 |
| Image for illustrative purposes only (Lehrhaus) |
Professor Kwall argues that Orthodoxy’s past fears about blurring the lines between themselves and the denominations of Liberal Judaism (Heterodoxy) should no longer be of concern. Using the 2 distinctly different approaches to homosexuality and transgender issues to demonstrate just how polar opposite Orthodoxy is from Liberal Judaism. There should therefore no longer be any impediment to Orthodox engagement with them.
Why engage with Liberal Judaism at all? That should be obvious to anyone aware of the current trend in demographics of American Jewry. The fact is that the 90% of us identify as members of liberal denominations at best. And that is only if they even care about identifying as Jewish. With an over 70% intermarriage rate in that sector, it should not take rocket science to see why we should engage with them.
The question is in what way should we engage? What is the purpose and goal in engaging with denominations that are seen as illegitimate? One way is to do outreach - better known among us as Kiruv - the purpose of which is to return Jews to the faith and practices of their forefathers.
Does that then make the sole purpose of engagement a precursor to Kiruv? Is Kiruv the only goal? As an Orthodox Jew I confess that that should be our ultimate if not immediate goal. (But it is not the only goal. More about that later.)
Why Kiruv? The Jewish people were chosen by God as His people – to be holy by virtue of following His biblical commandments given specifically to us - as interpreted by the leading sages of each generation. The ultimate goal is for all the Jewish people to follow our special mandate.
Professor Kwall asks the obvious question:What benefit is there to the rest of the liberal Jewish community that has no interest in following Jewish law? Implied is whether Kiruv has any chance of succeeding. Or will it have the opposite effect? Here is one of her suggested answers:
One answer that is obvious to anyone who has ever participated in a kiruv event is that many people are drawn to the warm, charismatic, and encouraging personalities of those who do this type of work. But magnetism aside, I believe a large part of what attracts non-Orthodox people to kiruv workers is the perception that these individuals represent a sense of authenticity when it comes to Judaism. And in American cultural discourse, authenticity has become a prized quality. Kiruv represents a readily available outlet for liberal Jews who seek—at least to some degree—a perceived sense of authenticity in their religious practice.
Aside from the spiritual benefits to Orthodoxy I spoke of there are more tangible benefits to engagement that are not about Kiruv. Among them the following:
There are benefits that accrue to the Orthodox as a result of more substantial and positive connections with liberal Jews. Of course, economic gains cannot be dismissed. A thriving, and more engaged, liberal Jewish community in the United States has instrumental advantages for the Orthodox extending beyond support for kiruv. Liberal synagogues can, and do, hire Orthodox teachers and other professionals. Kosher restaurants and caterers do better when liberal Jews also use their services, even if they are not routine consumers.
The most important of these benefits is the increased opportunity for Kiruv. When liberal synagogues hire Orthodox teachers the result can only be of a positive spiritual nature. Once authentic Judaism is introduced to Jews that have at any level sought but never found meaning in Judaism it can be a game changer. They begin to realize that what they were missing was something that Liberal Judaism was not able to give them. Instead they were given a sterile version based of humanistic values dressed up in Jewish terminology like ‘Tikun Olam’. While Tikun Olam is a legitimate Jewish value it not exclusive to Judaism. Exposure to Orthodoxy opens their eyes and their hearts. It is seen as authentically Jewish and not simply warmed over humanism.
The question then becomes how Orthodoxy should engage with liberal Jews? Should we only care about those that become Baal Teshuvas or should we care about those that don’t as well?
For me the answer is obvious. While the goal should ultimately be observance, there is clearly benefit to bringing people closer to God even if they do not become fully observant or even observant at all..
While Professor Kwall thinks we should care about letting Liberal Judaism thrive, I would put it somewhat differently. We need to engage with liberal Jewry so as to keep Judaism significant in their lives. So that attrition can be reversed. It is from this pool of Jews that any hope remains for the vast majority of Jews connecting to God in some way. And ultimately return fully to the faith and practices of their forefathers.
It is with that in mind that I would change what it is exactly what we must pursue. It is not the doctrines of heterodoxy that characterize Liberal Judaism. It is the Jews that populate it that we should pursue. We must see accept them for who they are. We should definitely not be preachy or heavy handed.
We should instead become more involved with them while accepting them as they are. While the ultimate goal is to bring them closer to God, it should be done by example. The idea being that our example becomes so appealing to them that they are willing to make some changes in their lives along observant lines.
The fact that most of them will not become observant in any case does not mean we have failed. Because if all we do is instill in them a sense of pride in their Judaism we have succeeded in preventing them from opting out of it. As well as providing a population of support from outside of Orthodoxy for Orthodox communal institutions and services.
With the attrition among Liberal Orthodoxy at an all time high, do we have any other choice but to engage with them?