I was recently shown an article by a
Protestant clergyman which contended that contemporary reports of a fall in
church attendance in Canada are only presenting one side of the story. Indeed,
these reports are accurate in regard to attendance at the majority of mainline
churches, that is, churches that have modernized
their theology, adopting more liberal, and more universally accepted,
interpretations of Christianity’s beliefs. In regard to other churches, though,
that have maintained or returned to more traditional, conservative teachings,
the opposite is actually happening. Their attendance is increasing. Looking at
this demographic, rather than religion being in a process of dying, there is
actually a rejuvenation occurring.
This should not be surprising. If one
considers the modernization of theology, on a certain plane, what one is really
describing is the integration of modern perspectives into traditional theology.
If this is so, then the distinction between this integrated theological
grouping and other modern social groupings would naturally become less apparent
or clear as this integration takes place. Why, then, would one identify with such
a specific theological group when what this group offers may not be that
different than the standards and practices of general society? If the mores of
those within the Church are basically similar to the mores of others outside
the Church, why the need to specifically connect with those within this Church?
There is, simply, less reason for this distinct identity.
.
In that a more traditional religious
teaching reflects a distinction in thought and/or attitude from the modern,
general populace, it makes sense that those sharing these beliefs would wish to
identify with a group of like-minded individuals apart from the general public.
The more pronounced a group’s distinctiveness is, the more those attracted to
this viewpoint will specifically take action to identify with this group. There
is, therefore, a good reason why church attendance would increase within such a
sub-group within society. Similarly, the less distinct a specific group is, the
less people will be motivated to carve out a separate identity from the larger,
general population. A drop-in church attendance would be understandable among
this population, for what need do they have to specifically connect with this particular
group, as they have the option of identifying or participating in a range of other
similar groupings within society. They would be content with simply being seen
as a member of the general populace.
In a similar vein, but from the opposite
direction, if individuals initially wish to build or strengthen a certain
Church identity, there is also greater impetus for them to adopt more
traditional leanings in order to foster their social distinctiveness and,
hence, spur the identity. In other words, wishing to be perceived as dissimilar
via a certain group identity, fosters the promotion of differences between the standards
and behaviour of the group and those of the dominant society. Even if members
of this group have a general affinity for modern mores, they may choose to
foster distinction through the maintenance of at least some traditional
perspectives. If you want to promote
group identity, your group has to stand out! What the trend in Canadian
church attendance is really showing us is that, if you want people to come to
your church, your church has to be unlike other options – other churches and
other social institutions. Otherwise, why would someone connect with this church
when what that person is desiring can be met in many other places and perhaps
more easily?
The application of these observations to
the Jewish world would seem to be obvious. More traditionalism within the realm
of Jewish identity would also foster distinctiveness from the general populace,
a necessity for the enduring strength of a sub-grouping within a broader
society – and, indeed, this seems to have occurred. Connection to Jewish
identity has reflected, in recent years, a correlation between distinctiveness
and tradition. The percentage of Jews who define themselves as Orthodox has
clearly increased over the last few decades. This means that those who identify
as Jewish are also becoming more likely to identify as Orthodox. This suggests
that, in correlation with a desire for stronger Jewish identity, a move to
traditionalism has also occurred in the Jewish world.
Yet, while a swing towards tradition may
be further fostering Jewish identity, the drive to identify with the broad
Jewish sub-group still also exists outside of an interest in tradition. While tradition
may foster Jewish group identity it still does not define it. The desire to
identify with other Jews extends beyond the sharing of a positive perspective
on traditional values.
As such, in the Jewish world, even one feeling
an aversion to traditional religious teachings may still feel a great desire to
identify distinctly as Jewish and connect with the Jewish group. While
tradition may foster Jewishness, as indicated by the growth in Orthodoxy, attraction
to Jewishness still also exists outside of an attraction to traditionalism and
traditional values, as personified by these individuals adverse to tradition
yet still wishing to express themselves as Jewish. In a similar vein, even the
vast majority of those attracted to tradition still would include those
uninterested in tradition in their definition of the broader Jewish group to
which they belong. The group extends beyond an interest in traditional values
and, as such, the group’s identity still exists outside this move to tradition.
