I think if you go to a retreat sponsoored by a socially radical group the likes of Hadar, you are going to hear these types of things.These are, after all, socially left-wing Jews who prefer to spend time only with other Jews, so claims of multi-culturalists are too silly even for them, and they therefore have to justify that ethnocentrism they aren't "right-wing" with claims of liberalism. Bush is an obvious target for such an attempt to gain street cred as "liberal" and "left".

Hadar isn't "socially radical" for its milieu: liberal Jewish Ivy-educated Manhattan. It's actually centrist within that environment, which makes it "radical" to someone from Kansas. Then, this couple were on the left edge of the group as a whole."socially left-wing Jews who prefer to spend time only with other Jews"I don't know about that. I don't know who they hang out with when they are not in shul. And a large percentage work in the Jewish professional world (rabbis, educators, non-profit workers), so saying they "prefer to hang out with Jews" is like saying "lawyers prefer to hang out with lawyers" or even "stamp collectors hang out with stamp collectors." Judaism is their day job as well as their hobby, as well as their source of meaning and community. So of course they will hang out with others who feel the same way. Everyone does that.

When you are attempting to reconcile a traditional and patriarchal religion with modern, egaliatrian notions (as Hadar is attempting) and pretend there's no problem, this will lead to neurosis, no matter how ivy educated the congregation, no matter how "centrist" it is pragmatically.It is radical in the sense that it is a community that prides itself on being "traditional", when it is in fact quite concerned with being Western, even if selectively so, and "independent" when its parent synagogue, KOE, was a Conservative movement derivative, and one deemed too right-wing by Hadar's founders.I think the error is that while ivy league education and wealth does qualify one for priveledge and elitism - this is not the same as authority within a theology, a phenomenon frequently masked by the term "halachic process."

"When you are attempting to reconcile a traditional and patriarchal religion with modern, egaliatrian notions (as Hadar is attempting) and pretend there's no problem"This "attempt" has been going on for the past 50 years in Judaism, at least; Hadar is certainly breaking no new ground there. So I am not sure what this "problem" is or how it relates to particular political stances.I am a Jew who finds egalitarian traditional musical davening most facilitative of my ability to pray and experience God and community with my fellow Jews. I am also more of a "classic" liberal, which these days would be a "neocon." Does that combination make me less "neurotic" than the Jews I daven with?I don't see the connection.

Within Conservative Judaism, egalitarianism has been all the rage since 1983, not 50 years.What is new with K.O.E., Hadar, and others that is different than the Conservative Movement is that in the end, the Conservative (Jewish) movement is all but transparent in making its decisions based on American values and norms, not Jewish law. This was seen in ingnoring their own Rabbinic Council in the first place to institute women Rabbis in 1983.Hadar and K.O.E. pretend its for the Judaism's sake. But in the end, when compromises are made to reconcile Judaism with the larger, dominant culture, even greater ones lurk not so far behind, as the institution is essentially conceding that the secular, more dominant culture is of greater relevance and authority.As for the neurotic thing - anytime the lines are unclear - are you completely egal OR traditional - there is a greater neurois than when these lines are clear.When I went to K.O.E. before they kicked the men (briefly, but that's a different story) out of the main synagogue space, I used to feel fear on the men's side of the mechitza. I was hardly the only one to notice that.And as for the language they would frequently use - "gender-sensitive" and "progressive but traditional" - certainly some find that liberating, but it reeked of young people making things up and pretending they were religious. I guess the community's recycling committee might be saving the world and I just don't know it, but I would prefer a greater activism in mass transit generally, and against an automobile specifically - but I guess as this was a community effort, it was considered ouside of the realm of interest.I just don't see how fighting against using extra plastic spoons for kiddush is really fighting for change amid the global energy crisis, but perhaps I'm just cynical.

"As for the neurotic thing - anytime the lines are unclear - are you completely egal OR traditional - there is a greater neurois than when these lines are clear."I find your use of the word "traditional" odd. Are you saying that if a minyan is egalitarian they should not pray in Hebrew using the established liturgy? They should only use melodies that come from TV commercials and not from frumies or hazans? They shouldn't leyn Torah but read it from a book? What on earth ARE you saying?"When I went to K.O.E. before they kicked the men (briefly, but that's a different story) out of the main synagogue space, I used to feel fear on the men's side of the mechitza. I was hardly the only one to notice that."Ooooookay - and I'm the one who's neurotic?" Within Conservative Judaism, egalitarianism has been all the rage since 1983, not 50 years."I was speaking of liberal Judaism as a whole, and I include Modern Orthodoxy in that."Hadar and K.O.E. pretend its for the Judaism's sake."This is way too simplistic. Judaism has always evolved and changed to address its times and the larger secular milieu. I think one of the strengths of the Conservative movement is standing squarely in that space. Reform gives too much away and Orthodox (except for MO) tries to pretend that it is timeless and has always operated independently of the outside world.An aspect of standing in an ambiguous ill-defined space is that anyone who needs more black-and-white certainty can accuse you of being neurotic or wishy-washy or whatever. There is a recognized psychological spectrum of desire for process and subtle shading vs desire for clearly drawn lines and decision. Both are necessary at different times but people naturally feel more uncomfortable with one or the other.

