The definition of our message has become a priority for several reasons. One is that on our left side, in the Reform movement, there have been changes that have made it look more like Conservative Judaism. On the right side, a type of left-moving Modern Orthodoxy has emerged in New York and a few other places. Rabbi Avi Weiss’s seminary Yeshivat Chovevei Torah ordains women in a way that is partly similar to that of male rabbis (though without all the same roles and obligations). Thus some people leave Conservative Judaism because they want something more to the left or the right. This new blurring of boundaries requires a clear definition of what Conservative Judaism stands for. JTS will be taking the lead on this matter, with which we have already started.

The key distinguishing mark between us and other movements is that Conservative Judaism insists that the Torah wants Jews to live Judaism in a way that is firmly grounded in and continuous with the history, texts, and traditions of the Jewish people. That means the tradition in all of its complexity, nuance, variety, and substance. On the other hand, we aim to be fully involved with society and culture at large that we are part of. I think this attitude directly emanated from the Torah as a guide for living.

The Conservative translation of this is that a strong sense of communal observances and norms unites Conservative Jews. The critique that Conservative Judaism needs more observance particularly as far as Shabbat, the Jewish holidays, and the dietary laws are concerned is well founded. The practice is that observance in the Conservative movement is way below that of the Orthodox and way above that of the Reform. It doesn’t please me, but I think we have a chance to raise the level of Conservative observance, and we’ll be trying to do this. The Mitzvah Initiative is designed to get people to think about those observances and norms, and to elicit more consistency and deeper levels of commitment.

In the Conservative movement, any question can be asked. The method of asking these questions and answering them is different from that of both the Orthodox and Reform movements. To realize this, one need only go to the rabbinical schools of the movements or to one of the congregations to hear what is said from the pulpit. This comes back to the issue of the Conservative movement both respecting halakha and being an integral part of the modern world. There is a balance between the two and I consider that this is best achieved in the Conservative movement.

As far as outreach is concerned, I tell rabbinical students at JTS that if they cannot exhibit the same love for the Jewish people and Judaism as Chabad rabbis, then they have chosen the wrong profession. The Conservative movement is strong on academics; we have many PhDs who can speak with all the required footnotes. We are, however, not good at conveying passion in our services. Heschel spoke already fifty years ago about synagogues lacking fervor. One can only have a missionary capability if one has a very clear message.

When I go to Conservative congregations, I often say that there is a problem in dealing with young persons who come back from the Pardes Institute or the Conservative Yeshiva in Israel, or Camp Ramah. These may have an intense experience of Jewish learning and/or prayer. I then ask: ‘Can these people find intense learning on a high level in your congregation or community? Is there a passionate prayer service available in your congregation? If your young people have to go to Orthodoxy to replicate that kind of prayer, it’s a disgrace and we don’t deserve it.’ Clearly the movement has work to do in this regard. And rather than give up on it and assume it can’t be done, I think there’s a lot to build on while preaching norms.

The Masorti Movement in Israel has published a new edition of their siddur, ואני תפילתי. A description of the siddur can be found here. The siddur will be distributed by the Yediot Achronot publishing house so it should be available in many bookstores within the next few days.

Three influential leaders and thinkers of Conservative Judaism will probe the changes required if Conservative Judaism is to speak confidently and authentically to a new generation in a new century. The program, “Conservative Judaism: The Next Generation,” The Jewish Theological Seminary’s Henry N. Rapaport Memorial Lecture, will take place at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 3, at JTS, 3080 Broadway (at 122nd Street), New York City.

Panelists will include New York City rabbis Elliot J. Cosgrove, senior rabbi of Park Avenue Synagogue; Jeremy Kalmanofsky of Congregation Ansche Chesed; and Joanna Samuels, former rabbi of Congregation Habonim. JTS Chancellor Arnold M. Eisen will moderate.

