The Controversy, Community & Politics (Scrapbook)

What does Mainstream Orthodoxy in Britain Believe?

Is There Still Reason to Believe?
Rabbi Louis Jacobs' Legacy Fifty Years On.

Dr. Miri Freud Kandel's talk to the gathering:-

I should begin by noting that, notwithstanding the title for my paper today, the possibility of clearly establishing what people believe is a rather difficult task. It is far from straightforward to decide how to go about trying to establish and quantify belief.
First we could ask whether it is a task for the sociologist or theologian for each may produce differing assessments - approaching the task in different ways and arriving at differing conclusions?
Second we have to consider how, when people make claims about their personal beliefs, individuals may differ from one another in their understanding of what attesting to holding such a belief actually entails. One of the easiest examples here would be with regard to belief in God - for one individual this may refer to belief in a personal God, author of history, in a covenantal relationship with the Jewish people, but at the same time another individual may understand it in a rather nebulous way to define something 'out there' beyond human understanding. More relevantly to our discussions this evening, this problem in defining belief reflects one of the key legacies of WHRTB for on the question of belief in divine revelation the nature of belief outlined by Rabbi Louis Jacobs differed from other interpretations that could be given for the principle.

Another difficulty arises when we consider questions of belief in the context of Anglo-Jewish Orthodoxy. When we think about the Jewish community in Britain it is not traditionally viewed as a community actively engaged in questioning matters of belief.
It has commonly been acknowledged that what could be characterised as the "Anglo-Jewish way" is often to prioritise synagogue membership - being a member of a Jewish congregation is a widespread characteristic of British Jews. Yet, affiliation with a Jewish community that has certain practices and beliefs associated with it need not necessarily lead to an individual fully adhering to those practices and beliefs with which one is ostensibly identified through the payment of membership dues.

So perhaps it could be suggested that I should have offered an alternative title for my paper. And yet it seems a pertinent title in the context of the discussions that have been occurring so far today. The publication of the book whose 50th anniversary is being marked this evening certainly was concerned with questions of belief. The so-called Jacobs Affair which, albeit somewhat belatedly, was purportedly sparked off by the publication of WHRTB similarly appeared to address issues of belief.

In a seeming shift away from the inclination towards theological malaise in Anglo-Jewry, interpretations of the doctrine of Torah min hashamayim came to be debated not only at events such as these and in the Jewish Press but in the National Press as well.

Beyond addressing the specifics of Jewish beliefs regarding revelation, WHRTB and indeed the Jacobs Affair as a whole can also be seen to have been tied up in the more general question of how to construct Jewish lives that balanced Jewish practice and belief with engagement in the ideas of contemporary society. Essentially this more general issue involved a debate over the meaning of such ideological banners as "progressive conservative Judaism", "modern Orthodoxy", or "minhag Anglia". Beyond the terminology, at their heart lies the question of the rightful place of theologies of synthesis and compartmentalisation - is Judaism to be combined with engagement in society or to merely co-exist alongside it with the two spheres occupying mutually exclusive realms?

If the debates surrounding the publication of WHRTB, or at least the later furore associated with the work, are to be seen as tied up with these two issues of belief then perhaps, for all my opening reservations, it becomes clear that it does make sense to try to examine their lasting impact. The battleground over the place of the theories put forward in WHRTB was mainstream British Orthodoxy. It was this community that was engaged in an effort to straddle the two worlds of observant Judaism and British society. On both the religious right and left the battle over synthesis versus compartmentalisation, integration versus isolation, had already been fought. Potentially, the scope to define the views that would characterise the centre ground was open to debate.

So what do we find when we consider the changing approaches that have been manifest in the intervening fifty years and that characterise the contemporary community on the questions of Torah min hashamayim and religious synthesis?

Perhaps the first thing to note is the overall decline in religious affiliation in Anglo-Jewry that can be discerned in the last fifty years. The most recent study on synagogue membership in Britain undertaken by the Community Research Unit of the Board of Deputies noted a 17.8% decline in all types of synagogue membership between 1990-2005/6. Not only is Anglo-Jewry shrinking, but the proportion of Jews in Britain maintaining affiliation to synagogues is also diminishing

Significantly, it also noted that for the first time in the history of the Jewish community in Britain affiliation to mainstream Orthodox synagogues had fallen below the fifty per cent mark in London. Nationally between 1990-2005/6 affiliation rates to mainstream Orthodoxy had dropped by 31%.