Judith, you wrote"think one of the strengths of the Conservative movement is standing squarely in that space. Reform gives too much away and Orthodox (except for MO) tries to pretend that it is timeless and has always operated independently of the outside world."Perhaps, if you are Goldilocks and you consider Judaism an ala carte choice of porridge.You wrote,"Judaism has always evolved and changed to address its times and the larger secular milieu."Yes, but organically OR through Rabbinic decree - not through the demands of the secular elite - who assume they have Rabbinic authority becuase they received advanced degrees from ivy league schools. This is, in fact, not a Rabbinical decree, and holds no halachic authority to insist on change. You wrote,"Are you saying that if a minyan is egalitarian they should not pray in Hebrew using the established liturgy?"What are you talking about with the Hebrew comment? Do you really need to put words in my mouth? Daven in whatever language you want - but don't expect everyone else to accept that your congregation is "traditional" if it is mandating change.

"but don't expect everyone else to accept that your congregation is 'traditional' if it is mandating change."David, those of us who go to Hadar really don't care if those who hold an Orthodox understanding of halachah approve of our use of the word "traditional". Traditional is what we understand ourselves to be, because all aspects of our liturgical practice _are_ traditional other than the egalitarianism. If this one aspect offends you, then you are welcome to daven elsewhere. Indeed, I don't understand what your point really is. Are you trying to persuade us to submit to Orthodox rabbinic authority? Your tirade won't succeed if that is the goal. Are you trying to persuade us to drop the label "traditional"? If so then what concern is it of yours how we label ourselves? Are you afraid that unsuspecting frummies will be lured in unawares? There is no danger of misleading anyone about the nature of our practice, which we do not conceal in any way (quite the contrary).Btw, I'm the guy who went up to Judith after mincha the first day at the retreat. And it really was lovely to meet her, though I'd forgotten some of the details in the more personal blog posts (thanks for linking them again :) ) Shabbat shalom.

Yaakov Ben Yehuda,I generally don't daven anywhere, but thanks for trying to paint me as a frummie, as if they are the only ones who would find this (and other) American Jewish attempt to wrap everything up in a nice neat package as a bit revisionist and ahistorical. But both of you are making it sound like here your congregation and others like it are doing their own thing not bothering anyone - and its a little more complicated.In a more traditional phase, I saw a lot of, well, pushiness outside of the respective traditional/egal kehillas, but in other diverse settings not under their roof. I think I have a right to say I don't want this fantasy forced on me.

"organically OR through Rabbinic decree - not through the demands of the secular elite - who assume they have Rabbinic authority becuase they received advanced degrees from ivy league schools."1) How is "organically" different from what we are doing?2) The Ivy League comment is a cheap shot becausea) there are many egalitarian/traditional congregations whose founders and members didn't go to IL schools,b) many ARE rabbis, or rabbis-in-training. A few even have Orthodox smicha."What are you talking about with the Hebrew comment?"I'm just trying to figure out what "traditions" we should leave out so you feel more comfortable."I think I have a right to say I don't want this fantasy forced on me."Darn. I was just about to find out where you live and tie you up and carry you to a Hadar service. :-OBut I'm neurotic.

It's different because these changes were are not inspired out of a wish by to pratice Judaism, as say, the Chassidic movmement, or eating cholent in order to fulfill the "hot meal" mandated by the Pharasees to contrast with the Sadducees - but out of a desire to reconcile Judaism with the non-Jewish culture and value system. This (reconciliation with the dominant gentile culture) was never an accepted reason to effect "change" or to "evolve", rather, it was something always, always viewed with hostility throughout the ages by the mainstream Rabbinic authorities of the times. But forget about history or Halacha for a moment. Let's look at a problem internally, a "stira" - why you and the "traditional egalitarean" crowd is wrong according to their own beliefs.If you want real egalitareanism, and gender sensitivity - which is the cause de jour - what about circumcision? This is the most unegalitarean mitzvah in the book, as well as a flagrant violation of a child's rights.How are you going to claim that you are sensitive to gender and egalitarean issues when this continues to escalate - for the anti-circ camp is winning in shockingly dramatic increases? A "Simchat Bat" and "mohelets" isn't going to cut it.The Reform won't be bothered - they will stop circumcizing their sons to some degree - they have done so before. The Orthodox don't care - even much of the modern-Orthodox, who you mistake for liberals.But those in the middle - with that most perfect bowl of Jewish porridge - you are in for a nasty new take on an old ritual. You have set an ambush for yourselves.