The discussion will focus on the future direction of Conservative Judaism and address such questions as: should Conservative Judaism be thought of as a set of beliefs and practices or is Conservative Judaism more akin to a conversation, a language and grammar for thinking and living Jewishly in our time?

Rabbi Cosgrove began his term as senior rabbi of Park Avenue Synagogue in July 2008. Previously, he served as rabbi of Anshe Emet Synagogue in Chicago. Rabbi Cosgrove, ordained by JTS in 1999, earned a PhD from the University of Chicago in the History of Judaism.

Rabbi Kalmanofsky is rabbi of Congregation Ansche Chesed. Before assuming that pulpit in 2001, he served as assistant dean of The Rabbinical School of The Jewish Theological Seminary. He was ordained by JTS in 1997, where he was a Wexner Graduate Fellow.

Rabbi Samuels served from 2002 to 2008 at Congregation Habonim, where her leadership was instrumental in revitalizing the synagogue. Rabbi Samuels, a Wexner Graduate Fellow, was ordained by JTS in 2002. She is currently working on a book about gender and the contemporary rabbinate.

Professor Arnold M. Eisen, one of the world’s foremost experts on American Judaism, is the seventh chancellor of JTS. Since his inauguration in 2007, Chancellor Eisen has met with world leaders, engaged in prominent interdenominational and interfaith dialogues, and directed a fundamental transformation in the education of the next generation of Conservative leadership.

Admission is free but reservations and valid photo identification are required. Attendees are asked to arrive at least fifteen minutes prior to the program. For more information and to register, please email or call the JTS Department of Public Events at (212) 280-6093.

Update: The following snippet is from an interview with Jackson Carroll, the author of God’s Potters: Pastoral Leadership and the Shaping of Congregations. It is very relevant to the challenges facing many modern religious movements.

Q. Do you think that seminary faculties have enough experience
of/understanding of congregational life to impact their students?

A. My overall answer is no. Increasingly, because of the nature of Ph.D. programs, a growing number of seminary faculty come into teaching without pastoral or other significant experience of congregational life. Also, the norms and rewards of the academy do not give any particular advantage to folks who have parish experience or who are ordained; rather promotions and tenure are based on how well they do their academic discipline. To be sure, doing well in one’s discipline is essential, but it is important for seminary faculties also to have a healthy appreciation of congregational
life.

When I met Heschel in his office at JTS one day in 1971, ostensibly to interview him but in fact to ask the questions which most concerned me, I asked him—with the chutzpah that only a twenty-year old could possibly muster—where he got the nerve to say, as he did in the first paragraph of God in Search of Man, that religion had declined not because it was refuted by modern science and philosophy but because it had become “irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid.” I went on to ask a few moments later how he could declare with such certainty that the war in Vietnam was wrong—and what good all his words of protest were doing anyway, what good words ever did. I needed to know how Heschel could make the tradition speak so forcefully to the crises of the day. “You doubt—that’s my problem,” he replied quietly. (I quote from the interview published under my byline in The Daily Pennsylvanian.) “My good friend, words count.” He dared to tell people how they should live, he said, because of “certain climactic moments of my own life, certain convictions and insights,” and because of “a tradition of wisdom which I feel has enriched me, has given me values.” That tradition, the source of Heschel’s insights and convictions, had given him, he said, not only a right but a duty to express them, to share them, and to try to have them guide human lives. His was no mere middle path between extremes, no mere balancing of tradition and modernity, but the Torah burning inside him, guiding his pen in his study and his feet at Selma, a life-giving path of meaning and community, intellect and passion, on which he, following his teachers, sought to lead us.

As to Conservative Movement politics, I think that Chancellor Eisen clearly sees JTS as leading the Conservative Movement but in coordination and cooperation with other institutions within the movement.  I remarked to a friend that it was a frum speech, in the sense that it was filled with theology and Torah, and I think that Chancellor Eisen represents that which I heard from someone years ago, Wissenschaft with a neshama (with the Yiddish intonation).