Michael Medved finally finds Conservatives he dislikes.

Besides Joseph Farah, I mean.

Yes, apparently in addition to being politically more holier-than-thou, it appears Mike's also a former Conservative- now MO- Jew, and as such, feels free to bash it. Fair enough. I bash a hell of a lot of things, and as I've said elsewhere, if anything I'm a Reform or Recon who likes to sing Hebrew. But some of ol' Mike's criticisms just didn't seem, well... fair. And since Ortho triumphalism (not unlike other forms of it) happens to be something I find extremely grating, I thought I'd take a look.

For several generations, most Americans have embraced what could be described as the Goldilocks attitude toward religion: affirming faith choices that seemed not too soft but not too hard, not too hot but not too cool. Majorities viewed easy-going moderation and comforting compromise as the religious path that counted as "just right."

Not too itchy, but not one of those pansy hypoallergenic blends.

Conservative Judaism — the "middle branch" of the ancient faith — always exemplified the "Goldilocks" orientation with its emphasis on the "sweet spot" between stringencies of Orthodox observance and the anything-goes adaptability of Reform.

And if America's taught us anything, it's that compromise is the work of the Devil.

But just before Passover, the Conservative movement's flagship institution, The Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), announced a controversial decision highlighting the painful contradictions of middle way religions.

Following the findings of an expert panel filed last December, JTS signaled its intention to accept openly gay candidates for the rabbinate and to raise no objection to their involvement in same-sex commitment ceremonies. For a movement that still stresses time-honored standards of Sabbath observance and kosher food, this represents a stunning break with tradition. A spiritual leader proudly, publicly promoting consumption of pork would never fit in with the Conservative rabbinate, but this same denomination now will sanction rabbis who call unblushing communal attention to their personal practice of sexual relations that the Torah describes as "abomination."

Except that, to use your examples, the Orthodox argue that the Torah also condemns driving to shul, which is a longstanding Conservative practice, to the point that it has become normative and PART of Conservative tradition. Ditto with swordfish. They examined the evidence available to them, voted on it, and made a decision which will eventually become the new standard. Sort of like when haredi rabbis ban wigs or declare that only certain kinds of bleach are kosher for passover.

As I understand it, the point of the Conservative Law Committee is not, "the Torah says don't do X, screw the Torah!" Rather, it is, "the Torah says don't do X- are we sure that Y applies?" You can disagree with the methodology or the reasoning, but don't misrepresent the intent. This is less about looking for holes in halacha than it is about trying to determine exactly where the limits of halacha are- not unlike, say, Rabbenu Gershom's ban on polygamy (where did he pull that from?)

There's more.

Unfortunately for today's leaders, there is little wiggle room on biblical insistence on male-female marriage. Not only does Leviticus (part of the Torah that's sacred to all Jews) specifically prohibit lying "with a man as one lies with a woman" (18:22) but the description of the very first marriage (between Adam and Eve) makes clear that the ultimate union of two souls requires partners of opposite genders. When the Torah (Genesis 2:24) says a man will "cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh," it's not just referring to an emotional or erotic relationship, but the unique ability of a male-female couple to fuse in the creation of children.

Ok, A- there's still debate over defining exactly what that Leviticus verse exactly prohibits (especially if you and the wife are into experimenting). B- What about that Midrash that talks about the first man being a hermaphrodite? How does that measure into your neat little marriage package? And C- you could just as easily cherry-pick a quote about how joyful the Sabbath is; it doesn't mean that the whole thing turns to ashes and sackcloth if you drive to shul. And even if we're going to view the primary purpose and validation of marriage or relationships in terms of their ability to procreate (which seems a tad off to me), in this day and age, a man and a woman are far from the only combination that can lead to the creation of a child.

Religious liberals in Christian as well as Jewish denominations call it hypocritical to focus on biblical definitions of marriage or sanctions against homosexuality, while readily disregarding so many other rules from Scripture. Despite Old Testament references, they note, most people don't marry multiple wives today, or employ slave-like indentured servants in our homes, or avoid eating shellfish. But the Bible merely permitted polygamy and indentured servitude in certain circumstances, never commanding those practices for everyone. In Jewish law, male-female marriage, on the other hand, is a mitzvah — an obligation, a commandment. And to this day, Conservative Judaism still doesn't sanction shrimp.

