Regrettably due to the demands of my own daily life I cannot claim to
be more than an episodic lurker here but like all of you I have been
doing more than a little thinking and considering recently. Finally
having a few moments I wanted to put a few thoughts here. I also
admit I'm not sure how to organize them--hopefully they will fall
into some semblance of order. And now--post writing--I would add an
apologizy for the length of my letter. I hope it has quality enough
to compensate for its quantity.

First of all, to the many people here I know and have known over the
years, hi! By way of brief introduction, just to place me in the
broader context, I'm now in my 30s, the father of 3 boys ages 2-8,
and am not a professional Jew. Growing up I attended Schechter on
Long Island from 2nd-8th grade, then attended HANC--Hebrew Academy of
Nassau County, and then the Joint Program, majoring in Talmud &
Rabbinics and Biology (en route to becoming a Family Physician). In a
way telegraphing my comments below, I did not grow up in
an "observant" home and encountered little Jewish observance in
Schechter. I explored personal observance during my time in high
school (Orthodox) and I remain today an observant and committed
Conservative Jew. I am rather ardently egalitarian though I was not
always--I embraced the concept only in the years after graduating
JTS. I've lived in Sharon, MA for about 5 years and belong to Temple
Israel.

My thought, I think, is this. The core challenge facing Conservative
Judaism is not that there are some people and communities within it
that reject the concept and practice of gender egalitarianism. The
core challenge facing us, I believe, is rather that whether
egalitarian or otherwise we are not, broadly speaking, a movement of
active, observant Jews. I absolutely recognize that the meaning
of "observance" is not necessarily defined but I would stipulate that
by any reasonable understanding of the term, we are not,
collectively, it.

I would suggest, by way of analogy, that the United States might have
made a mistake in passing and naming the Voting Rights Act. Maybe it
should have been the Voting Responsibility Act. We have identified
electoral participation as a "right" rather than a civic
responsibility. What people fought for, and what we value, is
the "right" to vote, rather than the "obligation" to vote. The result
is that we all have the right but no one has to labor under the
burden of having any "responsibility." But as a democratic society we
would be far stronger if we all felt ourselves obligated, rather than
merely entitled, to participate in civic life in this way. We have
fostered a culture of right, of entitlement, rather than one of
shared responsibility.

So, too, Conservative Judaism and specifically egalitarianism. What
we are after is the "right" to be counted in a minyan, wear tallit,
t'fillin, serve as shlichot tzibbur, read torah, have aliyot, and all
the rest. What no one discusses is any sense of obligation to
participate--for men *or* for women, any sense of <gasp>
commandedness. The result, I believe, is that we communicate to
ourselves--children and adults alike--the idea that we don't "have
to" *do* anything, or put differently that we are not "expected to"
or "preferred to" do anything. We *can,* and that's what matters to
us, but we don't "have to," we are not "preferred to."

So we don't (collectively).

We have developed, I believe, an allergy to value judgements. We
cannot bring ourselves, I believe, to say, loudly and clearly, that
for Conservative Jews it is *preferable* to participate in observance
of kashrut, shabbat, holidays, public fasts, davening, study,
tzedakkah, business and relationship ethics, and all the rest of the
practices expected by halachic tradition (allowing that our
understanding of the concept of halacha merits ongoing conversation).
I do not advocate a posture that is dogmatic and "unwelcoming" or
that imposes a set of "litmus tests" of "observance" that are
prerequisites for inclusion in our communities. But the expression of
a preference for active participation does not have to imply these
things.

I do not advocate a process of exclusion. What I do advocate is the
development of a culture of participation in replacement of what we
have instead fostered which is the opposite. We have, I believe,
fostered over time--in no small measure through our
ongoing "voluntary" approach to actual participation with
the "egalitarian project"--a culture of passivity. "I have rights,
which is good, but nothing is expected of me, which is really good.
Except that at the end of the day it's somehow unfulfilling. Could it
be that's *because* nothing is expected of me?"

We expect participation from our professionals but accept passivity
from ourselves.

I believe we must begin (better late than never) to create a culture
of participation. Not just for the professionals, but for us pew
warmers as well. A culture wherein increasing participation is
preached and fostered--for men *and* for women. In our current
culture those who observe find ourselves unique and many seek
community elsewhere rather than remain unique and lonely. This trend
is one we should seek to render unnecessary.

I do believe that where rituals *are* expected of men and boys they
should also be expected of women and girls. It should not be that in
an "egalitarian" community, for example, a man may not be given an
aliyah without a tallit (and during the week t'fillin) but a woman
can. I understand about transitions and comfort zones but I believe
that what we've proved over the past decades is that if we expect
little of ourselves, then we will, on the whole, do little. A man who
wants an aliyah but who has never worn t'fillin in this not so
hypothetical congregation is given the message that the community
values participation in the mitzvah of t'fillin. That message is ok.
I believe we *should* be sending that message. A woman in the same
community is given the message that it does not matter in the
slightest whether she participates or not (or at a minimum that it
matters comparatively less than it does for a man). The message for
this woman (and for all the women and men of this hypothetical
community) is that her participation does not matter but his does.
Because he is a man. This, arguably, is really not egalitarian at
all.

But really my central point goes beyond egalitarianism. I believe we
need to focus on beginning to foster a culture of participation for
all of us--men and women alike--and that thus far we have not done
so. It's not that we're "not a halachic movement" as much as it is
that since no one feels personally or communally encouraged to
increasingly participate it doesen't ultimately matter whether we are
a halachic movement or not.

In conclusion I believe that absent a collective passion for the
principle of "participation" in Jewish life and learning, a passion
for the principle of "egalitarianism" doesen't really have meaning
beyond the theoretical. If we are all about "rights" but no
particular concern for whether or not they are actually exercised--no
sense of any kind of "responsibilities,"--then we are, I believe,
destined to remain as we are--a Movement with very small
(insignificant, even) actual participation and passion--or to
decline. I do not advocate a program of judgement or exclusion--
neither of those who are "not observant enough," nor of those who
are "not egalitarian enough." What I advocate instead is a program
designed to foster a culture of participation, a culture of
observance. Then (bayom hahu, if you will) questions of the nature of
the halachic process, questions of egalitarianism, will truly have
practical meaning for us.

Ken Sperber
ksperber@...