Jews in America

A Contemporary Reader

Roberta Rosenberg Farber and Chaim I. Waxman

Brandeis University Press 'O~'~'l'\ .,'" ",,,,,,, Published by University Press of New England 1\"'''''' ",.,,,, ,)rf~~ Hanover and London

,~ by a preacher of the past millennium. ler, brought further proof of the causal 17 Jack Wertheimer pointing out a number of correlations: tty-two, which was also the date of the fikvah (22 Sivan); second, the sum total Iline, which corresponds to the number Religious Movements in Collision ~ed-tet avot melakhot}. As noted above Itered modernity only recently, and in A Jewish Culture War? ovards and terrors of the afterlife and of irs, remains far closer to the religious °e unconsciously acculturated members :s true even of one of the least accuItur­ • Hasidic women; see Tamar EI-Or, Ed­ - Peretz's remarks were first reported in 1985. [I am indebted to Chaim I. Wax­ :;s are on the tape series, Ner le-Me'ah:

']' An analysis of shifts in the policies and practices of each Jewish denomination i 1,1 provides a necessary context in which to assess why relations between the reli­ ~' I,/! gious groups have deteriorated in recent years. All of the movements have re­ l~I' sponded to a series of new challenges faced by the American Jewish community: r.fi,:1 ~,~ the rising rate of intermarriage and the resulting question of how to integrate the !;' ~;,' children of such marriages into the Jewish community; the feminist revolution I! and the demands of Jewish women for equality in religious life; and the declining levels of synagogue affiliation and involvement of third- and fourth-generation American Jews, which has forced all Jewish institutions to compete for members. The policies of Jewish denominations have been shaped as well by the aggressive tenor of religious disputation that characterizes relations between segments of American Christianity-and indeed religious antagonists throughout the world.

Heightened Religious Tensions

Each Jewish movement has responded differently to the new challenges and has embraced policies unilaterally, with little or no consultation with its counterparts in American Judaism. The resulting policies are shaped by profoundly different conceptions of Jewish identity, religious reform, and the future of American Ju­ daism. The Reform and Reconstructionist position on patrilineality is incompati­ ble with Conservative and Orthodox definitions of who is a Jew. The ordination of women as rabbis is viewed by some as a logical extension ofJewish ethical values and by others as an unacceptable deviation from Judaism's differentiation be­ tween gender roles. And the self-segregation of Orthodox Jews, many of whose leaders refuse to participate in communal organizations that include non­ Orthodox rabbis lest such participation confer legitimacy on inauthentic leaders,

.J 378 • Religion and Spirituality Wertheimert: raises the question of whether Jews can act in concert. As Irving Greenberg has redefine Jewish identity, as well as the suggested, both extremes on the religious spectrum seem to have written each for a new Reform outreach effort to I other off; both extremes assume that other Jews can be ignored because those oth­ and Conservative rabbis that they cou ers will become increasingly irrelevant to the Jewish future. Specifically, the ma­ Although the Reform rabbis of Denve jority of Orthodox rabbis act as if they expect the non-Orthodox world to assimi­ trilineality, the national decision of th late; and the unilateralism of Reform and Reconstruction on the issue of and Conservative rabbis in an untenat patrilineality suggests a belief that adherents of halakhah are a dying or fossilized conversion program with rabbis who breed. Only those on the Conservative right and the Orthodox left seem overly identity. And furthermore, they could concerned about religious polarization, perhaps because they have ties to all seg­ with increasing frequency due to a Rc;; ments of the Jewish community.! with their own understanding of how Although much of this disagreement has been confined to the journals of vari­ Denver program, a model for other loc ous rabbinic organizations, a few widely reported incidents have focused public of decisions taken far away from that c attention on the heightened religious divisiveness. One episode that came to sym­ form rabbis. bolize the possibilities as well as lost opportunities for greater religious unity has The possibility of future cross-de become known as the Denver experiment.2 Beginning in 1978, Reform, Conserv­ communities was further undermined ative, and TraditionaP rabbis formed a joint Beit Din (rabbinic court) to oversee Denver program. When the existence conversions. (Orthodox rabbis refused to participate, and there was no Recon­ (ironically, through the announcemer: structionist rabbi in Denver at the time.) The purpose of this program was to avoid hue and cry over the folly of Traditic a situation in which rabbis in Denver did not recognize each other's converts to Ju­ conversion effort. As the Jewish Obsc daism. Under the Denver program, each rabbi still retained autonomy to perform Orthodox right, crowed: his own conversions, but a very significant number-approximately 750 individu­ als-underwent conversion in Denver through the communal rabbinic court. While compromise for the sake of unity In order to function in concert, all participating rabbis compromised some of basic principles of faith, "compromise" is their views: the Traditional rabbis "were prepared to say that even though we dox rabbis recognized that Reform and C knew that all of the students coming out of the general conversion process would Torah, and that Klal Yisroel [the totality c not be authentic Orthodox Jews, we were prepared to say as long as they were be­ when Orthodoxy enters in religious assoc: ginning an effort to learn Judaism and aspire to be committed Jews, we were pre­ pared to offer our signatures." Or as another Traditional rabbi put it: "Our compro­ In the judgment of the Jewish Obser mise was simply that we did not make the thorough investigation that we might been party to an outrageous fraud." A have made of our own converts-whether the person, in practice, was prepared to of this fraud, the periodical's editor w embrace a larger measure of traditional Judaism." The Reform rabbis, in tum, plating this type of denominational cc compromised by agreeing to teach about traditional observances, such as Jewish pitfalls involved and step back from tl: dietary laws and special Passover regulations. In addition, the Reform rabbis com­ Since the collapse of the Denver p promised by acceding to the Traditional and Conservative rabbis' insistence that tinued to deteriorate. Among the key converts must go to a ritual bath (mikveh) and undergo a symbolic circumcision Orthodox rabbis of the Rabbinical Cc (hatafat dam brit).4 Not coincidentally, the lone Conservative rabbi in Denver, pendent Reconstructionist movemer: whose conception of conversion represented a centrist position, served as the America, an umbrella agency linking chairman of the board for most of its history. But the actual conversion ceremony the other Jewish religious movemenl was supervised by three Traditional rabbis. Bureau's Chaplaincy Board, which p: In 1983, after six years of relatively smooth functioning, the Denver Beit Din in the military since World War I, in [ was dissolved. The move was precipitated by the resolution on patrilineality seeking to serve as a Jewish militat')o adopted that year by the Central Conference of American Rabbis. This decision to ments by rabbinic groups of the Ortt WertheimerfReligious Movements in Collision • 379