See above Mike, cars on Shabbos and swordfish. There's precedent. You don't have to like it, but there it is.

...public pressure — not some startling discovery of ancient text — forced [Conservative] adjustment to 21st century trends. Arnold Eisen, chancellor-elect of The Jewish Theological Seminary, declared: "The decision to ordain gay and lesbian clergy at JTS is in keeping with the longstanding commitment of the Jewish tradition to pluralism. Pluralism means that we recognize more than one way to be a good Conservative Jew, more than one way of walking authentically in the path of our tradition."

In other words, he now embraces moral relativism in its modern-day "let's not be judgmental" garb and abandons the traditional role of religion to command or at least suggest clear standards for human behavior and intimate relationships.

The interesting thing here is that Medved continually believes that any decision by the Conservatives is motivated out of cynical self-interest as a marketing tool, not any sort of actual ideological belief. This is fine, of course, but it would be a little easier to swallow if he didn't tend to be such an apologist for things that fit his own political agenda and chide others on their lack of faith or benefit of the doubt.

Disaffected young people seldom flock to watered-down versions of religious faith that lack continuity or integrity. The rapidly growing denominations are those that make demands on potential adherents and advance clear standards of right and wrong. That's why Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity has grown while "mainline" Protestant denominations have dwindled, and why traditionalist Catholicism boasts more worldwide vitality than liberal strains of the church. Meanwhile, Mormons uphold multiple restrictions (giving up alcohol, coffee, tobacco, among other things) and yet constitute one of the fastest-growing creeds in the USA.

None of which, I'm sure, has anything to do with these folks' stance on birth control, abortion, or the value they place on having very large families, right? How about some stats on growth through changes in affiliation alone?

In Judaism, the same dynamic applies: with tepid, uncertain versions of the faith fighting a losing battle to maintain the affiliation of their young people, while the unaffiliated explore enthusiastic, traditionalist sects. No movement in Judaism has experienced anything like the explosive recent growth of the Hassidic organization, Chabad, with its 3,300 community centers miraculously appearing nearly everywhere and transforming the face of American Judaism. The Conservative movement has been losing influence during the past 40 years not because of its unbending adherence to outmoded rituals but because of its confusion, contradictions and gradual disregard of tradition.

Michael's partially right here, except he's forgetting that at the moment, REFORM is the largest denomination in America. So much for people only being interested in Chabad.

The core question remains the nature of religion itself and our relation to it. Should we challenge ourselves, or our faith traditions? Do we measure religion against personal impulses and values, or should we judge our impulses and values against religion? Should we adjust our faith to suit current trends and to enhance our comfort and convenience, or should we evaluate trends in the light of timeless teachings, no matter how unfashionable or inconvenient?

Or should we, like the Conservative movement has attempted to do, try some combination of BOTH? What a concept.

The choice is stark and, on the issue of marriage, inescapable. Talk of "pluralism" only dodges the issue, because if religion fails to provide forceful guidance on the most crucial behavioral issues of life, it offers only meager servings of lukewarm porridge. That might be good enough for Goldilocks, but it won't nourish the spiritual seekers who desire — and deserve — more commitment and clarity.

Fine, Michael. Let people who don't want to be Conservative Jews not be. But you're mistaken if you think that pluralism is a dodge and an excuse for Conservative to be as liberal as possible- the fact is that pluralism is a value. It may not be one of yours, but it is for millions of others, including, apparently, Conservative Jews. Yes, religion should indeed be a guiding force as well, but, as in pluralism itself, I believe there are many paths to Heaven or Enlightenment or whatever. Your suggestion to Conservative Judaism is that it become Orthodox (or maybe just on issues that really push your buttons, I can't tell). Some seekers may be turned off by perceived wishy-washiness, and that indeed is an issue. But so is defining exactly what the movement wants its future to be. It needs to find a way to hold its own in the middle while increasing numbers of Jews become- and choose to be- polarized. Conservative Judaism should not sell out its principles- whatever they are- to attract more members, either from the right OR the left. It needs to define ITSELF and try to enforce its own standards- not mine, and not yours. If pluralism is indeed a value of Conservative Judaism, its leaders need to figure out how to incorporate that into its future, on the one hand, not becoming "anything goes", but also not being instinctively reactionary on issues that happen to be controversial. You would have Conservative attempt to be Orthodox Lite (the easier to attack it, I suppose). I say let it find its own way.