As, a further indication of this issue
within Jewish identity, we should also note how many Jews not only wish to connect
with the perspectives of mainstream society but also take special pride that,
in our present world, they, furthermore, can do so as Jews. There are many
stories of individuals who specifically wanted to join a certain club because
they could now do so as Jews. As such, even as these individuals may share the
mores of the present society, they would still clearly not be “content with
simply being seen as a member of the general populace.” They also want, as they
integrate into society, to identify as Jews. For such individuals, there is a
desire for a distinct Jewish identity but with this identity’s distinctiveness not
being greatly at odds with the mores of the general society. Simply, these
individuals wish to identify as Jews but also wish to maintain the universal
values of the general society. In fact, these individuals, furthermore, often see
this integration of universal values, especially liberal ones, as a reflection
of their very Jewishness. (There may even be the argument that modern liberal
values came from Jewish values.) There is, thus, a further factor in the
breadth of modern Jewish identity in that, for some Jews, this very drive to
identify as a Jew may demand, simultaneously, distinctiveness in concert with a
strong universal connection.
One of the challenges of modern Jewish
identity has actually always been how to maximize both sides of this equation –
to maintain a distinctiveness while ensuring that this distinctiveness does not
necessarily challenge the acceptance of Jews into the general community and, to
varying degrees, their acceptance, as Jews, of general communal mores. This is
an almost contradictory requirement of modern Jewishness. This is a further
tension and challenge in the Jewish world that even the Orthodox would take
into consideration, namely how Jewish distinctiveness may impact on the
acceptance of Jews within the general society. For all Jews, the question is always
how to be distinct yet also accepted; the issue being the degree of this
balance.
When Western society opened up to its
Jewish populations, there were three responses. There were those who chose to
assimilate and forego their Jewish identity in response to their desire to
integrate with the general population. There were those who chose to barricade
themselves from any outside influence, choosing to protect their Jewish
identity from any possibility of being affected by the new tolerance of their
non-Jewish neighbours. Then, there were the ones who wished to have both, to
maintain their Jewish identity while integrating as best they could with the
outside society. Different paths were formed to achieve the desired objective,
each one reflecting differing theological as well as other considerations. One
important dynamic in this environment, though, was that there was no need to
reinforce the distinctiveness of Jewishness in the face of the welcoming nature
of the general society. Once one declared oneself as Jewish, the distinction
was already powerfully enunciated, for, despite the existence of a more
welcoming outside culture, there was still a strong, general recognition of the
Jew as different, with a resulting desire for at least some separation. As
such, Reform Jews, for example, could undertake to strongly integrate many
aspects of the general society into their Jewish practice – and even have
limited desire to adopt much distinctive Jewish practice – as the very presentation
of themselves as Jews established their distinctiveness as Jews in regard to
others. These individuals thus needed to be solely concerned with how to
integrate into the general community. This is not the situation today. The Jew
today also has to be concerned with how to enunciate his/her distinctiveness,
for the simple statement that one is Jewish no longer has this force.
This is the challenge we are
identifying. How one balances distinctiveness and integration in our modern
world has to be proactive, regardless of how one may determine the desired
balance that he/she wishes to achieve. As such, there are many Jews who want to
be different and connect with their Jewish distinctiveness but also do not want
to be too different to the extent that they also wish to strongly connect with
universal humanity – and, furthermore, to do so as Jews. The option of simply
melting away into the general, universal population is not such an attractive
one to such individuals. They are not interested in full assimilation. Many
individuals, even as they are attracted to the overall values of the general
society, still wish to maintain a recognizable Jewish identity that somehow
allows for a dual possibility – to be distinctly Jewish but also almost fully
integrated with the external society.
If being a Jew ultimately just means
that I am just like everyone else, then there is really little force in this
identify as a Jew. If, however, being a Jew means you are different in ways
that you really do not favour, there is also little motivation to identify as a
Jew. I am reminded of an article I once read in response to the argument that
involvement in Orthodoxy is a strong force against assimilation. The author
maintained that if this was the price for the continuation of Jewishness, he
would rather assimilate. The strength of Jewish identity absolutely demands a
distinction in this identity but, for this form of distinctiveness to be
accepted, it must be one which the individual finds positive or, at least
acceptable in some manner. As much as these Jews may wish to maintain a
distinctiveness as Jews, a return to traditional values may be too high a cost
– especially if they feel that, as Jews, they should be integrating, to some
extent, with a society that has embraced them. To them, though, simple
integration into the general society is still also not a desired alternative
for they still want to be recognized as Jews embracing this society.
A possible different answer for Jews,
though, may be found in the distinctiveness of what we may term Jewish ritual
behaviour, which is basically seen by many, simply, as behaviour marking
Jewishness. A Jew, through such behaviour, can have, thereby, a strong means of
enunciating a distinction in identity while still maintaining the general
ethical standards of the society.