concert. As Irving Greenberg has redefine Jewish identity, as well as the designation of Denver as a pilot community ~ctrum seem to have written each for a new Reform outreach effort to recruit converts, convinced the Traditional ;; can be ignored because those oth­ and Conservative rabbis that they could no longer participate in the joint board. rewish future. Specifically, the ma­ Although the Reform rabbis of Denver held varying views on the question of pa­ lhe non-Orthodox world to assimi- trilineality, the national decision of the Reform rabbinate placed the Traditional Reconstruction on the issue of and Conservative rabbis in an untenable position. They could not cooperate in a !f halakhah are a dying or fossilized conversion program with rabbis who held so different a conception of Jewish :md the Orthodox left seem overly identity. And furthermore, they could not supervise conversions that would occur ,s because they have ties to all seg­ with increasing frequency due to a Reform outreach effort that was inconsistent with their own understanding of how to relate to potential proselytes. Thus, the ~en confined to the journals of vari­ Denver program, a model for other local Jewish communities, foundered because .rted incidents have focused public ofdecisions taken far away from that community at the national convention of Re­ ess. One episode that came to sym­ form rabbis. ,ities for greater religious unity has The possibility of future cross-denominational cooperation in other Jewish ginning in 1978, Reform, Conserv­ communities was further undermined by the response of Orthodox groups to the ~eit Din (rabbinic court) to oversee Denver program. When the existence of that program became public knowledge ~ticipate, and there was no Recon­ (ironically, through the announcement of its demise), Orthodox groups raised a urpose of this program was to avoid hue and cry over the folly of Traditional rabbis for even participating in a joint :cognize each other's converts to Ju­ conversion effort. As the Jewish Observer, an English-language periodical of the .still retained autonomy to perform Orthodox right, crowed: nber-approximately 750 individu­ I the communal rabbinic court. While compromise for the sake of unity can often make good sense, when dealing with lating rabbis compromised some of basic principles of faith, "compromise" is actually a sell-out. ... It is time that all Ortho­ :pared to say that even though we dox rabbis recognized that Reform and Conservative Judaism are far, far removed from egeneral conversion process would Torah, and that Klal Yisroel [the totality of the Jewish people] is betrayed-not served­ lared to say as long as they were be­ when Orthodoxy enters in religious association with them. D be committed Jews, we were pre­ 'aditional rabbi put it: "Our compro­ In the judgment of the Jewish Observer, "the Traditional rabbis of Denver have orough investigation that we might been party to an outrageous fraud." And lest anyone fail to grasp the implications person, in practice, was prepared to of this fraud, the periodical's editor went on to warn "other communities contem­ rism." The Reform rabbis, in turn, plating this type of denominational cooperation ... [to] take note of the awesome itional observances, such as Jewish pitfalls involved and step back from the abyss."5 In addition, the Reform rabbis com­ Since the collapse of the Denver program, denominational relations have con­ :onservative rabbis' insistence that tinued to deteriorate. Among the key flash points have been the veto exercised by d undergo a symbolic circumcision Orthodox rabbis of the Rabbinical Council of America to prevent the newly inde­ one Conservative rabbi in Denver, pendent Reconstructionist movement from joining the Synagogue Council of l a centrist position, served as the America, an umbrella agency linking the rabbinic and congregational bodies ofall But the actual conversion ceremony the other Jewish religious movements;6 the reconstitution of the Jewish Welfare Bureau's Chaplaincy Board, which provided chaplains and other support to Jews h functioning, the Denver Beit Din in the military since World War I, in response to the application of a woman rabbi by the resolution on patrilineality seeking to serve as a Jewish military chaplain;? and the placement of advertise­ f American Rabbis. This decision to ments by rabbinic groups of the Orthodox right urging Jews to stay home on the 380 • Religion and Spirituality Wertheimer

High Holidays rather than worship in a non-Orthodox synagogue.sWhen the New York Times published a front-page article with the headline, "Split Widens on a The Great Rift Basic Issue: What Is a Jew?" the divisions among rabbis began to attract wider at­ tention in the Jewish community.9 One organization in particular, the National The "who is a Jew" controversy set i Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership (CLAL), headed by Rabbi Irving religious warfare between Jews. Fir Greenberg, sought to focus communal attention on the growing rift by inviting the tion between Israeli religious and pc leaders of all four Jewish religious movements to a conference that posed the that characterize American Jewry. R provocative question, "Will There Be One Jewish People by the Year 20001"10 who have virtually no constituency c The wider Jewish community was most actively drawn into the fray during the conflict in the United States, where "who is a Jew" controversy in late 1988. An international debate erupted when it majority of Jews. The hostility of Je appeared that the Israeli government would grant the Orthodox rabbinate the ex­ Orthodox Jews strengthens the hand clusive right to determine the Jewish status of converts, thereby guaranteeing the States and antagonizes non-Orthod· delegitimation of all conversions not performed under Orthodox auspices. that the chief rabbis of Israel do not Long after Israeli leaders had finished with the matter, the bitterness engen­ they visit the United States. But w dered by the controversy continued to fester within the American Jewish commu­ both the right-wing Haredi sector ;; nity. Opponents of the amendment faulted Orthodox leaders in the United States, principle it is forbidden to save thl particularly the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who resides in Brooklyn, New York, for pres­ Shabbat on the same basis that one is suring Israeli groups to pass the amendment. Orthodox groups were castigated as a gentile's life,"14 there is a serious ill divisive and mean-spirited. It was frequently argued that Orthodox Jews in Amer­ ing within the official Israeli rabbin;; ica were taking their battle against other Jewish denominations to Israel because thodox and non-Orthodox Jews in tl as a small minority they could not win such a struggle in the United States. More­ latter toward Israel have been affec· over, non-Orthodox spokespeople claimed that their identity as Jews was under between the Israeli government and attack. Shoshana Cardin, then the chairperson of the Council of Jewish Federa­ cording to a recent survey, the at tions' Committee on Religious Pluralism put it as follows: "What we're dealing strongly correlated with the extent ­ with here is perceived disenfranchisement of millions of Jews. And in this case, rabbinate; the greater the perceived perception is reality."ll Jews felt. ls Orthodox groups counterattacked. Though some Orthodox organizations sup­ Second, the intensity of the reCf: ported the campaign to remove the issue of "who is a Jew" from the Israeli politi­ status are now at the heart of the sm cal agenda (principally, the Rabbinical Council of America), other Orthodox sion, after all, came over the questic groups banded together to blame Reform Judaism for causing a religious schism. became more intense when Jews co In an "Open Letter to American Jews" signed by several Orthodox organizations, aries: Who is part of the group and the halakhic definition of Jewish identity was described as "universally accepted marry? Will their grandchildren be c among all Jews for thousands of years. Reform, however, has done away with Ha­ a Bar or Bat Mitzvah if those grandc: lacha; and the Conservative movement is forever tampering with it."12 In a similar father? Iftheir rabbi was born to a Jli vein, Rabbi Marc Angel, one of the most moderate members of the centrist Ortho­ dained rabbi considered to be a Je~ dox rabbinate, lashed out at those who criticized Orthodoxy for its stand on "who held diverse theological views and c is a Jew": "Those leaders who speak so passionately for Jewish unity ought to observances of one group of Jews h: have launched a major attack on the decision of Reform Judaism to consider 'pa­ group; they could be ignored if dee­ trilineal Jews' as Jews. There has probably been nothing more divisive in modem contrast, have far wider repercussior Jewish history than this decision to unilaterally change the definition of Jewish­ rejection of an individual as a Jew. ness to include the child of a Jewish father."13 The recrimination and bitterness disputes over patrilineal descent w over this issue brought religious hostility between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Greenberg has warned that by the I groups to a fever pitch. many as half a million children, bor Wertheimer/Religious Movements in Collision • 381 :rthodox synagogue.8 When the New Ih the headline, "Split Widens on a The Great Rift ong rabbis began to attract wider at­ nization in particular, the National The "who is a Jew" controversy set into sharp relief the central features of recent (CLAL), headed by Rabbi Irving religious warfare between Jews. First, it demonstrated the inextricable connec­ tn on the growing rift by inviting the tion between Israeli religious and political developments and religious divisions ,nts to a conference that posed the that characterize American Jewry. Remarkably, actions taken by rabbis in Israel Jish People by the Year 2000?"1O who have virtually no constituency other than Orthodox Jews can spark religious :ively drawn into the fray during the conflict in the United States, where the non-Orthodox groups represent the vast ntemational debate erupted when it majority of Jews. The hostility of Jewish religious leaders in Israel toward non­ Iant the Orthodox rabbinate the ex­ Orthodox Jews strengthens the hands of militant Orthodox groups in the United "converts, thereby guaranteeing the States and antagonizes non-Orthodox groups. It is disturbing enough to some ::d under Orthodox auspices. that the chief rabbis of Israel do not set foot in non-Orthodox synagogues when th the matter, the bitterness engen­ they visit the United States. But when leading Orthodox rabbinic decisors of Jithin the American Jewish commu­ both the right-wing Haredi sector and the more moderate faction rule that "in thodox leaders in the United States, principle it is forbidden to save the life of a Reform or Conservative Jew on .es in Brooklyn, New York, for pres­ Shabbat on the same basis that one is not allowed to desecrate the Sabbath to save 8rthodox groups were castigated as a gentile's life,"14 there is a serious likelihood that the religious mind-set develop­ lfgued that Orthodox Jews in Amer­ ing within the official Israeli rabbinate will further poison relations between Or­ sh denominations to Israel because thodox and non-Orthodox Jews in the United States. In tum, the attitudes of the struggle in the United States. More­ latter toward Israel have been affected adversely because of the perceived link at their identity as Jews was under between the Israeli government and the Orthodox religious establishment. Ac­ 11 of the Council of Jewish Federa­ cording to a recent survey, the attitudes of Reform Jews toward Israel are it as follows: "What we're dealing strongly correlated with the extent to which they link Israel with its Orthodox millions of Jews. And in this case, rabbinate; the greater the perceived link, the more alienated from Israel Reform Jews felt. IS some Orthodox organizations sup­ Second, the intensity of the recriminations indicates that issues of personal 'ho is a Jew" from the Israeli politi­ status are now at the heart of the struggle between religious factions. The explo­ lcil of America), other Orthodox sion, after all, came over the question of "who is a Jew." Religious polarization ism for causing a religious schism. became more intense when Jews could no longer agree on questions of bound­ 'y several Orthodox organizations, aries: Who is part of the group and who is outside? Whom may their children described as "universally accepted marry? Will their grandchildren be considered Jewish and permitted to celebrate . however, has done away with Ha­ a Bar or Bat Mitzvah if those grandchildren have a Christian mother and a Jewish er tampering with it." 12 In a similar father? Iftheir rabbi was born to a Jewish father and Christian mother, is that or­ 'ate members of the centrist Ortho­ dained rabbi considered to be a Jew? In the past, Jewish religious movements d Orthodoxy for its stand on "who held diverse theological views and observed religious rituals differently; but the onately for Jewish unity ought to observances of one group of Jews had only a limited impact on those of another f Reform Judaism to consider 'pa­ group; they could be ignored if deemed offensive. Issues of personal status, by l nothing more divisive in modem contrast, have far wider repercussions: at stake is the community'S recognition or f change the definition of Jewish­ rejection of an individual as a Jew. Soaring rates of intermarriage coupled with The recrimination and bitterness disputes over patrilineal descent will only worsen the situation: Rabbi Irving een Orthodox and non-Orthodox Greenberg has warned that by the end of the century, there will be perhaps as many as half a million children, born to mothers converted by Reform rabbis or

