Books on Judaism

[Rakhel]

(England) Reform Judaism is similar to (American) Conservative Judaism.

Got a British friend who loves to argue(discuss) with my husband the differences between anything American and British

 

[David_2010]

I have also been told that the Reform movement there is much more traditional than here in America, and is generally more respected by the Masorti (Conservative) and Orthodox institutions, although I am also told that the Orthodox institutions generally give no more ground in England to acceptance of Reform responsa, rabbinic actions, conversions, or gittin (divorces) than they do in America.

I didn't know that.

As for Rabbi Sacks, he is without doubt a man of tremendous learning and wisdom, and while he is certainly more Modern Orthodox than many of his Haredi peers in Israel and America, he is still quite Orthodox by today's standards, and that is much less flexible than the early Modern Orthodoxy of R. Shimshon Refael Hirsch, or R. David Tzvi Hoffman. He has been cordial to Masorti rabbis, and even to Reform rabbis, but he gives little ground to them, I am told.

I don't know too much about Rabbi Sacks, just what I've read from his Wiki, and other sites, although, I do like the sound of some of his books, like 'The Dignity of Difference' is one I'd really like to get.

BTW, just out of curiousity, does Masorti mean Conservative? (also, is there any conflict between Conservative & Orthodox Judaism?, like, how do they differ?).

I have only heard Jeremy Rosen's name in passing, but I did skim a few things on his website, and at first glance he seems to be an idiosyncratic but perfectly respectable Modern Orthodox authority.

Thanks for the response, his work does seem interesting, and I've seen him recommended in various other places, who seem to know their stuff.

(England) Reform Judaism is similar to (American) Conservative Judaism.

Got a British friend who loves to argue(discuss) with my husband the differences between anything American and British

Thanks for telling me .

 

[Levite]

BTW, just out of curiousity, does Masorti mean Conservative? (also, is there any conflict between Conservative & Orthodox Judaism?, like, how do they differ?)

The Conservative movement began in America, in the late 19th Century. They chose the name "Conservative" not because of any political affiliations, but because they felt that they were attempting to "conserve the Jewish tradition." By the mid-20th Century, it began to spread to Jewish communities abroad, in Europe and South America (and Israel, although inroads there have been quite small so far). About 20-odd years ago, if I recall right, the Conservative movement decided that its global identity would become Masorti Judaism (masorti is Hebrew for "Traditional"), but in America, the name "Conservative" was kept, out of familiar usage. (There is, actually, a dispute in American Conservative Judaism currently concerning whether to change the name of the movement, which I must say personally strikes me as a singularly feckless argument in the face of the problems the Jewish people are experiencing about much graver issues.)

As for the differences between Conservative and Orthodox Judaism, there are several (or, depending on whom you've asked, many).

The chief differences are all matters of halakhic interpretation. The Conservative movement is the only one of the non-Orthodox movements that considers itself bound by traditional halakhah. They take the viewpoint that, while halakhah as a system is obligatory, the jurisdictional authority to interpret and reinterpret it-- even radically if necessary-- is broadly and deeply held by any trained and ordained court of rabbis. They take the view that, essentially, the Talmud was the the last set of incontrovertible and eternal sacred texts incumbent upon all the Jewish People: all rabbinic responsa, codes, customs, and so forth represent a tradition of precedent upon which to draw from in making halakhic decisions, in any order desired, from any era, in more or less any combination permitted by the systems of interpretation and exegesis set out in the Talmud. Most of the legal/social powers which were held the Rabbis of the Talmud are considered to be held by rabbis today as well, including the powers to make radical interpretations, even those which reverse interpretations of very long standing, or even to alter relatively foundational terms and categories of law and practice. Minority opinions are considered to have more or less similar potential as precedent as are majority opinions. And while extra-halakhic material has no standing as precedent, it is permitted to have some weight in balancing options and making decisions.

There is also a general view in Conservative Judaism that, while halakhic change must be careful and not undertaken lightly, it should be possible, and should occur regularly in order to keep the halakhic system living, vibrant, and relevant to people's lives. For a better, more careful and thorough explanation of Conservative Judaism and halakhah, I recommend reading The Unfolding Tradition: Jewish Law After Sinai, A Living Tree: The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law, and For Love of God and People: A Philosophy of Jewish Law by Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff.