Ritual
and Ethic
The attempt to distinguish mitzvot through the categorization of
Ritual and Ethical is one that, for many reasons, must always be approached
with caution. In general, the term Ethical reflects certain moral and ethical
constructs with a focus on human interpersonal relations; commands, for example,
reflecting on the treatment of the poor. The term Ritual is then employed to
refer to mitzvot that reflect on the
human relationship with the Divine; commands, for example, such as kashrut and/or Shabbat. The challenge in applying these terms is that it is often
very difficult to neatly apply these categorizations, as a thorough
investigation of many mitzvot in all
their details can reveal a multi-dimensional nature that overlaps these
boundaries. At the same time, though, this distinction may also have instructive
significance in regard to the mitzvah
and, as such, cannot be simply disregarded. There is value in this
classification and there is concern – yielding a complexity which should cause
one to approach this issue with caution. Within the context of this discussion,
though, the issue is not really the actual nature of the mitzvah but, rather, what it portrays in regard to identity. The
term Ritual is simply employed herein to refer to certain behaviour that can be
seen as uniquely associated with Jewishness. The issue before us is the use of such
behaviour in enunciating identity.
In the Ritual mitzvot we thus find behaviour that essentially can be seen as
distinctly Jewish without necessarily challenging general societal mores. Furthermore,
while it may be that some may still define this ritual behaviour as challenging
certain communal standards, this also does not necessarily have to be the case
– especially if the observance of ritual mitzvot
is done selectively as individuals chose which ritual action they may wish to
perform. The result is that through such behaviour, one can thus find a method
of strongly identifying with the Jewish group while not necessarily, at the
same time, being at odds with the general mores of society. It must further be
recognized that such observance of ritual mitzvot
need not be necessarily identified with Orthodoxy. Think of the Israeli team,
all wearing kippot during the playing
of the national anthems, at the recent World Baseball Classic. Such behaviour,
simply as expressions of Jewishness, can play an interesting role in responding
to the above noted challenge of Jewish identity.
In a certain way, this very idea was
reflected in the relatively recent promotion by the Reform movement of the
observance of more ritual by its membership. This was not the only reason why Reform
Judaism began advocating for the observance, to some extent, of more ritual mitzvot; these other, theological
reasons, though, need not be addressed in the context of this presentation. For
our purposes, we can note that such observance still did have the effect of
providing for a distinction in Jewish identity while allowing for the promotion
of a liberal moral agenda in line with certain elements within the general
society and even contrary to traditional Jewish values. In a broader sense, what
has occurred is that individuals, through choosing to perform ritual mitzvot as they wish, become able to
mark a distinctiveness in Jewish identity without infringing upon the person’s
universal viewpoints. From the perspective of Reform Judaism, in that,
furthermore, one chooses the extent and nature of this observance, the effect
on one’s relationship with the general community can be personally monitored.
In that the present general community
also welcomes cultural diversity, observance of ritual in this manner can even
be perceived as ‘cool’ and, thereby, even foster connections. In terms of a
Jew’s acceptance within the general community, ritual thus can serve a further
purpose in allowing for distinction while not, in any manner, challenging one’s
acceptance by the general populace. The populace, in general, is even happy to
see individuals expressing their ‘cultural’ distinction. As an example of this,
one can look at the Vogue article, How to
Host a Shabbat Dinner and Why You Should—Even if You Aren’t Celebrating.
Ritual simply seen as distinctive Jewish behaviour, especially if selectively
chosen, can provide for distinction without challenging even extensive
integration of communal values – an answer for many Jews.
Given this perception and application of
ritual mitzvot as basically
reflecting identity, we must now, though, also re-consider our discussion of the
swing to tradition in the Jewish world. We presented the idea that the force of
traditionalism which spurred greater Church identification of this nature in
the Christian world had similar effects in the Jewish world. The inference was
that this furtherance of conservative ethics tied to traditionalism was also a
factor in the advancement of Jewish identity, specifically leading people to
Orthodoxy. This move to traditionalism within the Jewish world, however, may
not have necessarily been associated with ethics but simply reflected a desire
for traditional Jewish behaviour. If one perceives the strength of one’s
identification as a Jew to be exhibited by distinctive Jewish ritual behaviour,
and Orthodox practice is deemed to be the most powerful demonstration of this
commitment through ritual, the result may be an attraction to traditional
behaviour, not necessarily traditional ethics. In that ritual mitzvot are inherently associated with
Orthodoxy and tradition, there would also be a natural merging of this drive
for strong identity through behaviour with Orthodoxy and tradition. The Jewish move
to traditionalism could, thus, be vastly different than the move to
traditionalism within the Christian world expressed in the above noted article.
