For at least a decade prior to his sudden and untimely passing in 2003, Charles Liebman was widely viewed as the preeminent social scientist of Jewry. Among his many talents and skills were his genuine curiosity, his ability to objectively explore issues on which he had strong commitments, his keen sense of observation, and his ability to conceptualize, methodically organize, and communicate his ideas. Adam Ferziger was a student and, subsequently, a younger colleague of Liebman, and was strongly influenced by him. Ferziger focuses on a subject that was central to Liebman, American Orthodox Judaism. Reexamining that subject within Liebman's typological framework, he has written a very insightful book that sets out many aspects of contemporary American Orthodoxy in new light.
Ferziger's major thesis is that Liebman's framework needs modification in light of recent development. Liebman analyzed what he saw as the two major types of American Orthodoxy in context of Max Weber's church-sect typology. Liebman viewed Modern Orthodoxy as church-like, in that it is open and welcoming to non-Orthodox outsiders, and ultra-Orthodoxy or haredi Orthodoxy (identifying with the world of the Lithuanian-type yeshivot or Hasidism) as “sectarian,” in that sects are concerned solely with their own adherents and have no interest in attracting others. In the first part of the book, Ferziger takes New York's Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun and its senior rabbi from 1936–1979, Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein, as the prototype of the church-like Modern Orthodox synagogue, which maintained basic Orthodox standards but made every effort to have all Jews feel comfortable. Under the leadership of Lookstein's son, Rabbi Haskell Lookstein, there was a change in the character of the synagogue. It retains much of the flavor of its previous type of Orthodoxy, but there has been a shift towards an inward focus within the Orthodox community. To some extent that is a reflection of the Jewish activism of the son as compared to the much more formal and reserved stance of his father.
In another chapter, Ferziger traces the shift in public behavior of Modern Orthodox Jews and their sudden engagement in public political activism in the Soviet Jewry movement. In opposition to the insistence on quiet efforts advocated by the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the leadership of the sectarian Agudat Harabanim–Union of Orthodox Rabbis, young Orthodox Jews actively catapulted the cause of Soviet Jewry into the public sphere. They moved from noninvolvement in public action to active participation and leadership in organizations, working together with Jews of other denominations in acts of Jewish solidarity. As such, they were, for example, instrumental in the initiative for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which restricted US trade relations with communist counties that restricted freedom of emigration and other human rights.
This is followed by a penetrating chapter that analyzes the shift in Modern Orthodox trips to Poland, from “March of the Living” trips that emphasized Jewish survival and Zionism and that catered to all Jewish youth, to Heritage trips increasingly tailored to Orthodox youth, and ultimately to sex-segregated trips that emphasize the pre-Holocaust worlds of the heads of Lithuanian yeshivot and/or rebbes of hasidic dynasties, with the aim of strengthening the commitment to Torah study and religious observance rather than the identification with the Jewish people and Jewish state.
The inward move in Modern Orthodoxy has led to a counter-reaction, starting with the formation, in 1997, of a major Orthodox women's feminist organization: JOFA, the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, which advocates expanding women's participation in ritual life at home and in the synagogue. Several years later a number of institutions committed to “open Orthodoxy” were established, including a seminary for the ordination of men, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School; a seminary for the ordination of women, Yeshivat Maharat; and a rabbinic organization, International Rabbinic Fellowship. The values of “open Orthodoxy” include, among others, a love of all Jews and their inclusion within the community, as well as more moderate and welcoming approaches to conversion. These developments, in turn, drew centrist Modern Orthodoxy even further inward. For example, as Ferziger relates in vivid detail, the individual who is widely viewed as the central posek (halakhic decisor) of Modern Orthodoxy enunciated highly conservative, if not reactionary, definitions of Jewish tradition, rabbinic authority, and heresy in his caustic condemnations of efforts to make Orthodox ritual more inclusive of women. All of this has led to increasing alliances between Modern Orthodoxy and sectarian Orthodoxy.
Almost ironically, as Modern Orthodoxy turns inward, Ferziger suggests a distinct movement outward within sectarian Orthodoxy. Whereas Rabbi Aharon Kotler, the founder of Beth Medrash Govoha, the center of “yeshivish” sectarianism, in Lakewood, New Jersey, had been an archopponent of Chabad and outreach efforts toward nonobservant Jews, today BMG and many other elements of sectarian Orthodoxy are very active in outreach efforts and have internalized many of the very techniques of Chabad that they once eschewed. These efforts, in turn, have led to a greater openness toward non-Orthodox Jews, if not non-Orthodoxy, and today sectarian Orthodoxy has a greater awareness of all Jews as part of one people.
Both new directions, the inward move of Modern Orthodoxy and the outward move of sectarian Orthodoxy, Ferziger suggests, indicate a realignment of American Orthodoxy even as the two branches remain apart and Liebman's basic typology holds.
As is the case with most sociological and social-historical studies, and perhaps especially in such studies of religion, Ferziger's book is institutionally based, that is, it focuses on changes in institutions and their leaders. This was also the case with Liebman's pioneering study of American Orthodoxy in which, at the outset, Liebman stated his objective as ”an effort to describe the communal aspects and institutional forms of Orthodox Judaism in the United States” (American Jewish Year Book 66 [1965]: 21). However, even as he recognized that the church-sect typology was appropriate for institutional analysis, Liebman did suggest and comment on some of the differences in behavior as well as beliefs between the Modern and sectarian branches of Orthodoxy. He noted not only the greater isolation, but also—and especially—the stronger emphasis on ritualistic stringency within sectarian Orthodoxy. Indeed, he subsequently wrote a major essay that delineated the role of stringency, which he then termed “extremism.” There are probably several reasons for the tendency to focus on institutions rather than the beliefs and practices of the adherents. For one, the institutions are public. Their statements and actions are highly visible and thus easier to observe and record. Individuals may be much more reticent and reluctant to divulge their personal beliefs and practices, especially within Orthodoxy, much of which has been highly judgmental and asserts that it is the authentic will of and way to serve God.
It is surprising that Ferziger includes very little discussion of the largest of the three major segments of American Orthodoxy: Hasidim (other than Chabad). According to the 2011 UJA-Federation of New York's Jewish Community Study of New York, conducted by Steven Cohen, Jacob Ukeles, and Ron Miller, Hasidim comprise 48.5% of the Orthodox population in the city with the largest Orthodox population in the United States, followed by the Modern Orthodox (31.8%) and “yeshivish” (19.7%). Although it is true that New York is not the United States, the core of Orthodox Jews in the country live in the city and its surroundings, and it is hard to imagine that the increasingly larger hasidic segment of American Orthodoxy will not have significant impact on the alignments of American Orthodox Judaism. Important as Ferziger's book is, there is more work to be done in the area. And, in the inimitable words of Yogi Berra, “One of the hardest things to predict is the future.”
