Here are my comments (also posted on the site):
It seems to me that there's a disconnect between Gordis's diagnosis and his solution. The solution - a cross-denominational, counter-cultural Judaism grounded in obligation and Jewish literacy - is something I can wholeheartedly agree with, and reflects the vision we are trying to work towards at Masorti Judaism in the UK. But the diagnosis which leads to this remedy - the idea that Conservative Judaism fell apart because of lowering of standards - is deeply flawed.
If Conservative Judaism failed because Jews are looking for authority and commitment, how does Gordis explain that only 1% of young people (according to Pew) identify with modern Orthodoxy, as opposed to the 11% who still identify as Conservative? The numbers don't back up his arguments. Moreover, there's a strong case to be made that the relative vibrancy of certain Orthodox congregations is a result of their exclusivity - ideological commitment is much easier to sustain when anyone who does not identify simply leaves (or does not come in to begin with). Clearly this kind of exclusivity is not a recipe for mass Jewish engagement. And where Orthodox communities are inclusive - for example in the UK - we see that they suffer from exactly the same kinds of problems that face Conservative communities in the US.
The flip side of this critique is the real elephant in the room missing from Gordis's analysis: the deep commitment of Conservative/Masorti Jews (and many other members of the liberal Jewish world) to diversity and pluralism as matters of principle. The real challenge is not simply how to sustain a committed, literate Jewish community (which is hard enough) but how to do so in such a way that Jews of different beliefs, styles of practice, philosophical and political orientations, not to mention genders and sexual preferences will choose to join and be part of the conversation. I would like to hear some intelligent views from contemporary Jewish leaders on this pressing problem.
Very good point. I'm also looking forward to hearing from contemporary Jewish leaders.
ReplyDeleteI’ve been really interested by the Gordis-inspired debate. I agree with your critique of his arguments and those of others on the JRB website. The trouble is I can’t really see a way through at all. Robert Eisen’s comment on the website puts it really well: “Halakhic commitment of the kind that Gordis is speak about requires sacrifices in every major aspect of life…One might be willing to make these sacrifices if one really believes in Torah min ha-shamayim--that God said so, that Halakhah originates with the Divine, and that your reward in heaven depends on it. But such beliefs are not easy to sell these days. So what then are such sacrifices for? The commitment to tradition, peoplehood etc.? These just don't seem compelling enough….The whole issue of Torah min ha-shamayim is a much bigger problem for Modern Orthodox Jews than they are willing to admit. Those in Modern Orthodoxy who truly buy into this doctrine often lean to right, with some abandoning Modern Orthodoxy in favor of Ultra-Orthodoxy. Those who don't buy into it often leave the community altogether. But the majority of Modern Orthodox Jews remain in their communities in a state of confusion. They don't necessarily believe in Torah min ha-shamayim but they like the way of life, and so they just don't confront this issue. And the result is an Orthodoxy that's not as enthusiastic or vibrant as Gordis believes.” In other words, nothing works except becoming Haredi, which is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of your arguments against Gordis, and think you make them cogently. Much of what he says isn't supported by the statistics in the way that he seems to claim.
ReplyDeleteOne point of disagreement though:
I wouldn't want to see a more pluralistic Jewish world, and don't think that many other people do, if they stop and think about it.
I think, instead, what we want is a more cross-communal Jewish world - a world in which people have the courage of their convictions to say that some things are right, some wrong, some good, some bad, some mutar, some assur; but, a world in which we're eager to listen to dissenting voice, open to changing our mind in the collaborative efforts of unfolding our tradition into the future; a world in which different denominations, their leaders, and follows, and the unaffiliated feel part of a real cross-communal conversation. That isn't pluralism though. It's a bug-bear of mine!
Hi Sam. I don't have a particular attachment to the pluralism label - I have a bug bear about not getting into sematic debates about this kind of thing, as they tend to get in the way of actually learning Torah. If your vision of cross communalism includes a real desire not only to work together but to learn from each other, then I agree.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey, as a philosopher, I'm all into semantic debates!! But I think there's a real problem that we have to avoid. When we use the term 'pluralism' we sometimes imply all sorts of things that we don't mean. That's all.
ReplyDeleteAs far as working together and learning from each other... I'm all in, too.