Fundamentalism in the United Synagogue (UK)

               Fundamentalism in the United Synagogue – reality or myth?

 

Today in modern orthodox Judaism, at a time of greater than ever educational opportunities, we are seeing a return to simple faith and a turning away from more analytic approaches to Judaism.   

This article explores this issue and was inspired by a recent book by Sol Schimmel, called “The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs, Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth”, as well as a conversation I had recently with a friend about the impact of biblical criticism (BC) on Orthodox Judaism (OJ):

“....I’ll let you into a secret, but one which you may have guessed. I am a modern, Western, educated individual. In all areas of my life I accept the scholarly consensus as the most likely explanation for the time being. I understand that they may (indeed some certainly will) be shown to be wrong, but they are my working assumptions. The same should apply to BC, but because I want to be an orthodox Jew, and because I think OJ is irreconcilable with BC, I reject BC.”

Fundamentalism is a difficult subject . There is no fixed set of belief in classical rabbinical sources, and  the idea that Judaism has any clear set of beliefs has even been challenged by recent works such as Menachem Kellner’s Must a Jew Believe Anything.

Classic rabbinic works explicitly value diversity through its preservation of minority opinions, as explained in Mishnah Eduyot 1:4-6.  There are cases where the Talmud rules according to minority opinions (see bAvoda Zara 59a Tosafot s.v. amar Rav Papa) so there is a tradition of diversity rather than fundamentalism within Orthodox Judaism.

Maimonides set out the classic non-fundamentalist approach to Judaism in his Guide to the Perplexed which represents the rationalist’s approach to Judaism.  The issue with the Guide is that it is itself very perplexing.  This is due to it being explicitly set out as “secret” (esoteric) work.  Maimonides appears to have taken the view that the educated elite could benefit from his work whereas a more simple faith (the Thirteen Principles) was appropriate for most people.   This would lead to an ordered society which would allow intellectuals time to study while others did the mundane work.

Today, information about Judaism is just a click away and this esoteric approach is not an option. Most Jews are sufficiently educated to learn about critical approaches to their religious traditions, whether from books, the media, or other sources. 

We now less rather than more open in our approach, as I argue below.  A number of factors have led to this.  These include the impact on the Jewish world of:

a)      the enlightenment and the opportunities for social integration

b)      competing non-traditional Jewish movements such as the reform, Bundists and the zionists

c)       last but not least the Holocaust

These factors helped create and then destroy the more "moderate" orthodox responses to the enlightenment which were based in Germany specifically the Torah in Derekh Eretz (TIDE) movement started by R Shimshon Raphael Hirsch ztz'l whose approach is typified by this quote:

"The more, indeed, Judaism comprises the whole of man and extends its declared mission to the salvation of the whole of mankind, the less it is possible to confine its outlook to the synagogue. [Thus] the more the Jew is a Jew, the more universalist will be his views and aspirations [and] the less aloof will he be from ... art or science, culture or education ... [and] the more joyfully will he applaud whenever he sees truth and justice and peace and the ennoblement of man." (ibid)

When the most "enlightened" nation in the world descended to barbarism this undermined the enlightened approach typified by TIDE and many of those who survived turned away from this to less compromising beliefs, or became silent about these ideas for entirely understandable reasons.

Of course, TIDE did not completely disappear and we nowadays talk of “Modern Orthodoxy” as opposed to haredi (“ultra-orthodox”) however this is deeply problematic – as is evident from the fact that there is no coherent definition as to what “modern orthodoxy” actually is.

In the UK, modern orthodoxy is a vague term roughly interchangeable with “centrist orthodoxy”.  It also creates a false dichotomy with haredi groups, e.g. some modern orthodox groups can espouse very old-fashioned values and vice-versa. 

According to its web site, the United Synagogue believes in a “modern and inclusive brand of Judaism” – which sounds laudable until one asks what one means by modernity and what sort of inclusivity?

The United Synagogue has embraced haredi works such as Art Scroll over the past few years – whilst these can provide a good introduction to classic texts they can be historically inaccurate and present a world view which jars with modern sensibilities, especially enlightenment values.  The US has some rabbis who are most certainly not “modern orthodox” in their views and it has outsourced its education to kiruv (evangelical) groups which again do not espouse the enlightenment as a positive thing. 

Works such as the Soncino commentaries of the Bible which exemplified an open approach in citing non-Jewish and non-orthodox commentaries are now being updated because “the publishers [nowadays in effect the Judaica press] now feel that there is a need to acquaint the reader with the pure Jewish view of these holy books” (emphasis added).  The publisher is on record as saying that Orthodox Jews nowadays are not interested in what non-orthodox commentators have to say.   How this relates to the Maimonidean principle in Shemoneh Perakim to “accept the truth wherever it comes from” is far from clear.  The original Soncino works which did follow this principle are now only available from 2^nd hand book stores and will disappear.

Religion can be good for society except when it is fundamentalist, dogmatic, and intolerant.  I would suggest enlightenment values are the touch point here – we can and need to develop views of Judaism which are based around these values and recognise when co-religionists explicitly or implicitly reject them.

We need to consider whether the new publishers of Soncino are correct in their assessment that orthodox Jews are not interested in any other source of truth or wisdom outside their tradition, or whether we still wish to follow the Maimonidean principle of accepting the truth, wherever it may come from and incorporating that within our rich and broad tradition.