From the WSJ Opinion Archives
HOUSES OF WORSHIP
Conservatives for Change
A Jewish legal body considers the status of homosexuality.
A couple of weeks ago, the Laws and Standards Committee of the Conservative Jewish movement sought to address the Jewish status of homosexuals. The committee did not simply reaffirm the traditional religious prohibition of homosexuality, in line with the outlook of Orthodox Jews. Nor did it simply discount such a prohibition, in line with Reform and Reconstructionist movements of Judaism. Instead, the committee issued a series of contradictory rulings.
One of the committee's rulings reiterated the prohibition of homosexuality on the basis of Jewish law. Another affirmed homosexuality as an acceptable Jewish option, meaning that even rabbis and cantors may be openly gay. Yet a third ruling said that, while homosexuality is acceptable, it is not desirable; thus all effort should be made to treat it therapeutically.
These incompatible rulings capture the strains of the Conservative Judaism. It is trying with difficulty to hold within it members whose sentiments and beliefs are moving in opposite directions.
The label Conservative, of course, is a bit of a misnomer: The members of the Conservative movement are less conservative than the Orthodox. But the label still has a meaning. Conservative Jews concede that Judaism must be ready to adapt to the times, but they want to approach the possibility of change in a conservative way--that is, with deliberation and caution. Exactly what that means, however, remains a matter of debate. For some Conservative Jews it is unthinkable to oppose the pluralistic character of modern America or condemn the life choices that are now available. Other Conservative Jews remain powerfully attached to the ancient covenant and traditions; their Judaism cannot separate itself from history and religious precedent.
This divide is observable not only among the laity but also among the rabbinate: Traditionalist rabbis direct their ultimate religious obligation to the sacred law and Talmudic principles; moderate or liberal Conservative rabbis (the term captures the confusion) feel an equally strong obligation to the changing needs of their congregations. Yet another group tries to negotiate away the differences. The third ruling of the Laws and Standards Committee--recommending therapy for an "acceptable" condition--captures this group's "third way."
Conservative Jews have found themselves on such precarious middle ground before. In the past, they struggled over the role of women in Conservative Judaism: In 1973, the question was whether women should be allowed to become full-fledged members of the congregation, making up a minyan (or prayer quorum) and reciting prayers; in 1983, it was whether women should be allowed to become rabbis and cantors. The debate was a profound one: To alter practice was to assert that women could do everything that men could do--even though Jewish law had always suggested that they should not. In both votes, the liberal choice prevailed.
Those who were reluctant to change--those who felt strongly attached to Jewish tradition--ultimately lost the battle. The winners, over time, were the Conservative Jews who felt themselves to be part of a postfeminist America: They could not conceive of being part of a Judaism that turned its back on modern America's egalitarian ideal.
Indeed, today's Conservative Judaism is overwhelmingly egalitarian, and those who resist the more liberal impulse of Conservative Judaism often feel marginalized. Not a few have left the movement altogether. As it happens, four traditionalist members of the Laws and Standards Committee have now resigned from it, suggesting that even they realize that in a movement committed to change, however conservatively, the future is with those who move in the direction of change--both among the rabbis and in the congregations.
Mr. Heilman is the author, most recently, of "Sliding to the Right: The Contest for the Future of American Jewish Orthodoxy."