Orthodoxy views things somewhat differently. There is a halakhic principle, hilkheta k'vatrei, meaning that the halakhah ought to follow the interpretation of the latest major authority to rule: in Conservative Judaism this is considered an ideal, a guideline. In Orthodoxy, this is a firm and binding rule, diverged from only under the most exigent of circumstances. There is another principle, minhag k'halakhah hee, meaning that a custom taken on by a large number of people, if held long enough (centuries, or sometimes less), can gain the legal force of law. This is generally interpreted very loosely and lightly in Conservative Judaism: such customs can gain the force of law, but they do not do so automatically, and need not be seen as such. But in Orthodoxy, it is interpreted much more strictly: such customs more or less always attain the force of law, and altering them becomes deeply difficult. There are a few similar halakhic principles at work, also, with similar differences of interpretation between the two movements.

There is, in Orthodox Judaism, considered to be a waning progression of authority in halakhah: the maximum authority possible was held by the Rabbis of the Talmud; their successors, the Geonim of Babylonia, had not quite as much; the great Medieval halakhists had somewhat less; the later rabbis less than that; today's rabbis even less. Major changes are relegated to the purview of gedolei ha-dor, the greatest halakhic scholars of the age, and these are said to be known by widespread, if not unanimous agreement by Jews to be bound by their interpretations. The great authors of the medieval and later codes (Maimonides, Rabbenu Yakov ben Asher, R. Yosef Karo, perhaps some others) are considered to have had universal acceptance, and thus their precedents are binding, as much as anything in Talmud. No rabbis since have, according to Orthodoxy, wielded so much authority; some have said that certain modern rabbis had less, but still very great authority (many said this of Reb Moshe Feinstein, or of Rav Soloveitchik, for example; Hasidim consider their rebbe, whoever he may be, to be the defining gadol ha-dor), but there is no one alive now that any true majority of Orthodox Jews would all acknowledge as having such authority.

There is a general view in Orthodoxy that, while the halakhah may occasionally have to change in very exigent circumstances, what has been decided strictly cannot be made looser and more expansive save with very great and widely acclaimed rabbinic authority, and even then what can be done is quite limited, because Torah is thought to be constant, and if necessary, it is we who ought to change to suit Torah better. For a more thorough and better understanding of Orthodoxy and halakhah, I recommend reading Halakhic Man, by R. Soloveitchik, Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha, by R. Eliezer Berkovits, and perhaps Halacha and Contemporary Society, by R. Alfred Cohen-- this last is a bit more focused on how-to rather than why and wherefore, but unfortunately, good quality discussions of the nature and history of halakhah in the Ultra-Orthodox world are hard to come by in English. By the way, if you are interested in a Modern Orthodox angle on halakhah (Modern Orthodoxy is essentially an Orthodoxy which seeks to preserve the cautiousness and utter devotion to maintaining tradition, the same kinds of halakhic principles are held as in the rest of Orthodoxy, but the interpretations are slightly looser-- sometimes quite looser at least in theory-- but innovation is still quite slow for the most part, lest the boat be overly rocked), I recommend R. David Hartman's A Living Covenant: The Innovative Spirit in Traditional Judaism.

Generally speaking, Orthodox Judaism considers Conservative Judaism to be sloppy in thinking, negligent in obedience to the mitzvot, overly assimilated and appallingly lax, somewhere between ethically misled and morally bankrupt, and dangerously radical, if not heretical, in its views of halakhah. Modern Orthodoxy considers Conservative Judaism sloppy in thinking, overly assimilated, often motivated by positive ethical enthusiasm, but unfortunately impatient and hopelessly fond of socially disruptive shortcuts in thought, but is generally more charitable in considering Conservative halakhic thought misguided, but not deliberately heretical.

Conservative Judaism generally considers Orthodoxy to be ossified and increasingly archaic, stultified by its own ever-increasing rigidity, narrow-minded, intolerant, oppressive, and in its halakhic philosophy, ultimately subverting the nature of the halakhic system as a growing and evolving socio-legal organism. Modern Orthodoxy is generally regarded as more of a mirror-image, the Orthodox flip side to Conservative Judaism: well-meaning, but often hopelessly tangled up by its desire for acceptance by centrist and right-wing Orthodoxy. In general, Modern and centrist Orthodoxy is usually regarded in Conservative Judaism with some regret and perhaps hope for future rapprochement: Haredi Judaism (ultra-Orthodoxy) is generally shunned as repugnant, only due to what the Conservative movement calls Haredi oppression of other Jews, especially in Israel.

 

[David_2010]

The Conservative movement began in America, in the late 19th Century. They chose the name "Conservative" not because of any political affiliations, but because they felt that they were attempting to "conserve the Jewish tradition." By the mid-20th Century, it began to spread to Jewish communities abroad, in Europe and South America (and Israel, although inroads there have been quite small so far). About 20-odd years ago, if I recall right, the Conservative movement decided that its global identity would become Masorti Judaism (masorti is Hebrew for "Traditional"), but in America, the name "Conservative" was kept, out of familiar usage. (There is, actually, a dispute in American Conservative Judaism currently concerning whether to change the name of the movement, which I must say personally strikes me as a singularly feckless argument in the face of the problems the Jewish people are experiencing about much graver issues.)

