Modern Orthodoxy- and not the “I’m middle of the road Orthodox so I don’t keep Shabbat” type, but the “I believe in Modern Orthodoxy” type- is an elitist movement. Only very few people understand what it believes or the direction its taking. A key part of any religious movement is that it can “speak in the language of man”. Whilst it should be able to sustain complicated analysis for those suited to it, it should also provide ‘food for the soul’ for everyone.
There is something wrong if its beliefs cannot be simplified in such a way that the layman can understand. Sure, if you simplify something you will lose its nuance and its implications, and will not understand it fully. However, they will get the kernel of truth that will correctly shape their world-view and lead to their moral, spiritual and intellectual development. It’s just like if you explain something to a child- it is your belief you are teaching them but you wouldn’t explain it to them in a way that you’d explain it to another adult. First, you’d only teach them the ‘important’ part- strip away complications until you are left with the moral of the story. Secondly, you’d make it ‘relevant’ to their world and where they are in life. Eventually, you hope, they’ll grasp its full implications.
So there are two elements- the ‘emunah peshuta’ which is the simple belief and the more intellectual working out of the idea. When you engage in an intellectual endeavour, you don’t replace the simple belief, but build on it. It remains there at its foundation- if you reject it as false, what’s the point of further discussion about it? So that is intellectual condition number 1- there is something to talk about! The second condition is that there is real debate when you get there. “Is THIS the implication of the belief or THAT?” Through intellectual discussion you come to hold one side rather than the other.
Now I hold Modern Orthodoxy guilty of often failing both conditions- but I’ll just discuss the first. If it can’t put its belief ‘in the language of man’ and can’t identify the kernel of truth, one begins to wonder if there is any truth there to begin with. Is it not like those old (Christian) Scholastic philosophers who argued about how many angels you can fit on a pinhead? Or (certain) art critics who discuss a work with other using long words no-one has heard of, and can only be translated with other long words no-one has heard of? They may be fun games to play- a pursuit for the brainy or cultured- but what is the relevance or importance to the lives of those who don’t already play the game? If there is no emuna peshuta- there is no real issue that they are addressing. In religious terms, it is hard to discern the specific relevance of certain Modern Orthodox discussions to the issue of how man relates to G-d or his mission in life. As such, unlike when we teach a belief to a child, it cannot lead to our moral or spiritual betterment.
Now the above is an extreme scenario and is usually more nuanced. I’ll explain in relation to a series of Modern Orthodox books called the “Orthodox Forum” series. They are absolutely fantastic in one way and in this way, are better than most Kiruv books put together. That is they are actually about something (and thus, do not fall into the extreme example above). They are not there to waffle about spiritual levels but to take an issue such as “war and peace” or “suffering”, and debate what the Jewish view is. However, they are sometimes written in such a pretentious way that I am left at a loss as to how I would explain the view using simpler language and what relevance it has for my relationship with G-d.
I’m not saying there is no relevance or that there is no issue or there is no kernel of truth. However, it does stand in the way of emunah peshuta, is elitist and struggles to translate these arguments into the lives of its followers. As such I have grave doubts about its sustainability as a religious movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment