![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There isn't really an amazingly good distinction between Conservative and Orthodox, when you get right down to the dividing lines. There doesn't seem to be a good theological difference, adherence to halacha existing in both denominations. It doesn't have to do with the divine or otherwise origins of the Torah, since you can find Yes and No opinions on both sides. The No opinions are quieter in Orthodoxy, but they're there, and there are certainly Yeses in Conservatism. Viscerally, the division is separate seating in shul; if you have separated seating, you're Orthodox (or at the very least, you're Not Conservative), and if you don't, you're Conservative (or Not Orthodox). There are other distinctions one could attempt, but it's a blurry line.
Hence the existence of the grey area - all those people who can't stomach the social side of Orthodoxy, but find it awfully hard to deal with the huge majority of Conservative laity not being particularly observant.
It seems that Orthodoxy is moving generally to the right, becoming more and more stringent, while Conservatism isn't exactly moving to the left so much as disentegrating all along its left side, flaking off into Reform. At the left of Orthodoxy, there are groups like Shira Chadasha, which want to be liberal and orthodox, and at the right of Conservatism, there are groups like Hadar (and lots and lots of lonely JTS grads) who want to be "halachic" whilst retaining particular ideas about how to treat people. There are also a lot of people who don't have either type of group handy and aren't affiliated with anyone. They are all the grey area, and I am waiting for the day when Orthodoxy moves so far to the right that Shira Chadasha and its ilk drop off into the grey area, and the Conservative laity moves so far to the left that the ones who are noticably more observant than the rest move sideways into the grey area so as not to be left out in the cold. I reckon they'd coalesce pretty easily.
What Shira Chadasha people want is a way to stay within the bounds of halacha but respond to social change and treat minority groups and women as equal citizens - they've tweaked halacha as much as they can to make equality happen, but they're still a small enough group that they can't be any more radical because no-one will want to join them. On the other hand, what Hadar people want is a way to respond to social change and treat minority groups and women as equal citizens whilst staying within the bounds of halacha - they've tweaked halacha to make it possible, but they don't have the numbers to feel good about it.* They're coming from different directions, but their ultimate vision is basically the same: stay within the halachic system and push it to treat people decently.
It's a numbers question in both cases. Neither group is really happy, but both feel that they don't have the critical mass to do what they think is right. If the grey area had convincing leaders who could communicate with both groups and the people in between - given that they have basically the same aims but are coming from different directions - they might gain critical mass. Can they merge, or are the approaches from different directions in fact approaching different goals? I think they can, but I don't know how I'd go about making it happen.
* because the central issue is one of women considering themselves, by choice or by default, to be equally as obligated as men in various areas, and this is patently not the case for the huge majority of the laity.
** It's a funny thing, but almost everyone I count as a friend lives in the grey area, and they're all miserable about how they're so lonely denominationally.
Hence the existence of the grey area - all those people who can't stomach the social side of Orthodoxy, but find it awfully hard to deal with the huge majority of Conservative laity not being particularly observant.
It seems that Orthodoxy is moving generally to the right, becoming more and more stringent, while Conservatism isn't exactly moving to the left so much as disentegrating all along its left side, flaking off into Reform. At the left of Orthodoxy, there are groups like Shira Chadasha, which want to be liberal and orthodox, and at the right of Conservatism, there are groups like Hadar (and lots and lots of lonely JTS grads) who want to be "halachic" whilst retaining particular ideas about how to treat people. There are also a lot of people who don't have either type of group handy and aren't affiliated with anyone. They are all the grey area, and I am waiting for the day when Orthodoxy moves so far to the right that Shira Chadasha and its ilk drop off into the grey area, and the Conservative laity moves so far to the left that the ones who are noticably more observant than the rest move sideways into the grey area so as not to be left out in the cold. I reckon they'd coalesce pretty easily.
What Shira Chadasha people want is a way to stay within the bounds of halacha but respond to social change and treat minority groups and women as equal citizens - they've tweaked halacha as much as they can to make equality happen, but they're still a small enough group that they can't be any more radical because no-one will want to join them. On the other hand, what Hadar people want is a way to respond to social change and treat minority groups and women as equal citizens whilst staying within the bounds of halacha - they've tweaked halacha to make it possible, but they don't have the numbers to feel good about it.* They're coming from different directions, but their ultimate vision is basically the same: stay within the halachic system and push it to treat people decently.
It's a numbers question in both cases. Neither group is really happy, but both feel that they don't have the critical mass to do what they think is right. If the grey area had convincing leaders who could communicate with both groups and the people in between - given that they have basically the same aims but are coming from different directions - they might gain critical mass. Can they merge, or are the approaches from different directions in fact approaching different goals? I think they can, but I don't know how I'd go about making it happen.
* because the central issue is one of women considering themselves, by choice or by default, to be equally as obligated as men in various areas, and this is patently not the case for the huge majority of the laity.
** It's a funny thing, but almost everyone I count as a friend lives in the grey area, and they're all miserable about how they're so lonely denominationally.