As for the differences between Conservative and Orthodox Judaism, there are several (or, depending on whom you've asked, many).

The chief differences are all matters of halakhic interpretation. The Conservative movement is the only one of the non-Orthodox movements that considers itself bound by traditional halakhah. They take the viewpoint that, while halakhah as a system is obligatory, the jurisdictional authority to interpret and reinterpret it-- even radically if necessary-- is broadly and deeply held by any trained and ordained court of rabbis. They take the view that, essentially, the Talmud was the the last set of incontrovertible and eternal sacred texts incumbent upon all the Jewish People: all rabbinic responsa, codes, customs, and so forth represent a tradition of precedent upon which to draw from in making halakhic decisions, in any order desired, from any era, in more or less any combination permitted by the systems of interpretation and exegesis set out in the Talmud. Most of the legal/social powers which were held the Rabbis of the Talmud are considered to be held by rabbis today as well, including the powers to make radical interpretations, even those which reverse interpretations of very long standing, or even to alter relatively foundational terms and categories of law and practice. Minority opinions are considered to have more or less similar potential as precedent as are majority opinions. And while extra-halakhic material has no standing as precedent, it is permitted to have some weight in balancing options and making decisions.

There is also a general view in Conservative Judaism that, while halakhic change must be careful and not undertaken lightly, it should be possible, and should occur regularly in order to keep the halakhic system living, vibrant, and relevant to people's lives. For a better, more careful and thorough explanation of Conservative Judaism and halakhah, I recommend reading The Unfolding Tradition: Jewish Law After Sinai, A Living Tree: The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law, and For Love of God and People: A Philosophy of Jewish Law by Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff.

Orthodoxy views things somewhat differently. There is a halakhic principle, hilkheta k'vatrei, meaning that the halakhah ought to follow the interpretation of the latest major authority to rule: in Conservative Judaism this is considered an ideal, a guideline. In Orthodoxy, this is a firm and binding rule, diverged from only under the most exigent of circumstances. There is another principle, minhag k'halakhah hee, meaning that a custom taken on by a large number of people, if held long enough (centuries, or sometimes less), can gain the legal force of law. This is generally interpreted very loosely and lightly in Conservative Judaism: such customs can gain the force of law, but they do not do so automatically, and need not be seen as such. But in Orthodoxy, it is interpreted much more strictly: such customs more or less always attain the force of law, and altering them becomes deeply difficult. There are a few similar halakhic principles at work, also, with similar differences of interpretation between the two movements.

There is, in Orthodox Judaism, considered to be a waning progression of authority in halakhah: the maximum authority possible was held by the Rabbis of the Talmud; their successors, the Geonim of Babylonia, had not quite as much; the great Medieval halakhists had somewhat less; the later rabbis less than that; today's rabbis even less. Major changes are relegated to the purview of gedolei ha-dor, the greatest halakhic scholars of the age, and these are said to be known by widespread, if not unanimous agreement by Jews to be bound by their interpretations. The great authors of the medieval and later codes (Maimonides, Rabbenu Yakov ben Asher, R. Yosef Karo, perhaps some others) are considered to have had universal acceptance, and thus their precedents are binding, as much as anything in Talmud. No rabbis since have, according to Orthodoxy, wielded so much authority; some have said that certain modern rabbis had less, but still very great authority (many said this of Reb Moshe Feinstein, or of Rav Soloveitchik, for example; Hasidim consider their rebbe, whoever he may be, to be the defining gadol ha-dor), but there is no one alive now that any true majority of Orthodox Jews would all acknowledge as having such authority.

There is a general view in Orthodoxy that, while the halakhah may occasionally have to change in very exigent circumstances, what has been decided strictly cannot be made looser and more expansive save with very great and widely acclaimed rabbinic authority, and even then what can be done is quite limited, because Torah is thought to be constant, and if necessary, it is we who ought to change to suit Torah better. For a more thorough and better understanding of Orthodoxy and halakhah, I recommend reading Halakhic Man, by R. Soloveitchik, Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha, by R. Eliezer Berkovits, and perhaps Halacha and Contemporary Society, by R. Alfred Cohen-- this last is a bit more focused on how-to rather than why and wherefore, but unfortunately, good quality discussions of the nature and history of halakhah in the Ultra-Orthodox world are hard to come by in English. By the way, if you are interested in a Modern Orthodox angle on halakhah (Modern Orthodoxy is essentially an Orthodoxy which seeks to preserve the cautiousness and utter devotion to maintaining tradition, the same kinds of halakhic principles are held as in the rest of Orthodoxy, but the interpretations are slightly looser-- sometimes quite looser at least in theory-- but innovation is still quite slow for the most part, lest the boat be overly rocked), I recommend R. David Hartman's A Living Covenant: The Innovative Spirit in Traditional Judaism.

