What a strange article
This article by Jacob Neusner appeared in today's Jerusalem post.
Part of me can't help but be disappointed. The author take several liberties, such as presenting what he knows to be grossly oversimplified Conservative halakhic stances in the absence of any context. Neusner, a respected scholar in his own field, cannot even seem to keep his denominational catchphrases straight. ("The past has a vote, not a veto" is a Reconstructionist anthem. The Conservative Movement uses contradictory phrases like "tradition through change," then sits around and wonders why nobody seems inspired.)
The article is entitled "Do denominational labels matter?" That's not really the topic of the article, is it? It's an article by someone who is arguing that Conservative Judaism, for all its weaknesses, is just loads better than Reform Judaism. His four proofs: (1) Reform Jews pray in English and want to know what they're saying, while Conservative Jews pray in Hebrew and don't care what they're saying; (2) Conservative Jews are more Sabbath observant because they drive to shul on Saturday mornings even when there's no bar mitzvah; (3) Conservative Jews are really Reconstructionist Jews (see above); (4) JTS and UJ appear to have stronger text study programs than HUC. Q.E.D., I suppose.
Perhaps it's a matter of my own cultural biases, but I expect any half-decent article called "Do denominational labels matter?" to address the fact that they don't.
Part of me can't help but be disappointed. The author take several liberties, such as presenting what he knows to be grossly oversimplified Conservative halakhic stances in the absence of any context. Neusner, a respected scholar in his own field, cannot even seem to keep his denominational catchphrases straight. ("The past has a vote, not a veto" is a Reconstructionist anthem. The Conservative Movement uses contradictory phrases like "tradition through change," then sits around and wonders why nobody seems inspired.)
The article is entitled "Do denominational labels matter?" That's not really the topic of the article, is it? It's an article by someone who is arguing that Conservative Judaism, for all its weaknesses, is just loads better than Reform Judaism. His four proofs: (1) Reform Jews pray in English and want to know what they're saying, while Conservative Jews pray in Hebrew and don't care what they're saying; (2) Conservative Jews are more Sabbath observant because they drive to shul on Saturday mornings even when there's no bar mitzvah; (3) Conservative Jews are really Reconstructionist Jews (see above); (4) JTS and UJ appear to have stronger text study programs than HUC. Q.E.D., I suppose.
Perhaps it's a matter of my own cultural biases, but I expect any half-decent article called "Do denominational labels matter?" to address the fact that they don't.
posted by Lawrence | 9:30 AM
3 Comments:
I must say that, for starters, I was mightily pissed off while reading this article which contains so many untruths and misconceptions about everyone-other-than-Orthodox Jews. I belong to a Reform synagogue where they had to start a separate Saturday morning service many years ago because so many congregants actually wanted to pray, rather than sit in on a bar mitzvah where the "congregation" was mostly Jewishly uneducated and couldn't participate. And our services aren't even predominantly English. That article is one continuous piece of misinformation. However, I read it assuming that the writer was a native Israeli or long-ago transplant, spouting the kinds of biased misinformation I'm sure many religious Israelis believe about American Jews. When I got to the bottom and saw that this man lives in New York State and is a college professor no less, I was blown away. Is the Jerusalem Post consistently this right-leaning? And when did Bard start hiring narrow-minded professors???
Love, Mom
I agree with your assessment of the article, but he probably didn't write the headline.
Blackherring: To what extent is Neusner still associated with the Conservative Movement? He casts an awfully unflattering light on it in other parts of the article, and in ways other than those in which movement members tend to do so.
Mom: I wondered the same thing. Bard is not known for its attacks on liberals or liberalism. My decision not to apply there was heavily motivated by my reluctance to be defined contextually as a right wing lunatic.
Elf: You're right about the headline. I guess I ought to be irritated at some Jerusalem Post staffer for that one.
Post a Comment
<< Home