The specific dynamics of ritual as an expression of identity tied to tradition
could yield ethical results vastly different than the move to tradition
described in the Christian model presented in that article. The move to
tradition in the Jewish world may not correspond with the move to more
traditional, conservative values in the Christian world which the article
described as the basis for increased attendance in more Conservative churches.
This would explain the acceptance of
more liberal trends also within Orthodoxy as individuals may abide by a strong
commitment to Orthodox ritual while maintaining many ethical perspectives that
reflect the thought of modern society. Even within the Orthodox world, ritual
can provide for a distinction in Jewish identity while still allowing for the acceptance
of certain elements from the universal moral agenda of the general society. In
fact, it should be noted that this more positive attitude towards some of the
general society’s ethical viewpoints may also not necessarily be outside the inherent
purview of Orthodoxy. There has always been legitimate disagreements within
Orthodoxy on variant ethical issues just as such disagreements have existed in
regard to ritual matters. Simply, even as Orthodoxy may be defined as the more
conservative and traditional branch of generic Judaism, it is not necessarily
similar to the more conservative and traditional branches of Christianity.
Nevertheless, unlike the Reform movement
where one will find a greater association with the universal, liberal
perspective, there could still be more of a commitment to conservative ethical
viewpoints within Orthodoxy – which is, in fact, the case. Traditionalism in
this regard can still clearly be a motivating factor of Orthodox identity and,
in many ways, Orthodoxy’s greater connection to what would be termed
traditional values is obvious to most and can be a motivating factor in
Orthodox commitment. Still, the legitimate breadth of Orthodox thought does
recognize a wider spectrum of acceptable ethical viewpoints than what would be
accepted within conservative Churches. Ethical stances within Orthodoxy can be
flexible. The growth of Orthodoxy, which may be seen as reflective of the
influence of traditionalism within the Jewish world, may indeed still also be
primarily an interest in traditional ritual behaviour. Orthodox identity may,
thus, also be chiefly defined through behaviour, specifically ritual behaviour.
Traditionalism within a Jewish context may indeed primarily reflect a focus on
traditional behaviour.
Such an overarching concern with ritual can,
in fact, also allow for the presence within Orthodoxy – even if only
self-defined by such individuals – of people who describe themselves as
Orthodox while maintaining ethical perspectives even clearly outside the
parameters of Orthodoxy – and this can be at both ends of the spectrum. In
addition, the adoption of more conservative ethical perspectives by segments of
the population may not be a result of a commitment to Orthodoxy per se but rather simply reflect their
own personal perspectives. This may again reflect that the force of Jewishness
may thus truly be, in many ways, overridingly ritual. It is such behaviour that
may also tie one to Orthodoxy; in fact, the terms used to reflect Orthodox
identity – such as Shomer Shabbat
[Sabbath Observer] – would seem to be tied to such behaviour. This commitment
to such behaviour is not just as a means of public demonstration of one’s
identity. Even in private, it serves to reinforce one’s perception of
self-identity. The Shomer Shabbat
person does not just observe Shabbat
in public. He/she does so in private because it is a reflection of
self-identity. The point is that this identity is specifically expressed in
ritual action.
What may also occur through such a focus
on ritual, however, is a consideration for ritual almost to the exclusion of a consideration
of the Orthodox ethical perspective; Orthodox identity, in fact, becoming so
strongly defined by ritual behaviour with a result, to some extent, of limited
concern for ethical perspective. The result would thus be an allowance for
greater variance in ethical perspective, within the identified Orthodox world
of practice, than may actually exist within Orthodox halachic parameters even given the possible breadth of spectrum in
this regard. The move to tradition within the Jewish world may really just mean
a move towards traditional ritual behaviour.
There are also people who actually do
not even believe that a commitment to Orthodoxy demands an investigation of Halacha in regard to ethical issues as
one would undertake in regard to a halachic
issue reflecting some ritual law. What can also occur, given this lack of focus
on the breadth and depth of Torah ethical study, is that whatever one may
consider to be ethically correct would also be self-defined as the Torah
perspective. As such, people at either end of the spectrum, to upkeep their
identity as Orthodox, may assert that they are abiding by Orthodox ethical
perspectives even while these perspectives are actually based on their own
considerations rather than a breadth and depth of Torah study. One can almost
always find some source in a vacuum to support almost any viewpoint. As ritual
becomes even more so the sign of distinctive Jewish identity, and distinctive
Orthodox identity, for connection with the group, a greater allowance for
variant ideas can become more accepted. This does not mean that the ideas
themselves become acceptable but that the effect of such ideas on identity are
given less weight. It is simply ritual behaviour that is applied in defining
identity.