Generally speaking, Orthodox Judaism considers Conservative Judaism to be sloppy in thinking, negligent in obedience to the mitzvot, overly assimilated and appallingly lax, somewhere between ethically misled and morally bankrupt, and dangerously radical, if not heretical, in its views of halakhah. Modern Orthodoxy considers Conservative Judaism sloppy in thinking, overly assimilated, often motivated by positive ethical enthusiasm, but unfortunately impatient and hopelessly fond of socially disruptive shortcuts in thought, but is generally more charitable in considering Conservative halakhic thought misguided, but not deliberately heretical.

Conservative Judaism generally considers Orthodoxy to be ossified and increasingly archaic, stultified by its own ever-increasing rigidity, narrow-minded, intolerant, oppressive, and in its halakhic philosophy, ultimately subverting the nature of the halakhic system as a growing and evolving socio-legal organism. Modern Orthodoxy is generally regarded as more of a mirror-image, the Orthodox flip side to Conservative Judaism: well-meaning, but often hopelessly tangled up by its desire for acceptance by centrist and right-wing Orthodoxy. In general, Modern and centrist Orthodoxy is usually regarded in Conservative Judaism with some regret and perhaps hope for future rapprochement: Haredi Judaism (ultra-Orthodoxy) is generally shunned as repugnant, only due to what the Conservative movement calls Haredi oppression of other Jews, especially in Israel.

Thanks for all the information, again, I didn't know about all the differences between the different Jewish denominations (the only major ones I knew were Orthodox and Reform). If you don't mind me asking, what is the relationship like between Conservative Judaism and other non-Orthodox forms, such as Reform, Renewal, Reconstructionist, etc (BTW, what exactly is Reconstructionist Judaism, and how does it differ to other denominations?).

Also, I was wondering, I'm also gay, and, I'm just wondering, would that affect any Rabbi's, or denominations, attitudes towards me or any conversion attempt?, I know the Haredi would probably condemn me (I assume anyway), but, what about the other denominations (I'm in the middle of reading 'Wrestling With God' by Rabbi Steven Greenberg, which so far is quite interesting, and, if I understand right, he's an openly gay Orthodox Rabbi, so, is Modern Orthodox Judaism changing?).

Thanks again for all your help, I definitely appreciate it.

 

[Levite]

Glad to be of assistance!

Generally speaking, the Conservative movement has cordial relations with the other non-Orthodox movements. There are disagreements, of course: Conservative Judaism is a halakhic movement, and the Reform movement is quasi-halakhic at best, while Reconstructionist and the various Renewal fringe groups are non-halakhic. Also, the decision of the American Reform movement 20 or 30 years ago to introduce patrilineal descent as an acceptable determination of Jewish identity has been a severe strain on interdenominational relations.

(In case you haven't encountered this yet, traditional Judaism has always been matrilineal-- in other words, you're Jewish if your mother was Jewish. But a couple decades ago the American Reform movement, in an attempt to combat the overwhelming effect on their movement of intermarriage-- at last report, somewhere between 1/2 to 2/3 of Reform Jews in America are intermarried-- declared that if either of one's parents, regardless of gender, were Jewish, that made one Jewish. This has cause a great discomfort in the relationship with Conservative Judaism, and was essentially the last straw in pushing Modern Orthodoxy away from any real acceptance of Reform Judaism. It has also been disastrous in causing widespread crises of identity and acceptance, and many leading Reform scholars now feel the decision was ill-made, but are unsure how it could be withdrawn without disintigrating their movement, since it remains popular with the undereducated masses.)

The Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist movements usually act together in facing off against Haredi political activism, both in Israel and elsewhere, and they frequently collaborate on various programs of social justice and education. There is considerable mutual respect among the leading lights of the two movements, and much communal interaction between the movements at local levels. Both, though are experiencing similar problems of insufficient Jewish education in the movement.

While relations may be good, the two movements provide different experiences, and different tools. You should investiage the experiences before ultimately judging what works for you. Try different shuls. Attend different lectures or classes. See what feels right to you.