j 382 • Religion and Spirituality Wertheimer! accepted as Jewish under the patrilineal definition, whose Jewishness will not be Item: Rabbi J. D. Bleich, his colleagm accepted by other Jews. 16 Thus, regardless of whether the matter is ever raised tution of centrist Orthodoxy, "propose again in the State of Israel, American Jews do not agree on the question of "who by recognizing Reform converts in is a Jew." Moslem and Christian converts, that i Third, there is even no agreement as to the number of American Jews who care about these matters. One survey found that on the issue of patrilineality, the vast majority of Orthodox Jews would be "upset" if their children married someone of Item: A planned meeting between An patrilineal descent, but only one-third of Conservative Jews and one-tenth of Re­ most torpedoed by denominational b: form Jews would be "upset." Thus, perhaps no more than one-quarter of Ameri­ ica, an umbrella agency that coordina' can Jewry rejects the new definition ofJewish identity put forward by Reform and and congregational organizations, wa: Reconstuctionism. 17 This has led to speculation that the rejection of patrilineality Orthodox Jewish Congregations on it: by Orthodoxy and by segments of the Conservative movement will give way in tion. The matter became moot after time to sociological realities, namely, mass support for patrilineality by American States. But it is unlikely that the umb Jewry. Other observers are not so certain, especially as evidence mounts about the ftict in the future. The head of the Ort minimal Jewish identity of children raised in mixed-married homes and as fears of veto the appointment of a homosexm: intermarriage intensify. Orthodox Jews are not about to alter their opposition, and ship on the Synagogue Council of An Conservative rabbis who overwhelmingly voted to expel from their association any colleague who accepted patrilineality may yet convince their congregants to Item: The Conservative movement has reject patrilineality. liance on Orthodox functionaries. Sine Finally, and most important, the "who is a Jew" controversy made it evident inary of American has sponsored pro that the critical fault line running through the Jewish community separates Ortho­ ritual circumcision (brit milah) and : dox from non-Orthodox Jews. Reform and Reconstructonist Jews explicitly reject (Jewish dietary requirements) in their Halakhah (rabbinic law) as normative; accordingly, they do not define Jewish also building their own ritual baths as • identity on the basis of those laws. By contrast, the Conservative movement does performance of Conservative conversi regard rabbinic law as normative and agrees with some Orthodox positions on questions of personal status. But in the debate over "who is a Jew" and other con­ Not surprisingly, these policy decisia troversies in Israel, the Conservative movement has linked arms with the Reform outbursts by leaders of the various fl:: and Reconstructionist movements, thereby blurring its own more nuanced stance: routinely injected into Jewish public it agrees with Orthodoxy that Jewish identity must conform to rabbinic law, but it binate, Rabbi Alexander Schindler of sides with Reform on the need to break the Orthodox monopoly on interpreting tions opined: "Where Orthodoxy alon Jewish law. In order to wage that political battle, Conservative Judaism has allied tion, and ethical corruption hold swa: itself with nonhalakhic movements. The critical divide thus runs between non­ Judaism a "sect" or an expression of ". Orthodox movements on one side and the Orthodox on the other. bis is likely to be even more polarized Since the "who is a Jew" controversy, relations between these camps have con­ of rabbinical students at the Conserva tinued to worsen. ies viewed Orthodoxy as intolerant, 131 isolationist wing. Almost all Orthodo: Item: Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik, the heir apparent to his brother Joseph as the of Conservative rabbinical students re! spiritual leader of centrist Orthodoxy, declared that any unified effort to resolve Although some observers dismiss the chaotic issues of personal status through a Jewish court that included a non­ turf, fragmentary evidence is surfacil Orthodox Jew would be invalid. Moreover, he likened the very act of cooperation to the religious polarization. There is with non-Orthodox groups to the biblical sin of the golden calf because it would broader segments of the Orthodox c­ "mislead ignorant Jewish masses to worship the idol of Reform and Reconstruc­ alone friendship, with non-Orthodo~ tionist Judaism."18 the implicit, if not explicit, stance of Wertheimer/Religious Movements in Collision • 383