Seeing ritual behaviour as the expression
of Jewish behaviour, furthermore, does not only distinguish a liberal Jew from
others who share that opinion but also can distinguish a politically
conservative Jew from others who share that opinion. Many politically
conservative Jews may, as such, strongly believe that their ethical views are
in line with Torah but such views still place them in concert with similar
non-Jewish individuals. It is, thus, ritual, that still also distinguishes them
as Jews – and, thus, given this greater weight in identity. The further
significance of this is that these same individuals may still feel more
connected with Jews of all stripes than those who share their ethical/political
perspective. This is an indication of the force of ritual identity: it allows
for Jewish connection without the potential perceived negativity of a battle
over ideas.
This may also explain why, in fostering Orthodoxy’s
growth, or Jewish identity in general, we find Orthodox institutions highlighting
ritual behaviour to the extent of even ignoring Torah instruction on certain
ethical issues. In regard to ethical matters, individuals may already have
opinions so why introduce this subject and possibly face disagreement and
subsequent disinterest in any aspect of Orthodoxy in particular or, even, Jewishness
in general given the possibility of conflict. Ritual, especially if just
presented as the mark of Jewishness, is much easier to promote. The advance of
Orthodoxy within the Jewish world may, thus, also not really fully parallel the
growth of traditional, conservative churches in the general society for another
reason. As presented in this article, the growth of conservative churches in
the Christian world reflects ethical distinction. Jewish distinctiveness, however,
can be achieved through ritual. Even in regard to the Orthodox, ethical
distinctiveness may not be a strong element of identity – and if it is, it may
not be because of specific Jewish motivations.
The bottom line is that the continuing
strength of a sub-group within a society is often dependent on the ability of its
members to distinctly express themselves in a manner separate from the general
populace. The furtherance of Jewish identity thus demands a reason and
motivation for such identity but also a form of expression that gives strength
to its continuance. Ritual provides such a possibility without necessarily
challenging a person’s overall outlook on life because ritual can be performed
without a consideration of underlying value principles. Of course, within
Orthodox thought, these actions are intended to convey or reflect certain ideas
and values but that does not necessarily mean that the one who may be
performing these actions is doing so with these thoughts in mind. This is
especially so when these actions are performed by individuals outside of
Orthodoxy. The result is an interesting spectrum of possibilities in how one
can integrate distinctiveness and universalism – in fact, distinctiveness and
almost any underlying ethical/moral perspective -- within a Jewish identity.
And here we get to the further point of
this presentation. Our focus so far has been on the expression of Jewish
distinctiveness, not on why one may value such distinctiveness. We have thereby
avoided the issue of how people actually define the nature of their Jewishness.
Our discussion has thus not included a consideration of variant concepts
touching upon this issue: such matters as theology, nationalism, anti-Semitism and/or
values. What we have shown, though, is the actual strong possibility for people
to have variant and, even, contradictory views on the essential nature of
Jewishness as ritual behaviour becomes the dominant force for expressing an identity
as Jews. Jewish distinctiveness can be, as such, powerfully expressed
regardless of how one may wish to define it – and even as one may wish to
simultaneously identify with the values of the general population. Jewish ritual
seen as, simply, Jewish behaviour in a vacuum, simply, can allow one to express
a Jewish identity with the possibility of defining this identity with a great
flexibility.
This, indeed, may foster the development
of Jewish identity in that it can also sustain one’s self-defined view of
Jewishness but it raises further issues in that Jewishness can be, as such, most
broadly defined. In the extreme, think of how groups such as Jews for Jesus can
try to present themselves as Jewish through the use of traditional Jewish
rituals in their gross misrepresentation of such matters as the Pesach Seder. Jewishness,
to ultimately have sustaining value, must also present a parameter on ideas and
demand of us to face the challenge of drawing the line on the nature of its
identity. ‘What is Jewishness?’ – asked in its modern, generic sense -- is
truly a most complex question. The answer still cannot be found by ignoring any
borders. (This issue also applies within Orthodoxy and the questions of
defining Orthodox identity and the Orthodox understanding of generic Jewish
identity.) The issue is not just what I think but what I am willing to accept
in the other as an expression of Jewishness even as I may disagree with it.
This tension is, in fact, heating up in our present Jewish world – and is becoming
more pervasive. This is a matter,
though, that I leave for my next presentation on this subject. I conclude this
part with a call to think about this most important issue.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