There are other motivations for liturgical egalitarianism than to conform to secular social norms. In particular, it enables women to gain the spiritual benefits of participating in certain Jewish experiences, such as reading or being called to the Torah, which are personally valuable in their own right. There are many who find that their spiritual experience is enhanced by reading Torah or leading services or receiving aliyot or serving as gabbai; certainly men have benefited in this way from their liturgical roles, so why deny the same to women? This is not a matter of showing the rest of society that we are politically correct, or winning a rhetorical victory in the culture wars, but rather of enabling real participation which has real personal, spiritual value. It is worth noting that traditional egalitarian communities tend to encourage broad participation by all members, which means that a significantly greater number of _men_ take on the leading of portions of the service, leyning, etc. than in the typical Orthodox shul (where, as far as I have seen, a small group of men tend to do all of this, and do not actively seek to bring others into the circle). You have to sign up months in advance to lead services at Hadar.Denying this valuable experience to women requires a better justification, from the Conservative viewpoint, than that rabbinical "authorities" have said so. What are the substantive arguments against it? "Substantive" means here that "Chazal said so" isn't good enough.The comparison to egalitarianism in brit milah is unconvincing. Circumcision recognizes a real, biological difference between men and women, whereas the exclusion of women from participation in liturgical roles is founded on sheer arbitrariness. Furthermore, no man remembers being circumcised, and there is no issue of providing to men a spiritually beneficial _experience_ which is denied to women.

I didn't say "because Chazal says so" - I said ivy leagurs don't get to say so - that class priveledge is not carte blanche religious authority. Read what I wrote - it was not my arguement - you are argueing with a frummie from a different discussion board.Your refutatin of circumcision as not a gender issue becvause men don't remember it is completely bogus. In fact, most men are aware that they are cirmcumcised, and as more and more men are intact, this awareness will increase.You want to just push past that one - but over time it will be harder and harder to do, as it is looked upon more and more as genital mutiliation.And remember - you are the ones who are "gender sensitive".It will delitimize your cause over time. As it should.

Quite right, David; you didn't say "Chazal says so." But you did say"Yes, but organically OR through Rabbinic decree - not through the demands of the secular elite - who assume they have Rabbinic authority becuase they received advanced degrees from ivy league schools. This is, in fact, not a Rabbinical decree, and holds no halachic authority to insist on change." Evidently you view this as a question of who has authority to approve changes, and only those who operate within the supposedly objective halachic process have legitimate authority to make changes. Otherwise you wouldn't be disturbed by innovations which cannot claim this authority. Since JTS ordains rabbis --and Hadar is run by JTS rabbinical students-- you obviously have Orthodox rabbinical authority in mind. The basis for traditional egalitarianism is not the authority of ivy league graduates who invoke their class status or the prestige of their academic degrees as proof of legitimacy (they do nothing of the sort); it is the spiritual value which participants in traditional egalitarian practice find in it. If no one found such value in this practice, it wouldn't exist; egalitarianism has arisen out of a recognition of people's real spiritual needs. Class privilege is really quite irrelevant. As for the supposed secularism of the motivation, the Hadar crowd in fact has an impressively high level of Jewish learning, and join the community because of its Jewish seriousness. If they just wanted political correctness without profound Jewish content, traditional/egal would be the wrong setting for them.As for circumcision, it has nothing whatsoever to do with egalitarianism. It is an entirely separate issue, and those who see male circumcision as genital mutilation (which I think is ludicrous, considering what female genital mutilation actually is) have not become more numerous or more convinced as a result of our counting women in the minyan. Is this supposed to be a slippery slope argument, that relaxing halachic standards in one area leads step by step to an overall erosion of Jewishness? On the contrary, since for many Jews the alternative to egalitarianism is to leave Judaism altogether, it has kept many Jews Jewish. This is an outstandingly positive achievement, and points to the future success of our approach, not its demise.

Judith,You wrote"As for circumcision, it has nothing whatsoever to do with egalitarianism."Of course it does, unless you believe that some gender issues are more equal than others - which apparently, you do. This would fit into what Midge Decter (neocon reference just for you, Judith) would call the same/different model. You wrote, "It is an entirely separate issue, and those who see male circumcision as genital mutilation (which I think is ludicrous, considering what female genital mutilation actually is) have not become more numerous or more convinced as a result of our counting women in the minyan."It is only ludicrous if you insist the only parallel to male circumcision is infibulation. If in fact, you would consider Sunni style female circumcision as the parallel, where the hood of the clitoris is excised, you would see it is not only not ludicrous, but you have the real egaliatrian option you claim to desire so much.As for this not negatively affecting your ever-growing minyan numbers, I am certainly not saying this issue will start in the Jewish community, or because of your minyan. I am saying the wrath of gentiles who increasingly label male circumcision as genital mutilation are growing, and will continue to gain power - and it will spill into the Jewish community, which will not be unaffected by the "contoversy".This will EVENTUALLY translate into your community being called on your duplicity in regards to "gender issues." You wrote,"On the contrary, since for many Jews the alternative to egalitarianism is to leave Judaism altogether..."This is indeed an eventual option -one of the two, as Judaism will not, in the end, prove reconciliable to both egalitarianism AND male circumcision. Something will have to give - and it will be one or the other. Your camp will split into those two. When the issue is raging - and rage is coming, you will no longer be able to say you are "egalitarian", when you have a knife in one hand, and a severed forskin in the other, without some serious calling out that you are hypocrites.There is no middle ground on circumcision.