Conservatism took a huge dive in membership after adopting the idea of ordaining women, and the subsequent acceptance of full female participation at religious services. But why? There is no doubt that much of this was plain sexism. But it goes beyond that. The main draw of Conservatism over Orthodoxy for many people was that it appeared to be more "flexible", allowing the not-allowable where circumstances were seen as warranting that. Reform was seen by most Jews as simply being not "Jewish enough". The abandonment of familiar rituals and observances just seemed alien to most people. The President of one Conservative synagogue told me that when the synagogue was first built, they really wanted to make it Reform, but "they were embarrassed". Critics of the decision within the Conservative movement said "OK, we're going egalitarian. But what is next? Will we OK homosexuality as well?". The answer was a resounding "no, that will never happen". A leader of Conservatism about a decade ago reiterated that the gay issue was completely out of bounds, as the Torah and Talmud are both unequivocally opposed to these behaviors. An outcry went up from the rank and file "we are an historical movement, not a halachic movement!" At the next convention of Conservative rabbis, a pro-gay resolution was passed. There was no semblance of a halachic basis, just sociology. Many felt they no longer had a home in the Conservative movement. It no longer seemed to be the happy medium between Orthodoxy and Reform. It was now "Reform Lite". Indeed, theologically, the only issues that divide the movements are intermarriage, patrilineal descent, and the observance of Kashrut at public functions. In many outlying areas, compromises on these issues are already being made. Although many differences of style still exist, many people believe that a merger of Conservative and Reform Judaism is only a few years away.
With the decline in membership came other problems. The training of Conservative rabbis, although far weaker in halachah than their Orthodox counterparts, was far more comprehensive in many other ways. Few Orthodox rabbis have training in history, philosophy or psychology that comes near to what is taught at the Conservative seminary. Conservative rabbis are trained in homiletics (how to give an effective sermon), and even how to deal with a synagogue board! Such training demands a professional salary, which many congregations could no longer afford. (A beginning rabbinic salary for A Conservative rabbi is about triple that of an Orthodox one). At first, many Conservative congregations hired Orthodox rabbis. However, as the movement drifted further away from Orthodox practice, this became unrealistic. Two highly regrettable things occurred. One was that many cantors, who knew the prayers but little else, PURCHASED rabbinic ordination from unscrupulous rabbis (any ordained rabbi can ordain another. This would not be recognized by other institutions if done not based on merit, but cash-strapped synagogues could not afford to be choosy). Another phenomenon is "quicky seminaries". A two week seminar, or even a brief online course, could win one the title "rabbi". These "rabbis" have no trouble finding employment at small, out of the way communities. They essentially make it up as they go along. Many of these synagogues become social action centers, or, in the case of female rabbis, feminist consciousness raising groups.
What can Orthodoxy learn from these situations? What do we need to avoid, and what do we need to strengthen? That will be my next post.