While we're discussing movements, the Reconstructionist movement-- which is mostly American-- was originally an offshoot of Conservative Judaism. It was begun in the early 20th Century by Mordecai Kaplan, a Conservative rabbi and professor at Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. Kaplan was a modernist, one of the last of the thinkers directly influenced by the Enlightenment. He felt that a modern Judaism needed to be pruned of archaisms and philosophical dead weight, but he also felt that tradition was important, because it was the core of culture (he was greatly influenced by anthropology). He was also essentially an atheist, who believed that God was a metaphor, the name given to the spirit of positive action in community. Kaplanian Reconstructionism observes the mitzvot not because they believe they are commanded, but because that is what Jews do, and doing so preserves the character of Jewish culture. The movment began to evolve other views also, and after the Nineties, the predominate non-Kaplanian theology was the neo-Hasidism of Arthur Green. Green is essentially a monist: he postulated a God who was not only impersonal, the living force of all creation, but-- following the Kabbalistic tradition of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe-- was actually everything: all creation is illusory, and only God truly exists. Thus he speaks passionately about (for example) the need for social justice, since we are all sparks of God, and must see that in others. Numerous other theologies span Reconstructionism, but more or less all of them postulate an impersonal God at maximum, or an entirely metaphorical God at minimum.

As to the issue of being gay. Well, different rabbis will think differently about it. But in general, yes, the Haredim will shun you: I am fairly sure no Haredi rabbi would convert you. Modern Orthodoxy will probably be kinder, but will not really offer you much freedom to be yourself (vide this recent Statement of Principles regarding homosexuality published by a number of Modern Orthodox scholars in America; it represents arguably the greatest stride forward in Orthodox dealing with the gay issue, and it has been roundly condemned by centrist Orthodoxy and Haredim for being heretically permissive. Liberal Jews have been nominally supportive, although the general feeling is that it is an agonizingly small step toward solving an enormous problem of social justice). Steve Greenberg is an incredible guy, and he is certainly causing changes in Modern Orthodoxy. But I doubt that those changes will amount to much for gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews-- not in our lifetimes, anyway.

Would a Modern Orthodox rabbi convert you? Anything is possible. But my guess would be, no. Some might feel it would be more compassionate to refuse you entrance into a tradition that would condemn you as a sinner (unless you were permanently celibate, and relatively closeted). Some might feel it was not justifiable to convert someone who would be inevitably tempted by his own nature not to observe Orthodox halakhah. And those who would be willing to risk either of those two would likely be too afraid of the reaction of the right-wing institution if it were discovered that they did convert you, whether you remained celibate afterward or not. Modern Orthodox rabbis face devastating amounts of pressure from the Orthodox world not to be too radical, and essentially must constantly prove to the Orthodox institutions that they are not heretics (though most of Orthodoxy already considers them wellnigh heretics anyhow), on pain of being drummed out of the Rabbinical Council of America (the major, centrist, national organization of Orthodox rabbis), and/or fired from their pulpits, and/or being put into cherem (a bit like excommunication).

I won't lie-- there are gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews who love being Orthodoxy, and wouldn't trade it for anything, regardless of the issues to their personal lives. And if you're strongly drawn to being Orthodox, I'm not going to tell you not to try doing so. If you feel that way, and can find a rabbi willing to convert you, do it. But I think it would be a difficult life: personally, I wouldn't wish to be gay and Orthodox: to me, that just seems like a recipe for heartbreak and identity crisis. Nonetheless, I can also say honestly that there are wonderful and beautiful aspects to Orthodox life. I was raised Modern Orthodox, and I still retain much of the ritual practice and cultural tastes that I grew up with, and I find them to be some of the richest and most satisfying parts of my Jewish life.

Anyway, I don't think you should experience much in the way of problems in the non-Orthodox movements. There are, unfortunately, still a few homophobes (even homophobic rabbis) in the Conservative movement, but they are comparatively rare, and getting rarer. The likelihood is that any Conservative rabbi you're likely to encounter will be warm, welcoming, and sympathetic. I don’t want to be unfairly biased, but of course, personally I think Conservative/Masorti is a good place to be. IMO, you still have the tradition and supportive structure of halakhah that one can find in Orthodoxy, but along with it, the flexibility and open-mindedness necessary for life in a growing and evolving world. If you’re interested in exploring Masorti Judaism, I recommend going to the New North London Synagogue, and making the acquaintance of their rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg, who is also Senior Rabbi of The Assembly of Masorti Synagogues UK. He is an amazing human being, a tremendous scholar, and one of the warmest souls I have ever met. If you’re interested, PM me, and I can give you some info to help network a relationship with him.

