing and is also a challenge. Extremism is on the rise throughout the world, and simultaneously there is a consumerist mentality that rejects anything that does not serve immediate and individual desires and needs. Asking people to find meaning in group identity and group behavior, but, at the same time, to live in a diverse and dynamic world, is difficult. So this is the back drop against which traditional modern Judaism is trying to find its voice. 

At the same time, the institutions of the conservative movement have failed in their role to shape that voice in a compelling way. They are trying to fix very broken institutions and I think there was in the past a tendency to make little tiny fixes that would not rock the boat too much.  

In my opinion, we can not ignore the poor handling of the 1983 decision to ordain women as rabbis. For the movement's leaders, this was apparently such a shocking event that for 25 years afterwards, the job of leadership was to quell dissent, to be ambivalent and pained about this innovation, and to assure everyone that they were not, God forbid, Reform Jews. What seems to have been lost on those leaders is that their constituents had moved on from this change and even from their one-time strong identity as Conservative Jews. Instead of obsessing about the "slippery slope" of halachic innovation, they should have been facilitating a large-scale public conversation about what halacha and tradition even mean to us as modern people -- meeting people where they are and moving the conversation forward. I commend JTS's Chancellor Arnie Eisen for spearheading such a campaign for the movement now, and at the same time, I wish the conversation had taken place two decades ago.

Conservative Judaism was founded by innovators who believed that traditional Judaism and modern life needed to speak to each other. What was "modern" to those founders is now history for us. The challenge and the promise of this Judaism is to keep placing what is contemporary next to what is traditional, and to believe that our tradition can handle this intersection and remain holy and intact and can speak powerfully in any moment of time.

5. Is it possible that a post-denominational spirit makes it so hard for the Conservative movement to regain its power? How will you convince a young, devoted, spirited - but unaffiliated - congregation, that it's important to be a part of a "movement"?

I am not sure that is the goal. Values and vision are the goals. If you look at some of the most exciting and popular unaffiliated congregations or minyanim in the country -- B'nai Jeshurun and Hadar here in New York City, Ikar in Los Angeles, the Washington Square Minyan in Brookline, and many others -- they are animated by common values. Egalitarianism, inclusivity, responsibility of constituents (as opposed to clergy) for creating the community, a serious commitment to tefillah, talmud torah, and tikkun olam -- this menu of values is that of the Conservative movement. So I would think that the movement would claim these institutions proudly and not get hung up on whether these minyanim or synagogues call themselves anything in particular or whether they pay dues to the movement. The values and ideology are the first and most critical ingredient of any enterprise. After that we can start thinking about what kinds of institutions are needed to support these entities, train their leaders, and work to replicate their success.  

Why the "official" institutions of the movement have in some cases fallen short of the values embodied by B'nai Jeshurun or Ikar or Hadar is the thornier question!

6. Here's a nagging question: are you all trying to save Conservative Judaism because it's worth saving - or only because old habits, and organizations - die hard? Is it time to just let go and admit defeat at the hands of Reform Judaism and Modern Orthodoxy?

I am invested in the values of the Conservative movement: serious engagement with Jewish life, commitment to egalitarianism and inclusivity, and a belief that individuals should be challenged Jewishly.  If JTS, United Synagogue, or individual synagogues have to be re-invented to live out these values more clearly and effectively, that is not a bad thing. All successful institutions reinvent themselves according to the times in which they live. 

Yes, the Conservative movement has problems, but so too the other movements. Why do we give Modern Orthodoxy a free pass on its lack of commitment to the inclusion of women? Sure, there are 3 or 4 Orthodox synagogues with female clergy, but this represents the tiniest fraction of Orthodox synagogues. In most Orthodox synagogues, women can not even touch the sefer Torah! The Reform movement, too has been slow to emphasize meaningful ritual and tefillah. I think that the institutions of Modern Orthodoxy and Reform have been savvier and smarter about reinventing themselves, and now it is clear to everyone that the Conservative movement has to undertake some serious changes in the way in which it speak to the public. One of the things, for instance,  that we see in the stagnation of the Conservative movement is that the institutions have been concerned with inclusivity at the cost of a coherent ideology. How can you ordain female rabbis and still champion the existence of Conservative synagogues where women do not count in a minyan? There has been too much of an emphasis on taking the middle ground, on hiring leaders who are "non-controversial," and on articulating a platform that is all over the place.  

I am no flag waver for movements. I am, however, realistic, that the Jewish world needs institutions that engage, teach, inspire, and challenge Jewish people. I feel strongly that at least some of those institutions should do so inspired by an ideology of serious devotion to tradition, of egalitarianism, of inclusivity, and of intellectual and academic integrity. If the institutions of Conservative Judaism ceased to exist, trust me, we would be moved to re-invent them.  So why not do that with what we have?