In mid-20th century America, it was crucial to claim that halacha — and in particular, Shabbat and Kashrut — were an objective demand of Judaism, rather than a personal eccentric whim. Eccentric whims were not well regarded in mainstream America in the 50s. This claim to objectivity also was used to rebut the reforms of Conservative Judaism.

Conversion, however, may well prove the achilles heel in the scheme, because there are two halachic approaches. The liberal approach — advocated two decades ago by R Eliezer Berkovits, z’l — was that conversion required a ritual immersion, circumcision when appropriate, and a vaguely defined acceptance of Jewish rites and peoplehood. The conservative approach insisted that kabbalot ol mitzvot — acceptance of the yoke of the commandments — was not a cultural requirement that could be fudged (e.g. by Reform converts who swore off pork and shellfish) but required a commitment to Orthodox Jewish law. (This is part of what blew up the Denver joint conversion court in the 80s.)

The problem is that in choosing the latter course, the once-modern Orthodox were unknowingly setting themselves up for sabatoge by the Postmodern Orthodox. Postmodernists say there is no “objective” knowledge of any kind; the Haredim, who say that halacha is only what conforms with their leader’s rulings, implicitly agree. For a Haredi, acceptance of Modern Orthodoxy is a rejection of Torah truth; so how could one accept a convert who isn’t haredi?

None of the options at this postmodern juncture are good for RCA orthodoxy. The Haredim may prevail, in which case conversion is not an option for mainstream Israelis and personal status gets fully divorced from the rabbinate.

The political chief rabbi may overturn the ruling for now in the RCA’s favor — but this only highlights the political nature of Israeli conversion. In this scenario, the rabbinate avoids increasing the need for civil marriage, but it further undercuts its moral argument.

Or — and this is the least likely option, but the one I prefer — they can return to the liberal Orthodox position, in which conversion has a ritual aspect and a cultural aspect, where a rite is followed and a peoplehood is accepted. Such a shift on conversion, now as in the ’80s, could have a powerful unifying effect on American Judaism as well. But as I have come to understand, for the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council, the prospect of a pluralistic Jewish unity is a bug, not a feature.