Certainly the Reform movement won't give you any trouble. They were the first movement to openly accept gay and lesbian Jews, and have led the way for the rest of us in fighting homophobia in the Jewish community. It's probably clear that I have a lot of problems with the theology and practice of the Reform movement. But I would also be the last to deny that their communities are very open, welcoming, non-judgmental, and warm. Their movement offers a considerable amount of personal freedom in spirituality, and many find it deeply satisfying. I am friendly with numerous Reform scholars, and am actually married to a Reform rabbi, and they are all observant in one way or another, knowledgeable, and people of good spirit, making good contributions to the Jewish People. I am afraid I don’t know anyone Reform in England, but if you were interested, I could do some asking.

In any case, the only other advice that springs to mind vis-à-vis exploring your Jewish options is to plan on attending the annual Limmud conference ("limmud" is Hebrew for "learning" or "study"). Their programs are just superb, and have set an international standard for transdenominational Jewish conferences. And fortunately for you, they are in England. I don’t have details, but Limmud usually takes place (perhaps ironically) over the Christmas holiday.

Don't hesitate to ask any other questions!

 

[David_2010]

Glad to be of assistance!

Generally speaking, the Conservative movement has cordial relations with the other non-Orthodox movements. There are disagreements, of course: Conservative Judaism is a halakhic movement, and the Reform movement is quasi-halakhic at best, while Reconstructionist and the various Renewal fringe groups are non-halakhic. Also, the decision of the American Reform movement 20 or 30 years ago to introduce patrilineal descent as an acceptable determination of Jewish identity has been a severe strain on interdenominational relations.

(In case you haven't encountered this yet, traditional Judaism has always been matrilineal-- in other words, you're Jewish if your mother was Jewish. But a couple decades ago the American Reform movement, in an attempt to combat the overwhelming effect on their movement of intermarriage-- at last report, somewhere between 1/2 to 2/3 of Reform Jews in America are intermarried-- declared that if either of one's parents, regardless of gender, were Jewish, that made one Jewish. This has cause a great discomfort in the relationship with Conservative Judaism, and was essentially the last straw in pushing Modern Orthodoxy away from any real acceptance of Reform Judaism. It has also been disastrous in causing widespread crises of identity and acceptance, and many leading Reform scholars now feel the decision was ill-made, but are unsure how it could be withdrawn without disintigrating their movement, since it remains popular with the undereducated masses.)

The Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist movements usually act together in facing off against Haredi political activism, both in Israel and elsewhere, and they frequently collaborate on various programs of social justice and education. There is considerable mutual respect among the leading lights of the two movements, and much communal interaction between the movements at local levels. Both, though are experiencing similar problems of insufficient Jewish education in the movement.

While relations may be good, the two movements provide different experiences, and different tools. You should investiage the experiences before ultimately judging what works for you. Try different shuls. Attend different lectures or classes. See what feels right to you.

Thanks very much, and I'll definitely be keeping that advice, I'll try and see where I click the most (if that makes any sense?).

While we're discussing movements, the Reconstructionist movement-- which is mostly American-- was originally an offshoot of Conservative Judaism. It was begun in the early 20th Century by Mordecai Kaplan, a Conservative rabbi and professor at Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. Kaplan was a modernist, one of the last of the thinkers directly influenced by the Enlightenment. He felt that a modern Judaism needed to be pruned of archaisms and philosophical dead weight, but he also felt that tradition was important, because it was the core of culture (he was greatly influenced by anthropology). He was also essentially an atheist, who believed that God was a metaphor, the name given to the spirit of positive action in community. Kaplanian Reconstructionism observes the mitzvot not because they believe they are commanded, but because that is what Jews do, and doing so preserves the character of Jewish culture. The movment began to evolve other views also, and after the Nineties, the predominate non-Kaplanian theology was the neo-Hasidism of Arthur Green. Green is essentially a monist: he postulated a God who was not only impersonal, the living force of all creation, but-- following the Kabbalistic tradition of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe-- was actually everything: all creation is illusory, and only God truly exists. Thus he speaks passionately about (for example) the need for social justice, since we are all sparks of God, and must see that in others. Numerous other theologies span Reconstructionism, but more or less all of them postulate an impersonal God at maximum, or an entirely metaphorical God at minimum.

I've actually read some of Arthur Green's books, I think one was 'Ehyeh: A Kabbalah for Tomorrow' and I've got 'Seek My Face, Speak My Name: A Contemporary Jewish Theology', but, I haven't really started it yet. I did quite like 'Ehyeh', what's Green's reputation like in the wider Jewish community, like, I mean, is his work respected and authentic?.