mition, whose Jewishness will not be of whether the matter is ever raised Item: Rabbi J. D. Bleich, his colleague at Yeshiva University, the preeminent insti­ do not agree on the question of "who tution of centrist Orthodoxy, "proposed to resolve the problem of 'who is a Jew?' by recognizing Reform converts in Israel the same way the law recognizes e number ofAmerican Jews who care Moslem and Christian converts, that is, as members of a separate religion."19 on the issue of patrilineality, the vast , if their children married someone of Item: A planned meeting between American rabbis and Pope John Paul II was al­ ·nservative Jews and one-tenth of Re­ most torpedoed by denominational bickering. The Synagogue Council of Amer­ no more than one-quarter of Ameri­ ica, an umbrella agency that coordinates the national policies of Jewish rabbinical -h identity put forward by Reform and and congregational organizations, was paralyzed by the insistence of the Union of lion that the rejection of patrilineality Orthodox Jewish Congregations on its right to veto the composition of tlle delega­ servative movement will give way in tion. The matter became moot after tlle pope postponed his visit to the United :upport for patrilineality by American States. But it is unlikely that the umbrella organization will be able to avert con­ pecially as evidence mounts about the flict in the future. The head of the Orthodox rabbinic group insisted on tlle right to -mixed-married homes and as fears of veto the appointment of a homosexual or patrilinear rabbi to a position of leader­ 2o lot about to alter their opposition, and ship on tlle Synagogue Council of America. loted to expel from their association lay yet convince their congregants to Item: The Conservative movement has embarked on a program to free itselffrom re­ liance on Orthodox functionaries. Since the late 1980s the Jewish Theological Sem­ ; a Jew" controversy made it evident inary of American has sponsored programs to train Jewish physicians to perform ~ Jewish community separates Ortho­ ritual circumcision (brit milah) and has taught rabbis how to supervise kashrut ~econstructonistJews explicitly reject (Jewish dietary requirements) in their communities.21 Conservative institutions are ordingly, they do not define Jewish also building their own ritual baths as a response to Orthodox efforts to obstruct tlle 1st, the Conservative movement does performance ofConservative conversion ceremonies at communal mikvaot. 22 :s with some Orthodox positions on e over "who is a Jew" and other con­ Not surprisingly, these policy decisions are accompanied by increasingly uncivil ent has linked arms with the Reform outbursts by leaders of tlle various factions. Name-calling and invective are now lurring its own more nuanced stance: routinely injected into Jewish public discourse. In an address to the Reform rab­ ,must conform to rabbinic law, but it binate, Rabbi Alexander Schindler of the Union of American Hebrew Congrega­ Orthodox monopoly on interpreting tions opined: "Where Orthodoxy alone prevails-stale repression, fossilized tradi­ ttle, Conservative Judaism has allied tion, and ethical corruption hold sway."23 Orthodox writers, in tum, label Reform tical divide thus runs between non­ Judaism a "sect" or an expression of "deviance."24 The upcoming generation of rab­ thodox on the other. bis is likely to be even more polarized. According to a recent study, large majorities ions between tllese camps have con- of rabbinical students at the Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist seminar­ ies viewed Orthodoxy as intolerant, lacking in compassion, and dominated by their isolationist wing. Almost all Orthodox rabbinical students surveyed and two-thirds parent to his brother Joseph as the of Conservative rabbinical students regarded Reform Judaism as "assimilationist."25 ed that any unified effort to resolve Although some observers dismiss these rifts as minor rabbinic squabbling over a jewish court that included a non­ turf, fragmentary evidence is surfacing of a more widespread social consequence : likened the very act of cooperation to the religious polarization. There is some evidence of a withdrawal on the part of of the golden calf because it would broader segments of the Orthodox community away from social interaction, let the idol of Reform and Reconstruc­ alone friendship, with non-Orthodox Jews.26 Though it is not widely publicized, the implicit, if not explicit, stance of the more right-wing Orthodox groups is to 384 • Religion and Spirituality Wertheimer/ avoid such social contacts.27 One writer who examined audio tapes prepared for upheaval within Christian denominatic Orthodox children found "a universe of discourse ... [that] is exclusively Ortho­ about the general pattern, "American dox.... Jews who are other than Orthodox rarely appear, and then only ... as neg­ versy.... Scarcely a statement is uti ative foils," as Jews who are not very smart or as potential converts.28 Moreover, without another faction of the religi01 as the overwhelming majority of Orthodox youngsters now attend their own de­ themselves shift almost continuously, I nomination's day schools, summer camps, and youth programs through their high acrimony continues."34 Certainly, the ­ school years, they increasingly inhabit an exclusive social world that does not within American Judaism parallel thos: even allow for contact with non-Orthodox peers. These moves toward separatism, the substance of the dispute? To whl:: in tum, have antagonized non-Orthodox Jews: a survey of American Jews con­ Orthodox and Orthodox Jews mirror t ducted in the late 1980s found that the majority claimed to be "very offended" "by between conservatives and liberals? HI Orthodox Jews who show no respect for the way you choose to be Jewish."29 So­ fundamentalists and Orthodox Jews? cial barriers between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox worlds are growing higher Jewish community the same as the cuI as the religious conflict intensifies. can society at large? Recognizing the dangers to Jewish unity inherent in religious polarization, The broad brush strokes show many some groups have tried to bridge the divide. This is a central item on the agenda of sequences of religious conflict in Arne CLAL, the national Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, which has a spe­ ity. To begin with, the antagonists-re= cific department called Am Echad-One People. The American Jewish Commit­ common worldview with their count. tee has also acted through its Department of Communal Affairs to bring leaders of James Davison Hunter, the worldview e opposing groups together.30 In local communities rabbis from across the spectrum the commitment on the part of adhere. have initiated programs to keep the lines of communication open and to cooperate dent authority," whereas progressivis on issues ofpan-Jewish concern.31 Even some of the antagonists are edging away resymbolize historical faiths accordine from conflict: the increasingly right-wing Young Israel movement within the Or­ porary life."36 This distinction applies thodox camp saw fit at the time ofthe "who is a Jew" controversy to publish an ad­ separated by their willingness to accept vertisement in the Jewish press to express its understanding "of the pain of those manded by divine (transcendent) authc who mistakenly believe that Orthodoxy has denied their authenticity as Jews." "A such a structure; the Conservative mo' Jew is a Jew," the ad declared, "regardless of his affiliation-Orthodox, Conserv­ ance of such religious norms; and the I ative, Reform, or non-believer-all are, and ever will remain Jews, to be loved and explicitly advocate the need to resymb cherished."32 Rabbis across the spectrum overwhelmingly assert that Jewish lead­ assumptions and to reject a binding reli ers should display unity in public and not delegitimize other Jews. It is those very rejection of a normative, divinely mane same rabbis who carry on the disputes, however. 33 on commandments is central to Jewish: Nevertheless, despite the many laudable efforts to bridge divisions, disputes Moreover, as Hunter notes, those WOl over Jewish personal status remain unresolved; profound disagreements over reli­ pecially regarding matters of public po gious definition, legitimacy, and change fester; social interactions between differ­ believed that their views of marriage an ent types of Jews continue to be strained or nonexistent. And in the background, since the revolutions of the 1960s those Israeli political groups, which do not concern themselves with questions of reli­ tered by new social patterns-increasin~ gious diversity, periodically hurl incendiary challenges into the volatile brew that divergent lifestyles, changing gender fI is Arnerican Judaism. more openly expressed homosexualil demand.37 Some segments of the Ortho with like-minded Christians over these s AJewish Culture War? their part, conservative activists have . Jews, as is attested by Jerry Falwell's (fc The informed observer of Jewish religious conflict cannot fail to note the signifi­ rations of his kinship with Orthodox JeVl cant parallels between developments within American Judaism and the religious about the warm family life of Lubavitch Wertheimer/Religious Movements in Collision • 385