In the same period, as mainstream Orthodoxy experienced increasing decline, affiliation to right-wing Orthodox synagogues has grown by 51.4%. In London it now accounts for 12.4% of Jews affiliated to synagogues.
The other synagogal grouping experiencing significant growth is Masorti, which has more than doubled its proportion of affiliated members in Britain, although it still accounts for only 2.5% of total affiliation.

These statistics appear to suggest that the appeal of the broad umbrella approach to Judaism that has traditionally characterised Anglo-Jewry appears to be waning. British Jews are tending to choose either to sever their religious ties with the community, particularly as alternative cultural forms of identification are growing, or to affiliate with synagogues outside the centre ground. The centrist forces represented by mainstream Orthodoxy have been put into retreat.

The religious position represented by the right-wing Orthodox most clearly reflects the so-called 'fundamentalist' viewpoint for which WHRTB was trying to provide an alternative. Right-wing Orthodoxy's promotion of compartmentalisation rather than accepting any scope for synthesis is also largely unquestionable. It seems therefore that for growing numbers of Jews in Britain the legacy of the Jacobs Affair was to help invalidate the position of mainstream Orthodoxy and encourage a movement towards greater religious stringency. The ideas expressed in WHRTB had been placed outside the boundaries of mainstream Orthodoxy through the events of the Jacobs Affair. Nonetheless, for those seeking greater religious security, right-wing Orthodoxy is increasingly seen as better equipped to avoid the potential for the questioning of religious beliefs of the type debated in the Jacobs Affair. The appeal of trying to find the means to balance being Jewish and being British - of trying to maintain a "modern Orthodoxy" or "progressive conservative Judaism" - is waning. Fostering a more unquestioning type of Judaism, more secure against contemporary challenges, is preferred.

As right-wing Orthodoxy has strengthened, its capacity to influence mainstream Orthodox practices and beliefs has also increased. Its success in maintaining adherents and indeed growing cannot help but appeal to those suffering from the experience of disaffiliation. The perception grows that they must be doing something right. Consequently, it has been noted how Orthodoxy as a whole has exhibited tendencies to becoming increasingly homogenous. The growing inclination to seek consensus around an increasingly stringent interpretation of halakhah and silence dissenting voices that threaten the boundaries designed to demarcate and protect Orthodoxy from outsiders is striking. Related to this, a shift away from seeking synthesis can be seen to characterise growing sections of Orthodoxy worldwide. Interestingly, the late Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, critiqued both these trends. He asserted that neither represented dominant positions of Orthodox Judaism in prior ages.

On the issue of 'inter-Orthodox diversity' he asserted
'we seem to suffer today from an unconscionable drive towards conformity. Until the Second World War we had, all within the unimpeachably Orthodox fold, a fairly wide variety of authentic attitudes and philosophies - represented by institutions as diverse as Lithuanian-type Yeshivot, the Berlin Rabbiner Seminar, London's Jews' College, and New York's Yeshiva University, and embracing Chassidic Stibles, Gross-Gemeinden and Austritts-Gemeinden alike. Now we find a growing call for uniformity and a tendency to write off as dissenters or heretics those who do not toe the line drawn by their critics. ... Today, a communal rabbi, however Orthodox, is often subjected to intolerable pressures, or indeed to the denial of his rabbinic competence, if he refuses to conform with the dictates and anathemas of those who regard themselves, and are upheld by their followers, as the sole custodians of Jewish religious authority.'
The scope for creating more flexible boundaries even within mainstream Orthodoxy is under attack. The sense that there is a single correct path to follow to righteousness is expressed in an often forthright manner that can exert widespread influence.

That this changing Orthodox landscape should influence attitudes towards the practice of synthesis is unsurprising. Jakobovits' German background enabled him to perceptively examine and highlight the shift away from synthesis that can be discerned across the Orthodox world. His own upbringing in the Torah im derekh eretz theology associated with such Rabbis as Samson Raphael Hirsch, Esriel Hildesheimer, and David Zvi Hoffmann led him to comment on the manner in which these ideas had either commonly been reinterpreted or simply rejected.
'Torah im derekh eretz, the philosophy of synthesis, of some relationship linking religious with secular values, studies and pursuits - the humanism of Samson Raphael Hirsch - is extinct. No longer is there a single institution of higher Jewish learning in the world that can truly claim to be guided by the teachings and philosophy of Hirsch. There are ersatz institutions which claim to be in the tradition of Torah im derekh eretz but not as Hirsch understood it.'
He clarifies his argument here by clearly elucidating the initial intended meaning of synthesis
'when Hirsch speaks of Torah im derekh eretz, he does not intend a physical mixing of Torah and Derekh Eretz, but a chemical synthesis, where two elements fuse together and in which each constituent enriches the other. In other words, Torah is enriched by the application of modern methods of scholarship and research; and modern scholarship is enhanced by applying the insights and commitment of Torah.'

