Home Home / Exchange with Mrs. Slater Responding to…

Correspondence

September-October 1986

Exchange with Mrs. Slater Responding to Charge that Modern Orthodoxy is Mere Mediocrity (1986)

Modern Orthodoxy

1. Mrs. Slater to R. Lamm

1. Mrs. Slater to R. Lamm (Sep. 28, 1986)

1. Mrs. Slater to R. Lamm (Sept. 28, 1986)

View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

Next Letter

RELATED CONTENT

Outline

Modern Orthodoxy Without Apologies (1992)

1. Bfr spk MO: AJ, & Orthxy in gen; contemplt A-Jy:... or choshech: (a) good nws: mr Tor, highr standrs Orthx synggs, mr ,כשר; day schls; publctns (b) but plenty vry bad news too (+ recessn): (c) CJF ’90 survy: 52% intmrrg! ..React'n? (d) mny soclgsts, J Idrs"? Adapt! Accept! (e) fresh blood... So: bad nws=good nws. avoid probl w phony conversns, patrlneal (ST: Gulf War-no gas mask- "I'm Reform; evrythg optional") (f) time bgin-brth, not > mrrg...-ST: חועלם ‘’rion/slip mountn/hosptal valley)Turn: us Orthx Js:Beset crtcs 8- assaild ill-wshers allsides. W oftn at fault: stratgs nt alwysproductv (Bx:"Who is J" polemic carried ontoo 10ng)/apprchs unreasnbl/senstvty othrsdulld. BUT ...our fundmntl commit't, tht fwhch w stand/by whch live/ready die-holy/precious/ineffbl. & w stand by it w-oapolgies!- we=Orthdx - w-o apologs!- our ‘,!‘אמלנל גרמי, תלממ ר&י firm!n matter deris'n, "cogntv minrty"...Fc: Grt-neck- our resolv homsxlty-abbrtxi not faltrevn if genetc (so is desire all formsimmrlty- our attud role women (tho stll influx)wll nvr turn into totl egaltrnsm offunction in violatn דזלכזה- vlue place humn life wll nvr prmit abideeuthnsia/abortn on dmand/encrgtsuicide- onslaught agnst our views ומ&ורה rm חיwll contnue rlntlssly; bt not falter!-If w blv indeed in חלרל -( השמלם, thtmeans:Torh is means t reach שמלה itself!- anyone whose loylty Tor shaky bee wminorty--t b pitied bee shows: dsn't knowwhr comng fr, 8- whr destny is takg hm/her.For w ar sons of giants. In our veinscourses blood... & let us act th part!-ST. Ch N Bialik/vst NY skyserprs/ ,לל^לקן״&nyxx^|7/T. A.t^yxx^jT 7ןל< e>y 2 >^ל ל^ל ...eithrw reach f sky, byond clouds - or scratchrs& scraprs, blind t glory tht was ours &awaits us; bee can be ours if w havecourage & resolv- so much f Orthxy w-o apologiesFe: Grt-neck2nd:Self-Image MO (Note: didn’t say CO- altho same thng - but avoid sillydebates..MO/CO/Datiim...)- Both aspects: Orthx 8- Mod; so:Noun/Adjctv. we: Mod …
Modern Orthodoxy

Note

Response to The Challenge to Modern Orthodoxy (1984)

Berkowitz makes the same mistake that the Conservative always did – the insistence upon institutional self-definition as if that alone created a legitimacy for a movement. But I see no need for an ideological pushing of the elbows in order to make room for institutional "space." We do not and should not consider ourselves a separate "movement" in the sense that we are different from classical Orthodoxy. We are Orthodox – but with a new-old interpretation. As such, we have no need to rue the fact that "our" people consult "their" Gedolim. The institutional and even ideological differentia must not be mistaken for rigid lines – even though the Right may look upon us with contempt and condemn us to irrelevancy.2 - Berkowitz is inconsistent. In one point he asserts that we have no differences in Halakhah, and in another he resents the fact that nowadays the "Modern Orthodox" do not allow mixed dancing at their weddings...3 - Additionally, Berkowitz mistakes goals and reality, the ought and is. The aspiration of "Modern Orthodoxy" is not to insinuate the trappings of modernity into the Jewish framework, but, identically with the Right, to create a "kehillah kedoshah" in the fuller sense, one in which Talmud Torah takes priority.4 - Where we do differ is in these respects:a) Torah Umada. He is correct in his criticism that we have compartmentalized the two, and that we must make an effort at synthesis which will be meaningful. However, even as we are we are still miles ahead of the Right for whom the entire enterprise of secular study is a bediavad, and legitimized only because of "parnossah."b) Of critical importance is the element of tolerance. We believe that in order for a Jewish community to prosper in a democratic society there must be mutual tolerance and an absence of bigotry. They do not.c) Flowing from this is the question of authority and authoritarianism. As opposed to the movements of the Left, we do believe in authority: that is our whole commitment to Hal…
Modern Orthodoxy

Correspondence

Letter from R. Schonfeld about the Label of "Centrist Orthodoxy" and Validity of Religious Leaders (1988)

Dear Norman: Please forgive the delay in responding to your communication regarding the address you delivered at the Fifth Avenue Synagogue. I had been out of the country, as had you, but I trust it is not too late to offer the following comments. I cannot disagree with the substance of your thinking and I share many of the sentiments expressed. I do, however, feel compelled to raise two points. First, and most importantly, by using the adjective “Centrist” we risk giving the impression that we are less committed to Torah, or less enthusiastic, than those perceived as being to our right. I emphatically deny this is so. There may be different approaches to the goal of Torah living, but each is fully legitimate. In my recent sermon at the OU Retreat I emphasized this point strongly. By referring to ourselves as “Centrist” we imply that we are somehow on a lower level of observance, which is not true. If what we do is within the framework of halakha, then terms like left, right, or Centrist make little difference; what matters is legitimacy and commitment. My second point relates to your description of Conservative and Reform rabbis as valid religious leaders though not legitimate. To the ordinary person, such a distinction has little meaning, and I do not believe we ought to say that they are “valid” at all. If what we mean is that, pragmatically, they are perceived by their congregations as leaders, then we should find a way to express this without ascribing any religious validity. From my perspective they are not valid, even though I meet with them, talk with them, and at times agree with them in certain areas of Jewish life, especially as described by the Rav in his guidelines. Other than these points, I believe you have expressed my feelings beautifully and adequately, and I hope you will not be unduly disturbed by the recent attacks on you in some columns of the Anglo-Jewish press. With kindest regards, most sincerely, Fabian Schonfeld.
Modern Orthodoxy