'ter who examined audio tapes prepared for upheaval within Christian denominations. "On all sides," writes Robert Wuthnow of discourse ... [that] is exclusively Ortho­ about the general pattern, "American religion seems to be embroiled in contro­ odox rarely appear, and then only ... as neg­ versy.... Scarcely a statement is uttered by one religious group on the issues 28 smart or as potential converts. Moreover, without another faction of the religious community taking umbrage. The issues thodox youngsters now attend their own de­ themselves shift almost continuously, but the underlying sense ofpolarization and amps, and youth programs through their high acrimony continues."34 Certainly, the tone of discussion and the polarized mood bit an exclusive social world that does not within American Judaism parallel those in American Christianity. But what about odox peers. These moves toward separatism, the substance of the dispute? To what extent does the great rift between non­ ox Jews: a survey of American Jews con­ Orthodox and Orthodox Jews mirror the great divide in American Protestantism e majority claimed to be "very offended" "by between conservatives and liberals? How apt are comparisons between Protestant for the way you choose to be Jewish."29 So­ fundamentalists and Orthodox Jews? And is the religious struggle gripping the d non-Orthodox worlds are growing higher Jewish community the same as the culture war waged in some sectors of Ameri­ can society at large? .sh unity inherent in religious polarization, The broad brush strokes show many similarities in both the causes and the con­ ·vide. This is a central item on the agenda of sequences of religious conflict in American Judaism and in American Christian­ ,r Learning and Leadership, which has a spe­ ity. To begin with, the antagonists-religious conservatives and liberals-share a -One People. The American Jewish Commit­ common worldview with their counterparts in other religions. As defined by nent ofCommunal Affairs to bring leaders of James Davison Hunter, the worldview oforthodoxy in its various pernmtations "is :ommunities rabbis from across the spectrum the commitment on the part of adherents to an external, definable, and transcen­ nes of communication open and to cooperate dent authority," whereas progressivists35 share in common "the tendency to ven some of the antagonists are edging away resymbolize historical faiths according to the prevailing assumptions of contem­ wing Young Israel movement within the Or­ porary life."36 This distinction applies to Jewish religious movements, which are "who is a Jew" controversy to publish an ad­ separated by their willingness to accept a normative religious structure that is com­ press its understanding "of the pain of those manded by divine (transcendent) authority: Orthodoxy in all its shadings affirms xy has denied their authenticity as Jews." "A such a structure; the Conservative movement officially offers a nuanced accept­ dless of his affiliation-Orthodox, Conserv­ ance of such religious norms; and the Refonn and Reconstructionist movements 'e, and ever will remain Jews, to be loved and explicitly advocate the need to resymbolize Judaism according to contemporary urn overwhelmingly assert that Jewish lead­ assumptions and to reject a binding religious structure. Clearly, the acceptance or not delegitimize other Jews. It is those very rejection of a nonnative, divinely mandated Judaism with a legal structure based I, however. 33 on commandments is central to Jewish religious division. udable efforts to bridge divisions, disputes Moreover, as Hunter notes, those worldviews then shape social assumptions, es­ resolved; profound disagreements over reli­ pecially regarding matters of public policy. Until the 1960s, conservative groups ge fester; social interactions between differ­ believed that their views of marriage and sexual morality were widely shared. But led or nonexistent. And in the background, since the revolutions of the 1960s those comfortable assumptions have been shat­ concern themselves with questions of reli­ tered by new social patterns-increasing rates ofdivorce, permissive sexual mores, Idiary challenges into the volatile brew that divergent lifestyles, changing gender roles, the perceived collapse of the family, more openly expressed homosexuality, and the availability of abortion on demand.J7 Some segments of the Orthodox Jewish community have sympathized with like-minded Christians over these symptoms ofdeclining "family values." For their part, conservative activists have worked to build alliances with Orthodox Jews, as is attested by Jerry Falwell's (founder of the moral majority) proud decla­ ious conflict cannot fail to note the signifi­ rations of his kinship with Orthodox Jews and the publication of approving reports ,ithin American Judaism and the religious about the warm family life ofLubavitch Hasidim by a conservative "think tank."38 386 • Religion and Spirituality WertheimerI

In truth, however, only a small segment of the Jewish population is comfort­ With the exception of the last point, 2 able with these alliances. To some extent, Jews are held back by political consid­ ultra-Orthodox Jews in the United Sta erations: there is an ingrained fear of right-wing groups, because they have tradi­ This is not to suggest, however, thl tionally harbored anti-Semites and advocated the Christianization of America. programs from American fundamenta Furthermore, most Jews, including many in the Orthodox camp, cannot subscribe and its most important techniques Wl to the total conservative social agenda. To take the most controversial issue, most Holocaust. These include a reliance 01 Jews of all shades support present public policy on abortion; and even the most secession from official communal ful right-wing Orthodox Jews, who reject abortion on demand, cannot support a ban macy of non-Orthodox rabbis, even TIl on abortion, because under certain circumstances they too rule that abortion is of the Jewish school over the synagol permissible. Even Agudath Israel, an ultra-Orthodox, explicitly pro-life organiza­ thereby granting most power to rabbi tion, which opposes Roe v. Wade, stops short of supporting a ban on public fund­ than to pulpit rabbis. The recent reSl 39 ing and facilities for abortions. Similarly, all religious groupings in Judaism forced by the successful application 0 maintain that divorce is a legitimate option. Thus, while religious liberals, the vast by the model ofAmerican fundament~ majority of American Jewry, actively support liberal social policies and some­ In matters of American politics, a times take a high-profile stance at pro-choice rallies,40 more religiously conserva­ proach that differs from that of Christi, tive Jews are not generally active in the American culture war over social poli­ thodox Jews support conservative poli cies-even when they sympathize with part of the conservative agenda. thodox Jews tend to vote for political This is true even of those Orthodox Jews conventionally lumped together with invest little energy and money in conSt fundamentalists, the right-wing Orthodox, or Haredim, as they are now more may sympathize. The critical battles j commonly known in Jewish circles. To understand why, we first need to clarify Jews and reVOlve around entirely diffel where these Orthodox Jews converge with Christian fundamentalists. Ifwe ignore To take up the first distinction, Orth, the original defining feature of fundamentalism, the belief in biblical inerrancy,41 in the struggle over public policy, the • it is possible to discern some important areas of convergence between the most and culture wars.45 To be sure, Orthodl ultra-Orthodox Jews and the right wing of evangelical Protestantism and Catholi­ half of specific candidates, but they are cism. Both ultra-Orthodoxy and fundamentalism are responses to the challenges communal interests, to get their fair sh~ posed by modernity to traditional religion, and therefore both are most likely to not in order to change American socif exist "where tradition is meeting modernity rather than where modernity is most perspective was colorfully expressed b) remote." Both also engage in a struggle with their own coreligionists who are per­ tact with the Gentile world. I was living ceived as "agents of assault on all that is held dear."42 our community that what goes on in thl Haredim conform to many of the characteristics listed in a recent attempt by if it is meshugah, why should we bott Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby to classify the commonalities shared by all militant antiabortion and anti-gay right 43 fundamentalists. the rule. Most Orthodox Jews do not s. They fight for their narrow political intE I. They are militant. "Fundamentalists begin as traditionalists who per­ The only society ultra-Orthodox Je­ ceive some challenge or threat to their core identity, both social and per­ logical and pragmatic reasons. Orthoe sonal. ... They react, they fight back with great innovative power." have invested in the issue of "who is a 2. They share a "certain understanding of gender, sex roles, the nurturing policy because it offends them that Isra­ and education of children." They have no such expectations of Ar 3. They fight with a chosen repertoire of resources, including "real or pre­ Jews, the so-called Haredim, have at: sumed pasts, to actual or imagined ideal original conditions and con­ life since they are supported by massi­ cepts, and select what they regard as fundamental." man and Menachem Friedman put it: ,.. 4. They "fight under God." train is pulled by the Israeli [Haredillc 5. "They will fight for a changed civil polity." fast on rails maintained" by the Israeli Wertheimer/Religious Movements in Collision • 387

