A few years ago, a friend who works for a Swiss branch of Europe’s largest engineering firm was telling me about his company’s cooperation with China. His group was trying to break into the coveted Chinese market and part of selling their product there meant sharing their technology for the development of that product. My friend began traveling to Beijing on a regular basis to acclimate his clients there to the product. I never understood why he — and so many other companies — was so quick to share his know-how with those who essentially would become competitors.
Sure, in the short run, the company was breaking into the Chinese market, but what about the long-run, when the Chinese mastered the technology and no longer needed the Swiss support? They could produce the product themselves and most likely offer it to the global market for a lower price. To my mind, the long-term thinking wasn’t there.
I had the same feeling when I read two articles on changes within Conservative Judaism. One, which ran in last week’s IJN, focused on a proposed change to the movement’s approach to intermarriage. Former Denverite Rabbi Wesley Gardenswartz caused a stir when he proposed that Conservative clergy begin officiating at interfaith weddings. Following a furore, Gardenswartz took a step back from that position, but according to the article, other rabbinical figures in the Conservative movement are considering similar changes. The impetus is declining numbers and the desire to keep those marrying out in the fold.
In another news item, USY, the Conservative movement’s youth wing, dropped a ban on ‘interdating’ among its leadership.
The confluence of those two events cannot be taken lightly, as it represents a grave crisis within a movement struggling to make itself relevant and vibrant in a challenging environment.
But like the example with the engineering firm, is ‘selling out’ the best way forward? Is that panic to make sure customers are being acquired (in the case of the firm getting a stronghold into the Chinese market) or members being retained (in the case of Conservative Judaism) best serviced by giving it all away? Going gentle on interfaith relationships may speak to some people in the present, and it may temporarily plug some holes, but what does it mean for the future? When the holes become baseline cracks and the foundation shifts? Will there even be a healthy movement to save? In other words, is this just another example of short-term thinking?
The Conservative movement must take a hard look at itself and ask where does it see itself, not tomorrow, or next year, but in 20-30 years? How will it differentiate itself from movements that are already accepting of interfaith unions? Conservative Judaism has been losing its USP for decades now, as both Orthodox and Reform shift in their approaches toward, respectively, liberal and traditional Judaism. If Conservative Judaism isn’t careful, it may just go the way of other once-thriving movements, such as traditional Judaism.
These two recent discussions on interfaith relationships don’t speak of a strong movement with long-term strategic thinking. Instead, they’re redolent of ‘desperate times calls for desperate measures’.
