Playing Follow the Leader?

By Eytan Kobre

An Op-Ed piece reprinted from the English Forward (on April 28, 2000)

Three liberal Jewish movements went on record last month with public positions on two important moral issues. The back-to-back announcement of these positions was serendipitous, for it provides a wealth of insight to individual Jews -- particularly those affiliated with the Conservative movement -- who are trying to decide whether these groups speak for them.

In Greensboro, N.C., the Reform rabbinical association, amid much debate and fanfare, placed its official imprimatur upon same-gender commitment ceremonies. One day earlier, in Washington, D.C., the Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist rabbinical and lay organizations joined various non-Jewish religious groups in submitting to the Supreme Court a friend-of-the-court brief in support of partial-birth abortion.

Reform's sanction of same-sex commitment ceremonies was a brash move, a decisive further step away from the historically recognized core of Judaic values. And predictably, the Conservative movement's response was to voice its disagreement with the Reform position, while affirming that rabbis who perform such ceremonies are allowed to remain members of the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly. Apparently, the Conservative movement insists on having it both ways, declaring that same-sex ceremonies are not legitimate but the rabbis who perform them are.

The many Conservative-affiliated Jews who subscribe to the Torah's clear prohibition against homosexual relations have good reason not to feel overly reassured, however, by their movement's current disapproval of same-sex ceremonies. As Rabbi Joel Roth, author of the Rabbinical Assembly's responsum banning homosexual rabbis, noted last year regarding renewed efforts to undo the ban: "I'm worn out from this battle....It takes a lot of guts to be politically incorrect in today's climate." And indeed, a well-known axiom of Jewish denominational politics has it that the Conservative movement generally follows the Reform lead on religious issues with a lag of five to 10 years.

The new united front presented by the Reform and Conservative movements on partial-birth abortion is a clear confirmation of this follow-the-leader trend. The submission to the Supreme Court notes that in 1991 the Conservative movement reaffirmed that "under special circumstances, Judaism chooses and requires abortion as an act which affirms and protects the life, wellbeing and health of the mother." This is a rather traditional position, one with which, at least in part, even Orthodox halachists might agree. Yet, the current brief uses that 1991 statement as a basis for an entirely new, and nonhalachic, stance under which the "Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist [movements] share a more liberal approach," holding that "individual women may treat an abortion decision in light of their own religious and moral views."

Treating the decision to abort as one to be made based on personal conscience rather than Jewish law is nothing new for Reform, but is a radical departure for a Conservative movement that portrays itself as loyal to Halacha. Such an approach brings the Conservative leadership into lockstep with their Reform and Reconstructionist colleagues, albeit after the requisite lapse of time from the latter two groups' adoption of a pro-choice platform.

It's no wonder, then, that this position makes only a one-sentence appearance on page 18 of a legal brief rather than in a high-profile press release. Given more exposure, it might well cause considerable consternation among the many Conservative Jews who identify with the movement because of its ostensible fealty to Halacha and rejection of Reform's theology of personal religious autonomy.

Interestingly, the Reform view on abortion is presented in the partial-birth abortion brief in terms that are anything but radical. The section of the brief discussing Reform's position takes pains to make clear that Reform rabbis "turn to religious law and teachings for guidance in providing" counsel on abortion, and it assures the reader that "Judaism has laws governing the issue of abortion, but each case is considered individually." Such misleading statements give the impression that, to paraphrase the old Russian Tea Room ad, Reform is just slightly to the left of Conservatism and that its religious leaders are guided first and foremost by "Jewish law and teachings" with allowances made, of course, for a consideration of individual circumstances.

The same-sex resolution at Greensboro must come, then, to readers of the brief as a startling revelation. Amazingly, on consecutive days in one week, the Reform movement first embraced Jewish law as its guide and then voted to excise from its version of the Torah entire passages dealing with some of the weightiest moral proscriptions. One may reasonably ask: Is Judaism to be consulted on abortion but not on homosexuality?

Apart from what these events imply about Reform's theological consistency, they present Conservative Jews with much food for thought. After all, if the Reform movement speaketh thus, Conservatism's current self-description as an halachic movement cannot give much comfort to those of its members who are, and plan to continue to be, unwilling to regard Leviticus and its moral standards as religiously irrelevant.

When the Conservative movement decided to ordain women, sidestepping its own Law Committee, leading Reform theologian Eugene Borowitz congratulated a prominent Conservative colleague, saying: "Welcome to the Reform movement! I know you tried not to succumb, but now there's no longer any difference between us." Although putting out the welcome mat in 1983 may have been a bit premature, serious Conservative Jews would do well to ponder whether subsequent developments are proving Rabbi Borowitz's foresight to be all too accurate.