Thus to compare their merger to a possible one between MO and Chareidim is not relevant. In such a case, both groups expressed fealty to God and Torah, it’s only in their approach to secular issues and certain chumros that they differ. Chareidim would have no trouble praying in most MO shuls and certainly MO’s have no problem with Chareidi ones.

However, one paragraph in particular points out the major problem with MO thinking today:

> Modern Orthodox synagogues need to carve out positions on women’s involvement in ritual, Zionism, the importance of serious general education, desire for cross denominational cooperation, interfaith issues, conversion and the welcoming of the non-observant. These positions along with the central teaching that Halacha governs all synagogue matters, should create a synagogue persona that is ideologically strong.

Needs to carve out? Along with the central teaching that Halacha governs all synagogue matters? Come on. Halacha governs all matters, personal and public, synagogue, business and home. All the issues mentioned in the paragraph have been dealt with by the major halachic decisors over the past few generations. The purpose of Jewish observance is not to take secular values and somehow make them fit into Orthodoxy but to worship God through the performance of His halacha, no matter what those secular values otherwise tell us.

In my experience, the majority of people who go to Conservative synagogues have gone because they are looking for something with Hebrew, a certain prayer service, and egalitarian. They aren’t necessarily familiar with the positive-historical model of JTS scholarship.

Similarly, in the Reform movement, most members are unaware that the movement’s philosophy is that people should make educated decisions about observance– not that reform is supposed to have less ritual and more English. The anti-religious wing of Reform is mostly grandparents now.

And in the Modern Orthodox world, I think there is a sense that Modern Orthodox is ‘more authentic’ and yet still ‘modern’, while it is not Conservative in as much as there’s no mechitza or women davening or women reading Torah or that there’s more a focus on the ritual halakhah than social justice aspects.

But, that these boundaries are blurring is evidenced by this blog. The reform movement is generally integrating more ritual, the Conservative movement is increasingly pulled away from conventional understandings of Halakah by a laity that is uninterested in process and wants their religion to reflect their weltenschaung (world view). Similarly, MO wants to be modern, by, for example giving women increasing rights, but to do it in ‘an Orthodox way’.

In other words, as the definitions and populations shift away from the platforms of 50 or more years ago, a merger of denominationally different synagogues with similar religious philosophies is not so surprising.

I hope this makes sense… as I am generalizing a bit. And may be making some errors in logic which I am open to reconsidering.

I call myself Post-Halakhic (which I suppose could be called a kind of reconstructionist, but that has other connotations). For me, I think the halakhic process is currently limited by a kind of calcification of the powers of rabbis to reinterpret halakha following, in particular, the publishing of the shulchan arukh.

I am deeply committed to the Jewish process and feel comfortable in serious and committed Jewish environments, whether Conservative or Orthodox or neither. But I am happiest when in an environment where people take Judaism seriously and find joy in it, which is trans-denominational.

I’m involved in bringing Limmud to Chicago. Limmud is a trans-denominational Jewish learning experience and conference. We call it a communiversity.