Jakobovits noted that there were three broad movements that characterised Orthodoxy prior to WWII: Chasidism, Mitnagdim - in which he includes the Mussar school, and Torah im derekh eretz. Given the destruction of Eastern European Jewry in the Shoah he suggests it could be viewed as surprising that Orthodoxy has come to reject the one Orthodox response to modernity that reflected the western rather than eastern European cultural values that had survived in post-WWII Judaism. Furthermore
he insisted that Judaism was not traditionally characterised by the inward-looking focus that had come to dominate Orthodoxy.
'It seems to me that with the current trend among our leading rabbinic intellects to discountenance some synthesis of religious and secular values we depart from every historic tradition before us. Of course, there always existed conflicting schools of thought on the attitude to secular avocations in our history. But Jewish studies became exclusive only when the general environment was of a low cultural level and offered no challenge to Jewish culture, such as at the times of Rashi and Tosaphoth, and more recently in Eastern Europe.

Jakobovits identified two key causes in the devaluation of Hirschian philosophy within the Orthodox world (1) loss of belief in western civilisation, a process that began in the latter stages of the nineteenth century and was confirmed by the experiences of the Shoah (2) creation of the state of Israel has served to undermine Hirsch's views praising galut and emphasising the value of the Jews' mission to function as a light unto the nations. Post-Shoah Orthodoxy has been inclined to turn inwards rather than focus on the surrounding society.
More generally we can consider how the 1960s and 1970s facilitated the growth of more fundamentalist religious viewpoints across a number of religions. This was a period in which the principle of multiculturalism became more entrenched and the search for meaning in an uncaring world intensified.

For all Jakobovits' criticism of the changing positions coming to dominate Orthodox Judaism, he was nonetheless no advocate of mainstream British Orthodoxy. He accused Jews in Britain of 'raising the art of compromise into an ideal, per se'. Moreover, whilst willing to criticise those who subverted a Hirschian type theology of synthesis, he also acknowledged the limitations of such a theology and cannot really be seen to have championed such a position when Chief Rabbi.

Indeed, at the start of the Chief Rabbinate of his successor, Jonathan Sacks, a survey of London Jewry was carried out under the auspices of the United Synagogue. This was popularly to become known as The Kalms' Report. This survey identified widespread alienation with the religious viewpoints that were seen to have been cultivated during Jakobovits' Chief Rabbinate. Notwithstanding his criticisms of the religious shifts occurring in worldwide Orthodoxy, Jakobovits was perceived to have strengthened the development of a more exclusive Anglo-Jewish Orthodoxy. The Report called on all the religious institutions associated with the United Synagogue to reclaim an inclusivist approach.
'The United Synagogue should pursue ... as its mission, the need to expand its membership under the banner "including Jews within tradition".'
It noted the popular desire to revive the positive aspects of the concept of minhag Anglia. Whilst the emphasis on pomp and ceremony most characteristic of Victorian Britain had lost their appeal, the best aspects of minhag Anglia were seen to include:
'Tolerance and moderation - treasured values that deserve a home in contemporary society. Also integration - the challenge and the tension of living with at least one foot in the modern, secular, western world'

Yet an important question to consider is whether the vision set out in the Kalms' Report was in fact concerned with matters of belief? Its focus, particularly in light of its discoveries on the waning membership of the United Synagogue, was to find a means of trying to bring Jews in Britain back to the synagogue. This was the primary goal of its call for the reclamation of an inclusive Judaism. Although it acknowledged the appeal within mainstream Orthodoxy for what it characterised as 'integration', this could primarily be seen as one of the elements to be incorporated in its call for inclusivism.

Looking at the contemporary United Synagogue one of its striking features is the number of Lubavitch rabbis occupying its pulpits. On a theological level one could question the extent to which Lubavitch Chasidism is in confluence with United Synagogue Judaism. However the role of Lubavitch in the United Synagogue rabbinate is indicative of a desire to focus on kiruv - an outreach programme seeking to bring Jews back to synagogues and from there encourage them to observe the practices of Judaism. Questions of belief are a long way off. Divergences between beliefs of a United Synagogue Judaism and Lubavitch are not therefore of great consequence.