of the Jewish population is comfort­ With the exception of the last point, all of these traits characterize the outlook of ews are held back by political consid­ ultra-Orthodox Jews in the United States .ving groups, because they have tradi­ This is not to suggest, however, that ultra-Orthodoxy derives its strategies and .ted the Christianization of America. programs from American fundamentalism. Ultra-Orthodoxy was born in Europe, the Orthodox camp, cannot subscribe and its most important techniques were imported to America at the time of the :tk:e the most controversial issue, most Holocaust. These include a reliance on separatism in Jewish communal matters­ ·olicy on abortion; and even the most secession from official communal functions and refusal to recognize the legiti­ lion on demand, cannot support a ban macy of non-Orthodox rabbis, even non-ultra-Orthodox rabbis; and the elevation :stances they too rule that abortion is of the Jewish school over the synagogue as the central institution of Jewish life, )rthodox, explicitly pro-life organiza­ thereby granting most power to rabbinic authorities in the yeshiva world, rather ~t of supporting a ban on public fund­ than to pulpit rabbis. The recent resurgence of ultra-Orthodoxy has been rein­ i, all religious groupings in Judaism forced by the successful application of these transplanted approaches rather than Thus, while religious liberals, the vast by the model ofAmerican fundamentalism. •ort liberal social policies and some­ In matters of American politics, as well, ultra-Orthodox Jews pursue an ap­ :e rallies,40 more religiously conserva­ proach that differs from that of Christian fundamentalists. Undoubtedly, some Or­ merican culture war over social poli­ thodox Jews support conservative policy stances; indeed, certain segments of Or­ of the conservative agenda. thodox Jews tend to vote for political conservatives.44 But ultimately, these Jews -conventionally lumped together with invest little energy and money in conservative social causes-however much they or Haredim, as they are now more may sympathize. The critical battles for Orthodox Jews are with non-Orthodox ierstand why, we first need to clarify Jews and revolve around entirely different matters. :hristian fundamentalists. Ifwe ignore To take up the first distinction, Orthodox Jews for the most part are not invested [ism, the belief in biblical inerrancy,41 in the struggle over public policy, the key battleground in the American religious ~as of convergence between the most and culture wars.45 To be sure, Orthodox Jews sometimes become activists on be­ vangelical Protestantism and Catholi­ half of specific candidates, but they are drawn into politics in order to protect their aIism are responses to the challenges communal interests, to get their fair share of government funding and protection­ and therefore both are most likely to not in order to change American society. The conventional right-wing Orthodox rather than where modernity is most perspective was colorfully expressed by Rabbi Yehuda Levin: "I had very little con­ I their own coreligionists who are per­ tact with the Gentile world. I was living in a ghetto without walls.... It is inbred in f dear."42 our community that what goes on in the outside world is meshugah (crazy).... So teristics listed in a recent attempt by if it is meshugah, why should we bother with it."46 Levin nevertheless became a lsify the commonalities shared by all militant antiabortion and anti-gay rights activist, but he is the exception that proves the rule. Most Orthodox Jews do not see American public policy as their domain. They fight for their narrow political interests, not to remake American society.47 begin as traditionalists who per­ The only society ultra-Orthodox Jews wish to remake is Israel-for both ideo­ .core identity, both social and per­ logical and pragmatic reasons. Orthodox groups in the United States and Israel vith great innovative power." have invested in the issue of "who is a Jew" and other questions of Israeli public )f gender, sex roles, the nurturing policy because it offends them that Israel is not governed by traditional Jewish law. They have no such expectations of American society. Moreover, ultra-Orthodox .resources, including "real or pre­ Jews, the so-called Haredim, have a powerful vested interest in Israeli political feal original conditions and con­ life since they are supported by massive government subsidies. As Samuel Heil­ mdamental." man and Menachem Friedman put it: "The [international Jewish] fundamentalism train is pulled by the Israeli [Haredi] locomotive; that locomotive is traveling very lity." fast on rails maintained" by the Israeli government.48

