Editing Conservative Judaism (section)

==Ideology==
[[File:Jewish Theological Seminary of America (51241367198).jpg|thumb|The [[Jewish Theological Seminary of America]] in [[New York City]], the main rabbinical seminary of Conservative Judaism]]
The Conservative mainstay was the adoption of the historical-critical method in understanding Judaism and setting its future course. In accepting an evolutionary approach to the religion, as something that developed over time and absorbed considerable external influences, the movement distinguished between the original meaning implied in traditional sources and the manner they were grasped by successive generations, rejecting belief in an unbroken chain of interpretation from God's original Revelation, immune to any major extraneous effects. This evolutionary perception of religion, while relatively moderate in comparison with more radical modernizers—the scholarship of the Positive-Historical school, for example, sought to demonstrate the continuity and cohesiveness of Judaism over the years—still challenged Conservative leaders.

They regarded tradition and received mores with reverence, especially the continued adherence to the mechanism of Religious Law (''[[Halakha]]''), opposing indiscriminate modification, and emphasized they should be changed only with care and caution and remain observed by the people. Rabbi [[Louis Ginzberg]], summarizing his movement's position, wrote:

{{Blockquote|We may now understand the apparent contradiction between theory and practice... One may conceive of the origin of [[Sabbath]] as the professor at university would, yet observe the smallest detail known to strict Orthodoxy... The sanctity of the Sabbath reposes not upon the fact that it was proclaimed on Sinai, but on the fact that it found for thousands of years its expression in Jewish souls. It is the task of the historian to examine the beginnings and developments of customs and observances; practical Judaism, on the other hand, is not concerned with origins but regards the institutions as they have come to be.}}

This discrepancy between scientific criticism and insistence on heritage had to be compensated by a conviction that would forestall either deviation from accepted norms or laxity and apathy.<ref>Dorff, pp. 20-23; [[David Golinkin]], ''Halakha For Our Time: A Conservative Approach To Jewish Law'', United Synagogue, 1991. pp. 13–17. See also: S. H. Schwartz, [http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=8820 "Conservative Judaism's 'Ideology' Problem"].</ref>

A key doctrine which was to fulfil this capacity was the collective will of the Jewish people. Conservatives lent great weight in determining religious practice, both in historical precedent and as a means to shape present conduct. [[Zecharias Frankel]] pioneered this approach; as Michael A. Meyer commented, "the extraordinary status which he ascribed to the ingrained beliefs and practices of the community is probably the most original element of his thought." He turned it into a source of legitimacy for both change and preservation, but mostly the latter. The basic moderation and traditionalism of the majority among the people were to guarantee a sense of continuity and unity, restraining the guiding rabbis and scholars who at his age were intent on reform but also allowing them manoeuvrability in adopting or discarding certain elements.<ref name=" MM"/> [[Solomon Schechter]] espoused a similar position. He turned the old rabbinic concept of ''K'lal Yisrael'', which he translated as "Catholic Israel", into a comprehensive worldview. For him, the details of divine Revelation were of secondary significance, as historical change dictated its interpretation through the ages notwithstanding: "The centre of authority is actually removed from the Bible", he surmised, "and placed in some living body... in touch with the ideal aspirations and the religious needs of the age, best able to determine... This living body, however, is not represented by... Priesthood, or Rabbihood, but by the collective conscience of Catholic Israel."<ref>[[Neil Gillman]], ''Conservative Judaism: The New Century'', Behrman House, 1993. pp. 54–56.</ref>

The scope, limits and role of this corpus were a matter for contention in Conservative ranks. Schechter himself used it to oppose any major break with either traditionalist or progressive elements within American Jewry of his day, while some of his successors argued that the idea became obsolete due to the great alienation of many from received forms, that had to be countered by innovative measures to draw them back. The Conservative rabbinate often vacillated on to which degree may the non-practicing, religiously apathetic strata be included as a factor within Catholic Israel, providing impulse for them in determining religious questions; even avant-garde leaders acquiesced that the majority could not serve that function. Right-wing critics often charged that the movement allowed its uncommitted laity an exaggerated role, conceding to its demands and successively stretching ''halakhic'' boundaries beyond any limit.<ref>Dorff, pp. 24-25; Michael R. Cohen, ''The Birth of Conservative Judaism: Solomon Schechter's Disciples and the Creation of an American Religious Movement'', Columbia University Press, 2012. pp. 13-14, 18; Daniel H. Gordis, ''[http://danielgordis.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Positive-Historical-Judaism-Exhausted-Reflections-on-a-Movements-Future.pdf Positive-Historical Judaism Exhausted] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150410033827/http://danielgordis.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Positive-Historical-Judaism-Exhausted-Reflections-on-a-Movements-Future.pdf |date=April 10, 2015 }}''. in: [[Conservative Judaism (journal)|Conservative Judaism]], XLVII.</ref>

The Conservative leadership had limited success in imparting their worldview to the general public. While the rabbinate perceived itself as bearing a unique, original conception of Judaism, the masses lacked much interest, regarding it mainly as a compromise offering a channel for religious identification that was more traditional than [[Reform Judaism]] yet less strict than Orthodoxy. Only a low percentage of Conservative congregants actively pursue an observant lifestyle: in the mid-1980s, [[Charles Liebman]] and [[Daniel J. Elazar]] calculated that barely 3 to 4 per cent held to one quite thoroughly. This gap between principle and the public, more pronounced than in any other Jewish movement, is often credited at explaining the decline of the Conservative movement. While some 41 per cent of American Jews identified with it in the 1970s, it had shrunk to an estimated 18 per cent (and 11 per cent among those under 30) in 2013.<ref>Gordis, ''Struggle between Ideology and Popularity'', pp. 345-248; Geffen, Elazar, pp. 4-5, 73, 105-106; Gordis, [http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/566/requiem-for-a-movement/ Conservative Judaism: A Requiem], [[Jewish Review of Books]], Winter 2014.</ref>