The changes that have occurred to Jews College over the last fifty or so years can also be considered relevant here. The re-branded London School of Jewish Studies is functioning pretty successfully and attracting large numbers of participants in a wide variety of programmes as a result of having been re-established as an adult education centre. It has ceased to offer its own rabbinical training programme - which may have provided a forum to discuss issues of belief or theology. It has likewise ceased to function as an institute of higher education in which rigorous intellectual scholarship could be pursued. Its current success can be seen to derive, at least in part, from its focus on bringing Jews through its doors to encourage them to start the process of learning about their Judaism in order to become able in due course to think about it.

Returning then to the initial focus of our discussion here on the impact that the publication of WHRTB and the subsequent Jacobs Affair exerted over mainstream British Orthodoxy, what we in fact see is a community whose attention has remained largely undiverted towards issues of theology. Both at the doctrinal level and regarding the question of how to go about constructing a balance between Jewishness and Britishness, debate has largely been avoided. Certainly there have been occasions when the issue of Torah min hashamayim has surfaced but the general inclination has been to avoid theological debate. To some extent this can simply be seen to reflect shifts that have occurred in Orthodox Judaism in general. The appeal of right-wing Orthodoxy's stringent boundaries has encouraged increasing homogeneity across Orthodox Judaism and discourages dissent. Amongst those Jews in Britain who have sought to increase their religious observances the appeal of right-wing Orthodoxy has been strong and encouraged that sector's rapid growth. Amongst the mainstream there is theological malaise and a consequent increasing drift away from religious affiliation as the means of identifying as Jewish.

Perhaps then, the question we could more pertinently ask is whether the Jacobs Affair that followed the publication of WHRTB was in fact related to issues of belief in the first place, at least in the public consciousness? Was the furore actually associated with concerns over doctrinal interpretation or may other factors may have been more significant?

If we are to question what mainstream Orthodoxy in Britain believes the answer would have to be that it continues to prioritise synagogue membership and perhaps an increase in a more stringent religious practice of Judaism over issues of belief. Questions of belief have largely remained tangential.

1. Consider also findings of JPR survey Secular or religious? The outlook of London's Jews, David Graham, London, IJPR, 2003.
2. Of course it should be noted that the higher birth rates experienced within right-wing Orthodoxy contribute to this sector's growth.
3. 'Conformity and Diversity in the Jewish Historical Tradition', Lecture delivered at the Inauguration of the Immanuel Jakobovits Chair in Jewish Law at Bar Ilan University, April 1974, in The Timely and the Timeless: Jews, Judaism and Society in a Storm-tossed Decade, London: Vallentine Mitchell (1977), pp.264-5.
4. Immanuel Jakobovits, "Torah im derekh eretz", in The Jewish Legacy and the German Conscience: Essays in Memory of Rabbi Joseph Asher, eds., M. Rischin & R. Asher, Berkeley, CA: Judah L. Magnes Museum (1991) p.158. In this vein it is also interesting to consider Jakobovits' comments on how Isidor Grunfeld's presentation of the thought of SR Hirsch can be seen to change, a phenomenon Jakobovits suggests could have resulted from the increasing influence of eastern European Orthodox forces. 'Grunfeld clearly became less determined to point at Torah im derekh eretz as the focal teaching of S R Hirsch as the years passed on, presumably under pressure of the growing projection of Judaism in East European perspectives, viewing it increasingly through Hassidism and through Yeshiva eyes.' (I. Jakobovits, 'Torah im derekh eretz Today', in A Collection of Essays and Articles by the Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, prepared for the Traditional Alternatives Symposium, 21 May, 1989, Jews' College, London (1989), p.22)
5. Ibid., p.165
6. 'A Blueprint for Rabbinic Leadership', Address delivered at First Conference of European rabbis, in Amsterdam, Holland, Nov. 5, 1957, in I. Jakobovits, Journal of a Rabbi
7. 'The Anglo-Jewish contribution to Judaism: Tercentary Reflections', reprint of an article published in The Jewish Chronicle, August 31, 1956, in Journal of a Rabbi, London: W. H. Allen, (1967), p.51.
8. See his 'Torah im derekh eretz Today', in A Collection of Essays and Articles by the Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, prepared for the Traditional Alternatives Symposium, 21 May, 1989, Jews' College, London (1989)
9. A Time for Change: United Synagogue Review, Stanley Kalms Foundation, London, 1992, p.4 10. Ibid., p.37.