j 388 • Religion and Spirituality Wertheimer/

By contrast, the Orthodox/non-Orthodox rift in the United States focuses not Funding," and "Leaders Protest 'Whl on governmental policy but on communal conflict, particularly regarding the defi­ pp. 12, 13, as well as '''Who Is a Jew' nition of Jewish personal status. True, the various Jewish religious movements 8, 1988,p. 16A. differ in their evaluations of modem culture and American mores; and they also 12. The open letter appeared in the New assess gender and sexual matters differently. But the critical divide between Jew­ thodox divisions over the issue, see among Orthodox over Law of Returr ish religious groups concerns questions of personal status-marriageability and 13· Marc D. Angel, "Leaders of U.S. Je' Jewish identity-which have no counterpart in Christian religious disputes. Put December 16, 1988, p. 26. differently, the culture war engulfing some sectors of Christianity concerns the 14· This is the summary offered by Irving proper ordering of American society; at stake in Judaism are issues of group sur­ by the Year 2000?-Further Reflectio vival and cohesion. As Christians clash over theology and public policy, religious ish Unity (New York: American Jewis Jews battle over the boundaries of their own society-indeed, they cannot even 15· Steven M. Cohen, "Are Reform Jew! agree on whether some of their co-religionists are actually Jewish. 1988, pp. 4-5. 16. See the exchange between Greenberg in 2000 Controversy." Notes 17· Steven M. Cohen, Unity and Polariza can and Israeli Jews (New York: Arne 1. On Irving Greenberg's views, see Gary Rosenblatt, "Judaism's Civil War: How Deep 18. Lawrence Grossman, "Jewish Comn Is the Rift?" Baltimore Jewish Times, January 29, 1988, pp. 56-59; Greenberg, "Will (1991), p. 200. There Be One Jewish People in the Year 2ooo?" Moment, June 1985; and idem, "The 19· Greenberg, "Will There Be One ... FI One in 2000 Controversy" Moment, March 1987. 20. Ira Rifkin, "Intra-Jewish Tension Del 2. The most complete account of this experiment, which includes interviews with all of November 2,1990, pp. 43-44. the participating rabbis, appeared in a special section entitled "Conversion and Patri­ 21. Rahel Musleah, "Surgically Simple, R 0 lineality," Intermountain Jewish News, December 2, 1983. 199 , p. 3; Debra Nussbaum Cohen, . Supervision," JTA Report, July 23, 19~ 3. Traditional synagogues and rabbis are largely a midwestern phenomenon; Traditional 22. Lawrence Troster, "Conversion and M. congregations permit men and women to sit together and utilize a microphone during 23· Alexander Schindler, "Remarks by the religious services; their rabbis, mainly graduates of the Hebrew Theological Semi­ (1982), p. 63· nary in Skokie, identify with Modem Orthodoxy. 24· Alan J. Yuter, "Is Reform Judaism a M 4. For a history of the board written by the leading Reform rabbi in Denver, see Steven 1989, p. 94; N. Wolpin, "One Straw, H E. Foster, ''The Community Rabbbinic Conversion Board: The Denver Model," Jour­ ber 1986, p. 16. nal ofReform Judaism, summer 1984, esp. pp. 27-28. 25· Samuel Heilman, Jewish Unity and Vi­ 5. Nisson Wolpin, "Compromise on the Great Divide: Questionable Conversions in binical Students (New York: Americar. Denver," Jewish Observer, January 1984, pp. 32-34. 26. Samuel Heilman and Steve M. Cohen 6. Editorial, "The Synagogue Council of America," Reconstructionist, July-August thodox Jews in America (Chicago: Ur 1986, p. 6. 27· Hints of this social stance appear occa: 7. When the CCAR placed a female candidate in the chaplaincy program, the commis­ written by Gary Rosenblatt, a journali~ sion was reconstituted as the Jewish Chaplains Council in 1986. See JTA Bulletin, contacts with the rest of the commL August 29, 1985, p. 3; and American Jewish Yearbook 86 (1986), p. 399; and Ameri­ bis ... tell their congregants not to aE can Jewish Yearbook 87 (1987), p. 400, on the name change. families," and as a result these congreg: 8. New York Times, February 28, 1986, p. AI. of reference or connection with their sc 9. Ibid. Modernity," Baltimore Jewish Times, S 10. For information on this conference, see Materials from the Critical Issues Confer­ 28. Ira Robinson, ''The Marvelous Midos : ence, which includes press clippings from Jewish newspapers compiled by CLAL to tional Medium," in Essays in the Socia!. publicize the discussions held in mid-March 1986. vol. 2, ed. Simcha Fishbane and Stuart ~ 11. Cardin is quoted in Arthur J. Magida, '''Who Is a Jew' Dominates Assembly," Jewish 29· Steven M. Cohen, Content or Contin"­ News (Detroit), November 25, 1988, p. 1. See also '''Who Is a Jew' Issue Threatens York: American Jewish Committee, 19 Wertheimer/Religious Movements in Collision • 389

ox rift in the United States focuses not Funding," and "Leaders Protest 'Who Is,''' Atlanta Jewish Times, December 2, 1988, o::onfiict, particularly regarding the defi­ pp. 12, 13, as well as "'Who Is a Jew' Furor Erupts," Atlanta Jewish Times, November e various Jewish religious movements 8, 1988,p. 16A. Ire and American mores; and they also 12. The open letter appeared in the New York Times, December 19, 1988, p. B9. On Or­ thodox divisions over the issue, see Alan Richter and Walter Ruby, "Rift Develops ly. But the critical divide between Jew­ among Orthodox over Law of Return," U Jewish World, December 2-8, 1988, p. 3. f personal status-marriageability and 13. Marc D. Angel, "Leaders of U.S. Jewry Have Fear of Losing Power," Jewish Week, art in Christian religious disputes. Put December 16,1988, p. 26. le sectors of Christianity concerns the 14. This is the summary offered by Irving Greenberg, "Will There Be One Jewish People .ake in Judaism are issues of group sur­ by the Year 2000?-Further Reflections," in Conflict ofCooperation: Papers on Jew­ oer theology and public policy, religious ish Unity (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1989), pp. 9-10. twn society-indeed, they cannot even 15. Steven M. Cohen, "Are Reform Jews Abandoning Israel?" Reform Judaism, spring Jsts are actually Jewish. 1988, pp. 4-5· 16. See the exchange between Greenberg and Steven M. Cohen in Greenberg, "The One in 2000 Controversy." 17. Steven M. Cohen, Unity and Polarization in Judaism Today: The Attitudes ofAmeri­ can and Israeli Jews (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1988), p. 5. 18. Lawrence Grossman, "Jewish Communal Affairs," American Jewish Yearbook 91 Dsenblatt, "Judaism's Civil War: How Deep (1991), p. 200. Jary 29, 1988, pp. 56-59; Greenberg, "Will 19. Greenberg, "Will There Be One ... Further Reflections," p. 10. :ooo?" Moment, June 1985; and idem, "The 20. Ira Rifkin, "Intra-Jewish Tension Delays Papal Meeting," Baltimore Jewish Times, h 1987. November 2, 1990, pp. 43-44. ment, which includes interviews with all of 21. Rahel Musleah, "Surgically Simple, Ritually Complex," U Jewish World, January 19, :cial section entitled "Conversion and Patri­ 1990, p. 3; Debra Nussbaum Cohen, "Conservative Rabbis Get Training in Kashrut :cember 2, 1983. Supervision," JTA Report, July 23, 1992. ~ely a midwestern phenomenon; Traditional 22. Lawrence Troster, "Conversion and Mikveh," RA Newsletter, summer 1989, p. 4. •it together and utilize a microphone during 23. Alexander Schindler, "Remarks by the President of the UAHC," CCAR Yearbook 92 raduates of the Hebrew Theological Semi­ (1982), p. 63. lOdoxy. 24. Alan J. Yuter, "Is Reform Judaism a Movement, a Sect, or a Heresy," Tradition, spring eading Reform rabbi in Denver, see Steven 1989, p. 94; N. Wolpin, "One Straw, How Many Camels?" Jewish Observer, Septem­ Illversion Board: The Denver Model," Jour­ ber 1986, p. 16. I. 2 pp. 27- 8. 25. Samuel Heilman, Jewish Unity and Diversity: A Survey ofAmerican Rabbis and Rab­ reat Divide: Questionable Conversions in binical Students (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1991), pp. 27-35. PP·32-34· 26. Samuel Heilman and Steve M. Cohen, Cosmopolitans and Parochials: Modem Or­ America," Reconstructionist, July-August thodox Jews in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 122-23. 27. Hints of this social stance appear occasionally. It is the subject of an editorial column lte in the chaplaincy program, the commis­ written by Gary Rosenblatt, a journalist who identifies with Orthodoxy but has many lplains Council in 1986. See JTA Bulletin, contacts with the rest of the community. Rosenblatt claims that "Orthodox rab­ ish Yearbook 86 (1986), p. 399; and Ameri­bis ... tell their congregants not to associate with non-Jews, or even non-Orthodox I the name change. families," and as a result these congregants "feel they have hardly any common points of reference or connection with their so-called brethren." Rosenblatt, "'Frum' Here to Modernity," Baltimore Jewish Times, September 25,1992, p. 10. I.faterials from the Critical Issues Confer­28. Ira Robinson, "The Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an Orthodox Educa­ I Jewish newspapers compiled by CLAL to tional Medium," in Essays in the Social Scientific Study ofJudaism and Jewish Society, ch 1986. vol. 2, ed. Simcha Fishbane and Stuart Schoenfeld (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1992), p. 165. 'ho Is a Jew' Dominates Assembly," Jewish 29. Steven M. Cohen, Content or Continuity? Alternative Bases for Commitment (New See also '''Who Is a Jew' Issue Threatens York: American Jewish Committee, 1990), p. 71.

