"Values are for babies. Deeds are for grown-ups."
I went to the first of two free classes that Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanafsky of Ansche Chesed is having about why he's so in love with Conservative Judaism, and kind of down on this whole post-denominational thing. My friend Jenn has told many good things about Jeremy, and it's been years since I've had anyone talk about how much they liked the big C--plus, I scratched out most of a draft about, as my notes read, "J-fem & JPD", and I wanted a different angle to crash around my head for a while.
The class was great--he's an excellent speaker. None of it was that revolutionary to me, but the contrast to p-d, which was pretty much just hitting the scene the first time I learnt all this, was very interesting. Jeremy is put off by what he considers to be the smugly self-congratulatory tone of much post-denominationalism. Then again, he also said something to the effect that "almost every post-denominational Jew is a Conservative Jew", so I guess any detected smugness would be doubly irksome. More on this later.
Pretty much, he's devised a slogan for Conservative Judaism: "Faithfulness and Critique". He explains this as the difference between authoratative and authoritarian Judaism, or between rabbinic and halakhic. (I've also heard the phrase "living halakha", but I bet a lot of people would be even more put off by the implications of that phrase than by the contrast with "rabbinic".)
He discussed the difference between a "sect" (small, chosen, intense, demanding) and a "church" (large, often inherited, accomadating), as presented by certain German philosophers whose names I lost on the late-night G train. The tragic flaw with the system, of course, is the fact that sects, if they are successful, generally attract a lot of people and become churches, which kind of suck and certainly don't get the theological problems tackled with the same weight.
He acknowledged that the name of our movement totally sucks ("but only because 'Positive Historical Judaism' is even more lame"), but he has a very interesting view of the role denominations play in our lifes. Quoting George Lindbeck, R. Kalmanafksy said that denominations function much like cultural idioms, providing us with our view of the world. For this reason--also, he claims that only a movement can found institutions (an interesting point of view for somebody whose kid goes to the Heschel School, which doesn't identify and which I have heard held up as THE example of a p-d institution)---he's very into them.
What I thought the most interesting moment of class came not during the discriptions of what Conservative Judaism is, although phrases like "the search for the possibility of truth in majority and dissenting opinions" strike at something deep inside me. (Frankly, I don't need to be sold. At sixteen, with the smartest rabbinical student I'd ever met, I was sold hardcore. But I did appreciate the comments about "a sane traditionalism".) I love the idea that Jewish practice and learning should function as a path towards, not from God. I love the balance between faith and questioning, the implication that the best way to honor an idea is to do it because you love it and not be afraid of poking at it some. I am more comfortabe with the idea of "striving for God" than any other summation of what Judaism should do for me. And these are all the ideas that were being espoused. So the best moment really gelled when a really nice rabbinical student named Brett explained that he understood why Jeremy would cherish and promote the Judaism he had just explicated for almost two hours--but why did he feel that that Judaism is (or, perhaps better, "still is") Conservative Judaism? Although our seminaries are grappling with these issues, they're not really being addressed in the synagogues. I don't know if they're being addressed sufficiently in the Schecter system or Ramah, either (I wouldn't...). And United Synagoge? Say what now?
I was so pleased that this was brought up. Because the problem that was brought up--that Conservative Judaism is too pareve these days--is a far too flippant way to see the issue. I have known some of the most inspirational Conservative Jewish rabbis and rabbinical students--Menachem Creditor, Risa Weinstein, Danya Ruttenberg--and I know that they get it, and they all manage to pass the fire along. But I also learned the phrase "post-denominational" from Danya at a conference, and I think that there are a few too Jeremy Kalmanafskys in the world. I think that he's on to something brilliant with the theory that the Judaism he practices may be the only one to really live on into a "post-Liberal world", but the absolutely terrible PR scheme we've got working for us know might just cause a permanent mutation into a Post-Denominational Movement. And, as long as the thing itself survives, who cares what it's called?
Kol tov...
The class was great--he's an excellent speaker. None of it was that revolutionary to me, but the contrast to p-d, which was pretty much just hitting the scene the first time I learnt all this, was very interesting. Jeremy is put off by what he considers to be the smugly self-congratulatory tone of much post-denominationalism. Then again, he also said something to the effect that "almost every post-denominational Jew is a Conservative Jew", so I guess any detected smugness would be doubly irksome. More on this later.
Pretty much, he's devised a slogan for Conservative Judaism: "Faithfulness and Critique". He explains this as the difference between authoratative and authoritarian Judaism, or between rabbinic and halakhic. (I've also heard the phrase "living halakha", but I bet a lot of people would be even more put off by the implications of that phrase than by the contrast with "rabbinic".)
He discussed the difference between a "sect" (small, chosen, intense, demanding) and a "church" (large, often inherited, accomadating), as presented by certain German philosophers whose names I lost on the late-night G train. The tragic flaw with the system, of course, is the fact that sects, if they are successful, generally attract a lot of people and become churches, which kind of suck and certainly don't get the theological problems tackled with the same weight.
He acknowledged that the name of our movement totally sucks ("but only because 'Positive Historical Judaism' is even more lame"), but he has a very interesting view of the role denominations play in our lifes. Quoting George Lindbeck, R. Kalmanafksy said that denominations function much like cultural idioms, providing us with our view of the world. For this reason--also, he claims that only a movement can found institutions (an interesting point of view for somebody whose kid goes to the Heschel School, which doesn't identify and which I have heard held up as THE example of a p-d institution)---he's very into them.
What I thought the most interesting moment of class came not during the discriptions of what Conservative Judaism is, although phrases like "the search for the possibility of truth in majority and dissenting opinions" strike at something deep inside me. (Frankly, I don't need to be sold. At sixteen, with the smartest rabbinical student I'd ever met, I was sold hardcore. But I did appreciate the comments about "a sane traditionalism".) I love the idea that Jewish practice and learning should function as a path towards, not from God. I love the balance between faith and questioning, the implication that the best way to honor an idea is to do it because you love it and not be afraid of poking at it some. I am more comfortabe with the idea of "striving for God" than any other summation of what Judaism should do for me. And these are all the ideas that were being espoused. So the best moment really gelled when a really nice rabbinical student named Brett explained that he understood why Jeremy would cherish and promote the Judaism he had just explicated for almost two hours--but why did he feel that that Judaism is (or, perhaps better, "still is") Conservative Judaism? Although our seminaries are grappling with these issues, they're not really being addressed in the synagogues. I don't know if they're being addressed sufficiently in the Schecter system or Ramah, either (I wouldn't...). And United Synagoge? Say what now?
I was so pleased that this was brought up. Because the problem that was brought up--that Conservative Judaism is too pareve these days--is a far too flippant way to see the issue. I have known some of the most inspirational Conservative Jewish rabbis and rabbinical students--Menachem Creditor, Risa Weinstein, Danya Ruttenberg--and I know that they get it, and they all manage to pass the fire along. But I also learned the phrase "post-denominational" from Danya at a conference, and I think that there are a few too Jeremy Kalmanafskys in the world. I think that he's on to something brilliant with the theory that the Judaism he practices may be the only one to really live on into a "post-Liberal world", but the absolutely terrible PR scheme we've got working for us know might just cause a permanent mutation into a Post-Denominational Movement. And, as long as the thing itself survives, who cares what it's called?
Kol tov...
posted by Di Freye Froy at 8:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home