mitzvot in Conservative Judaism

[cellio]

I was recently given a photocopy of the article "Conservative Judaism in an Age of Democracy" by Rabbi Harold Kushner. (I think it came from Conservative Judaism magazine. I can't find an online copy.) This theologically-attuned Reform Jew found it a fascinating read.

Comments

part 2

[sanpaku]

(truncated because I exceeded the character limit in the other comment)

But on the day to day level, generally, this is closest to what I feel in my gut -- we do this because we're part of a way of life and a system of thought that connects us with God but also with each other, like in this conversation right now, which we would never have over anything else. Which is why I am upset over people like Kushner, since to my mind they want to replace the common grounds of this conversation over halacha with whatever homiletical mush they feel like serving up today. You can only figure out how you fiit into halacha once you know what it is and what the prayers or mitzvot were originally supposed to accomplish within that system. After that, reject it, maybe. But a "post-halachic" Judaism can only happen if and when halacha is known to the Jewish people, and that's not where his philosophy leads.

You're right that it does lead to Reform, but I don't know that you'd want to trumpet that... if Conservatism is judged a failure for not connecting Jews with halacha, I surely think Reform is open to the same charge vis a vis Jewish ethical values or whatever. You do know that you are extremely unusual for a Reform Jew; I think of you probably in some of the same terms that some orthodox people might think of me -- an outlyer within the movement that does not, unfortunately, disprove the broader truth about that movement. (E.g. one guy asked me, "how many Jews that walk to shul on shabbos are there in Cranston?")

So the point at the end there inviting Kushner et al. to join you is a little unfair; t's like me saying that you're not a real Reform Jew because you do the mitzvot... or like me saying that orthodox people are this, this, and this, but look at this person being a "hypocrite" over here -- people in other movements justify what they do in those terms and not by fulfilling their role as foils to our movements. Or, just because some orthodox people have been known to daven in minyans led by women, doesn't mean that I get to say that they're not really orthodox, or that when they do so, they're being Conservative in all but name so why don't they join us. (The rejoinder would surely be something like, only once you live entirely within the system, do you get to define your deviations from it.)

Re: part 2

[cellio]

Thank you for the thoughtful comments.

Granted that I am not a typical Reform Jew, but I, like you, do feel a sense of obligation (and feel bad if I don't do something) -- that's why I said there are two factors that can play into my deciding to do a mitzvah. I do feel commanded about Shabbat, kashrut (liberal interpretation), and several other things. (I've carried a chanukiyah on a plane too.) And as you point out, the ethical mitzvot are not optional to Reform. So we have this mix of mitzvot-as-commandments and mitzvot-as-good-ideas, and that certainly muddies the water.

Does Rabbi Kushner argue that we shouldn't even learn the halacha? That would be sad. As you said, we have to know what it is before we can make decisions about it; that's what the "informed" in "informed autonomy" is all about. I have changed aspects of my observance (in both directions) after study; that study is obligatory, and one of the things we can never do enough of (c.f. eilu d'varim).

I did not mean my last paragraph as a snark or a claim that Rabbi Kushner is really Reform. I don't want other people telling me where I really belong; I don't intend to do that to others. I meant that I think his thinking would resonate quite strongly in the Reform movement, where there are people who've been thinking similar thoughts for a while, and engaging in that dialogue could be beneficial for all involved. I'm not asking him to swap out his Conservative affiliation for a Reform one -- just suggesting that we are more similar than he might think, and he shouldn't disregard us either.

(Of course, it's possile that it's really only people like me who would feel this resonance, and he really doesn't have that much in common with the average Reform Jew.)

Re: part 2

[cellio]

And as you point out, the ethical mitzvot are not optional to Reform.

Whoops. That was actually mbarr below. Sorry.

Re: part 2

[sanpaku]

I think you're right that "post-halachic" Judaism is another name for Reform or Reconstructionism. As far as learning the halacha, look at Kushner's maneuver about why we perform the mitzvot -- personal relevance supersedes an explanation grounded in history or theology. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, but then you have Kaplan's "voice not a veto" approach to halacha, ie Reconstructionism. But on some level what he's calling for is giving primacy to the personal relevance message over the obligation message; I don't see how that doesn't reduce halacha to a historical or homiletical curiosity. (And, since I spent a lot of pixels yesterday and today over why I'm not orthodox, I'll say that this is what I find impossible about Reform.)

Of course it's the very resemblance to Reform/Recon that would make Kushner resist the comparison. In the 19th century, some of the most strident antagonists of Reform Judaism were Unitarians who resented being told that they were basically Reform Jews. Deciding where you end and the other movement begins might almost be said to be the essence of religion.