 

[David_2010]

As to the issue of being gay. Well, different rabbis will think differently about it. But in general, yes, the Haredim will shun you: I am fairly sure no Haredi rabbi would convert you. Modern Orthodoxy will probably be kinder, but will not really offer you much freedom to be yourself (vide this recent Statement of Principles regarding homosexuality published by a number of Modern Orthodox scholars in America; it represents arguably the greatest stride forward in Orthodox dealing with the gay issue, and it has been roundly condemned by centrist Orthodoxy and Haredim for being heretically permissive. Liberal Jews have been nominally supportive, although the general feeling is that it is an agonizingly small step toward solving an enormous problem of social justice). Steve Greenberg is an incredible guy, and he is certainly causing changes in Modern Orthodoxy. But I doubt that those changes will amount to much for gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews-- not in our lifetimes, anyway.

Would a Modern Orthodox rabbi convert you? Anything is possible. But my guess would be, no. Some might feel it would be more compassionate to refuse you entrance into a tradition that would condemn you as a sinner (unless you were permanently celibate, and relatively closeted). Some might feel it was not justifiable to convert someone who would be inevitably tempted by his own nature not to observe Orthodox halakhah. And those who would be willing to risk either of those two would likely be too afraid of the reaction of the right-wing institution if it were discovered that they did convert you, whether you remained celibate afterward or not. Modern Orthodox rabbis face devastating amounts of pressure from the Orthodox world not to be too radical, and essentially must constantly prove to the Orthodox institutions that they are not heretics (though most of Orthodoxy already considers them wellnigh heretics anyhow), on pain of being drummed out of the Rabbinical Council of America (the major, centrist, national organization of Orthodox rabbis), and/or fired from their pulpits, and/or being put into cherem (a bit like excommunication).

I won't lie-- there are gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews who love being Orthodoxy, and wouldn't trade it for anything, regardless of the issues to their personal lives. And if you're strongly drawn to being Orthodox, I'm not going to tell you not to try doing so. If you feel that way, and can find a rabbi willing to convert you, do it. But I think it would be a difficult life: personally, I wouldn't wish to be gay and Orthodox: to me, that just seems like a recipe for heartbreak and identity crisis. Nonetheless, I can also say honestly that there are wonderful and beautiful aspects to Orthodox life. I was raised Modern Orthodox, and I still retain much of the ritual practice and cultural tastes that I grew up with, and I find them to be some of the richest and most satisfying parts of my Jewish life.

Thanks for the summary of the Orthodox position, I thought that that would probably be one of the denominations that would have a problem with my sexuality, maybe one day, in the distant future, there'll be more Orthodox Rabbi's like Greenberg, willing to come out, and be Orthodox and gay, and that might help change the position.

Anyway, I don't think you should experience much in the way of problems in the non-Orthodox movements. There are, unfortunately, still a few homophobes (even homophobic rabbis) in the Conservative movement, but they are comparatively rare, and getting rarer. The likelihood is that any Conservative rabbi you're likely to encounter will be warm, welcoming, and sympathetic. I don’t want to be unfairly biased, but of course, personally I think Conservative/Masorti is a good place to be. IMO, you still have the tradition and supportive structure of halakhah that one can find in Orthodoxy, but along with it, the flexibility and open-mindedness necessary for life in a growing and evolving world. If you’re interested in exploring Masorti Judaism, I recommend going to the New North London Synagogue, and making the acquaintance of their rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg, who is also Senior Rabbi of The Assembly of Masorti Synagogues UK. He is an amazing human being, a tremendous scholar, and one of the warmest souls I have ever met. If you’re interested, PM me, and I can give you some info to help network a relationship with him.

Certainly the Reform movement won't give you any trouble. They were the first movement to openly accept gay and lesbian Jews, and have led the way for the rest of us in fighting homophobia in the Jewish community. It's probably clear that I have a lot of problems with the theology and practice of the Reform movement. But I would also be the last to deny that their communities are very open, welcoming, non-judgmental, and warm. Their movement offers a considerable amount of personal freedom in spirituality, and many find it deeply satisfying. I am friendly with numerous Reform scholars, and am actually married to a Reform rabbi, and they are all observant in one way or another, knowledgeable, and people of good spirit, making good contributions to the Jewish People. I am afraid I don’t know anyone Reform in England, but if you were interested, I could do some asking.

Thanks very much, I think I might be interested in that North London Synagogue, I don't think it would actually be too out of the way for me either (it's not exactly down the road, but, I think it should only take about 20 minutes or something by train, which is just down the road from me).

