We have seen how pressures for "equality"  of women in the Conservative movement brought about changes that none had foreseen at the beginning of the controversy, and how rather than expanding the movement, it left it in a state of near collapse. What is to be learned from this?
First of all, when a group of people want change, it is important to ascertain if this is the desire of most people, or merely of a vocal minority. As  we have seen in our own group, discussion of women's role in Judaism brings out expressions of "yes, we need equality...yesterday!" But we have seen others say "we don't want THAT kind of equality. We are different from men. We have different needs and different roles. We don't want change, just respect!" Yet another voice is heard: "Change is good for those who want it. I don't feel the need!" Such varied responses call for a frank discussion, not immediate action. How can everyone's needs be met, without disenfranchising large groups with other ideas?
Back in the early '70s, I was a campus rabbi. Young people wanted to pray. But they didn't relate to traditional prayers. The result was "the Creative Service". Students would put together a worship service consisting of original poetry, popular songs (mostly Judy Collins and Peter Paul and Mary). Needless to say, that could not be meaningful unless changed often. I still love that music, but my kids would not have a clue as to who those singers were, or why anybody would relate to that sort of music. As to the poetry, the frequent use of terms such as "mind blowing", "out of sight" and "far out" would elicit giggles today. Does this mean that the "Creative Service" is a good idea, but needs to be rewritten frequently, or is it fundamentally flawed by a belief that "we can do it better"? In many Orthodox synagogues, as well as some Conservative, the emphasis was put not on change, but on helping worshipers to understand and identify with the prayers that had served our people well for thousands of years. "Interpretive Services" became, and remain, the preferred method. Beyond prayer, is the problem with Judaism that it has flaws which need fixing, or that we simply don't understand its depth and beauty? Is Judaism perhaps an ancient classic, written in a language that only scholars can understand? If THAT is the case, we don't need a feeble attempt at rewriting it, or even translating it, but merely to learn the language. The messages of Shabbat, holidays, kashrut, tefillin need to be understood, with people taught how to relate. We don't need a new kind of tefillin! We need to understand the old, in its own "language".
Several years ago, I was browsing in a library (remember those?) I happened to pick up a book called "Hiring a Rabbi or Cantor".I only took a glance, but saw something that made a profound impression on me. Clergy and Congregants have fundamentally different needs. Rabbis and Cantors usually want to change tunes (both literally and figuratively) frequently, in order to keep the service fresh and contemporary. Congregants usually want everything to stay the same. They seek a connection to their parents and grandparents, to their own childhood and younger years. A new tune for Kl Nidrei might be momentarily interesting, or even exciting. But the connection to ages of Jews who sang the same words, in the same way,  at the same time of year, in the midst of hopes and fears, triumphs and tragedies, would be lost. Can we say that one side is wrong and one side is right? There is a delicate balance between "now" and "forever".
More thoughts in my next post.