~ 390 • Religion and Spirituality Wertheimerll

Few spokespersons for Orthodoxy will go on record with their views, but it is no secret 43. Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appell that many regard non-Orthodox versions of Judaism as another religion. One right­ University of Chicago Press, 1991), P: wing activist has spoken as follows: "If we give them a test, use any standard recog­ 44. Heilman and Cohen, Cosmopolitans c; nized by the most uneducated, uninitated Gentile as to what would constitute Jewish 4S. For the two most important works 01 affiliation-Sabbath observance, eating kosher, frowning on adultery, the Ten Com­ under the impact of these political/cu mandments-these people would not match up in any way. So therefore I say that they ofAmerican Religion; and Hunter, Cu are practicing a religion which is not Judaism." Quoted by James Davison Hunter, Cul­ 46. Hunter, Culture Wars, p. 13. ture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (New York: Basic Books, 1991), p. IS. 47. One area of public policy that has a church/state separation, specifically 30. See the joint publication of CLAL and the AIC, Conflict or Cooperation: Papers on schools and the public display of reli! Jewish Unity. But here too they have pursued the me 31. See, for example, "A Message from Our Rabbis," Community Review, December IS, principle. On other issues such as abo 1988, p. I, which issues an appeal for unity in the name of all the rabbis in Harris­ ness of traditional Judaism to abortior burg, Pa. sues, see Naomi W. Cohen, Jews in 32. "An Open Letter to Our Brethren," Jewish Week, December 30, 1988, p. 19. Equality (New York: Oxford Universi 33. Heilman, Jewish Unity and Diversity, pp. 16-17. issues, see Grossman, "Jewish Comn 34. Robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring ofAmerican Religion (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Do Jews Stand in the Debate over Ab, University Press, 1988), p. 6. 48. Samuel Heilman and Menachem Fri 3S. Hunter prefers the terms orthodox and progressivist for what others call religious con­ gious Jews: The Case of Haredim," servatives and religious liberals. served, p. 2S8. 36. Hunter, Culture Wars, pp. 44-4S. 37. Wade Clark Roof and William McKinney, American Mainline Religion: Its Changing Shape and Future (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1987), p. 37. 38. Jerry Falwell, "An Agenda for the 1980s," in Piety and Politics: Evangelicals and Fundamentalists Confront the World, ed. Richard J. Neuhaus and Michael Cromar­ tie (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1987), pp. 113-14; Edward Hoff­ man, "Thriving Families in Urban America: The Lubavitcher Hasidim," Family in America (The Rockford Institute Center on the Family in America) 4 (October 1990), pp. Iff. 39. See Grossman, "Jewish Communal Affairs," pp. 191-92, for a discussion of Jewish organizational responses when the U.S. Supreme Court took up a Missouri law deny­ ing public funding and facilities for abortion. 40. Sarah Gold, "Where Do Jews Stand in the Debate over Abortion," U Jewish World, October 23-29, 1992, p. 3. 41. The claim of biblical inerrancy fundamentally asserts the literal truth of the Bible; such literalism was rejected by rabbinic Judaism, and even the most Orthodox of Jews believes in the necessity for rabbinic interpretations, which sometimes flatly contra­ dict the literal words of the text. For a brief analysis of the theological meaning of in­ errancy, see James D. Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 20-2S. 42. Nancy Ammerman, Bible Believers: Fundamentalism in the Modem World (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1987), p. 8. For a trenchant analysis of the early history of Jewish ultra-Orthodoxy in Europe, see Michael K. Silber, "The Emer­ gence of Ultra-Orthodoxy: The Invention of a Tradition," in The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modem Era, ed. Jack Wertheimer (New York and Cam­ bridge, Mass.: Jewish Theological Seminary of America and Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 23-84. Wertheimer/Religious Movements in Collision • 391

on record with their views, but it is no secret 43. Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appelby, eds., Fundamentalisms Observed (Chicago: of Judaism as another religion. One right­ University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. ix-x. Je give them a test, use any standard recog­ 44. Heilman and Cohen, Cosmopolitans and Parochials, pp. 160-73. Gentile as to what would constitute Jewish 45. For the two most important works on the transformation of American religious life -osher, frowning on adultery, the Ten Com­ under the impact of these politicaUcultural battles, see Wuthnow, The Restructuring ~h up in any way. So therefore I say that they ofAmerican Religion; and Hunter, Culture Wars. sm." Quoted by James Davison Hunter, Cul­46. Hunter, Culture Wars, p. 13. I (New York: Basic Books, 1991), p. 15· 47. One area of public policy that has attracted Orthodox attention is the question of church/state separation, specifically regarding government support for parochial Ie AlC, Conflict or Cooperation: Papers on schools and the public display of religious symbols, such as the Hanukkah menorah. But here too they have pursued the matter out of narrow interest, rather than on broad Rabbis," Community Review, December 15, principle. On other issues such as abortion rights, there is little unity, given the open­ :lity in the name of all the rabbis in Harris­ ness of traditional Judaism to abortion under certain circumstances. On separation is­ sues, see Naon1i W. Cohen, Jews in Christian America: The Pursuit of Religious ;z Week, December 30,1988, p. 19. Equality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 240-41; on abortion rights 16-17. issues, see Grossman, "Jewish Communal Affairs," pp. 191-92; and Gold, "Where -nerican Religion (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Do Jews Stand in the Debate over Abortion?" p. 3. 48. Samuel Heilman and Menachem Friedman, "Religious Fundamentalism and Reli­ ~gressivist for what others call religious con­ gious Jews: The Case of Haredim," in Marty and Appelby, Fundamentalisms Ob­ served, p. 258.

-, American Mainline Religion: Its Changing Rutgers University Press, 1987), p. 37. ,s," in Piety and Politics: Evangelicals and . Richard J. Neuhaus and Michael Cromar­ \merica, 1987), pp. 113-14; Edward Hoff­ rica: The Lubavitcher Hasidim," Family in ~r on the Family in America) 4 (October irs," pp. 191-92, for a discussion of Jewish :upreme Court took up a Missouri law deny­ :ion. :le Debate over Abortion," LI Jewish World,

~ntally asserts the literal truth of the Bible; udaism, and even the most Orthodox of Jews erpretations, which sometimes flatly contra­ _ef analysis of the theological meaning of in­ 'calism: The Coming Generation (Chicago:

~0-25· .mdamentalism in the Modem World (New ;s, 1987), p. 8. For a trenchant analysis of the II Europe, see Michael K. Silber, "The Emer­ ·n of a Tradition," in The Uses of Tradition: ed. Jack Wertheimer (New York and Cam­ 1inary of America and Harvard University

...