In any case, the only other advice that springs to mind vis-à-vis exploring your Jewish options is to plan on attending the annual Limmud conference ("limmud" is Hebrew for "learning" or "study"). Their programs are just superb, and have set an international standard for transdenominational Jewish conferences. And fortunately for you, they are in England. I don’t have details, but Limmud usually takes place (perhaps ironically) over the Christmas holiday.

Don't hesitate to ask any other questions!

Thanks for that, I've never heard of it before, but, I was watching a video that they linked too about Limmud, and it does look quite cool, do you know if you get all types of Jews going there (young, older, new, inexperienced, etc)?.

Thanks again very much .

 

[David_2010]

Sorry for having to split the post, but, apparantly, it was too long altogether.

 

[Levite]

I've actually read some of Arthur Green's books, I think one was 'Ehyeh: A Kabbalah for Tomorrow' and I've got 'Seek My Face, Speak My Name: A Contemporary Jewish Theology', but, I haven't really started it yet. I did quite like 'Ehyeh', what's Green's reputation like in the wider Jewish community, like, I mean, is his work respected and authentic?.

I don't know how he is thought of in Orthodox circles-- my guess would be that outside some of the educated Modern Orthodox, he is largely unknown. Haredim are usually quite successful at shunning any kind of "heretical" or "dangerous" literature or other media, and I have met few Haredim who have read much Jewish theology outside of the classic Jewish scholars, or some of the modern Haredi rabbis' works. The few Modern Orthodox friends I have with whom I feel comfortable debating theology and philosophy have generally been of the opinion that Green is interesting-- perhaps even brilliant-- but terribly misguided and even heretical, even if with the best of intentions, although I do know one Modern Orthodox rabbi who says that Green is brilliant, and while his work may be unacceptable to Orthodox halakhah, it represents inspiring and challenging philosophical points to which Orthodoxy ought to respond.

Most of the non-Orthodox Jews I know who have read his work consider it to be brilliant, even if they don't always agree with it. He certainly has the reputation of a great scholar, and he is known to be a truly good person, who lives a kind life full of compassionate deeds. Among my colleagues in the Conservative rabbinate, I know many who disagree with his theological vision, but all respect his passion for social justice and desire to touch the mystical. I would certainly say he is respected in general in the non-Orthodox world, and I expect that his work is as authentic as any theologian around.

Thanks for that, I've never heard of it before, but, I was watching a video that they linked too about Limmud, and it does look quite cool, do you know if you get all types of Jews going there (young, older, new, inexperienced, etc)?

I've never actually made it to the English Limmud, but I've been to the one they've started holding near me, and it was quite good. From what I hear about the English Limmud from my many friends who have attended and/or taught there, you do indeed find all types of Jews there: young and old, experienced and inexperienced, Jews By Choice and Jews From Birth, and from all the movements, and from all over the world.

 

[David_2010]

I don't know how he is thought of in Orthodox circles-- my guess would be that outside some of the educated Modern Orthodox, he is largely unknown. Haredim are usually quite successful at shunning any kind of "heretical" or "dangerous" literature or other media, and I have met few Haredim who have read much Jewish theology outside of the classic Jewish scholars, or some of the modern Haredi rabbis' works. The few Modern Orthodox friends I have with whom I feel comfortable debating theology and philosophy have generally been of the opinion that Green is interesting-- perhaps even brilliant-- but terribly misguided and even heretical, even if with the best of intentions, although I do know one Modern Orthodox rabbi who says that Green is brilliant, and while his work may be unacceptable to Orthodox halakhah, it represents inspiring and challenging philosophical points to which Orthodoxy ought to respond.

Most of the non-Orthodox Jews I know who have read his work consider it to be brilliant, even if they don't always agree with it. He certainly has the reputation of a great scholar, and he is known to be a truly good person, who lives a kind life full of compassionate deeds. Among my colleagues in the Conservative rabbinate, I know many who disagree with his theological vision, but all respect his passion for social justice and desire to touch the mystical. I would certainly say he is respected in general in the non-Orthodox world, and I expect that his work is as authentic as any theologian around.

Thanks very much, I liked what I've read of his books so far, and he also seems to be able to explain Kabbalah and other aspects of Jewish mysticism in an understandable manner.

I've never actually made it to the English Limmud, but I've been to the one
they've started holding near me, and it was quite good. From what I hear about the English Limmud from my many friends who have attended and/or taught there, you do indeed find all types of Jews there: young and old, experienced and inexperienced, Jews By Choice and Jews From Birth, and from all the movements, and from all over the world.

I think I will definitely try to attend then, sometime, it does sound very interesting and quite cool.