Denominationalism and Demographics

December 18, 2007 at 3:43 pm | In dating and marriage, jewish denominations, orthodox |

A few weeks ago, after a well-received sermon at a Westchester synagogue, I was approached by one Dr. Solomon Dinkevich, a professor of mechanics and applied mathematics who has also written on Jewish topics, including perhaps most famously, a calculation of how Noah could have possible fit all those animals in the Ark.

Dr. Dinkevich pressed into my hands a different article that Shabbat, about the demographic trends within Jewish denominations. By now we’ve all seen these articles, often accompanied by charts, that show that the more kugel you eat, the more Jewish grandkids you’ll have. Ok, not really. They show what the Orthodox keep saying: that Orthodoxy has the highest birth- and retention-rates of the Jewish denominations (and the more to the right you go the better), that the Conservatives are barely replacing their own, and that Reform Jews are a-dwindling away.

It feeds into that Orthodox fantasy that one day, many years from now, they will wake up and find that ‘heterodox’ Jews ahve simply disappeared, vanished into a puff of smoke in the shape of themselves.

It’s also horseshi- ehem. The only thing that this study shows is the the setbacks suffered by Jewish movements, not the Jewish community itself. In other words, it’s true that fewer and fewer Jews are identifying themselves as Reform, or Conservative. On the other hand, more are identifying as Reconstructionist or Renewal, denominations not presented in the study, or in many studies. Even more identify themselves as nondenominational. Some see this as a negative, a sign of lack of ‘affiliation’, lack of true membership in Jewish life. Surprising then that minyanim like Hadar and Kol Zimrah, rising stars in the Jewish institutional community, take these labels for themselves, as do many other innovative new Jewish organizations, from JDub to Reboot to the granddaddy of them all, Birthright Israel.

But beyond the fact that Jews today are less likely to identify with a denomination (unless they’re Orthodox, in which case they most certainly choose not only a denomination, but a prefix, like Modern, or Centrist, or Ultra, or Hassidic, etc.), even within the denominations there is a shift. The institutions that brought us to this dismal place are changing, and the leaders who shepherded the process are being replaced. Every day we hear about nwe Jewish leaders, bright ideas, innovative projects and a rebirth of zeal, energy and light in the Jewish world. Demographers love to use the caveat “assuming current trends hold” - which, of course, they never do (Falling Rock Zone? Shouldn’t that sign say “Road Closed”?) Demographic studies can offer a snapshot of what’s happening today, but they are notoriously poor at predicting the future. And really, aren’t such studies used more often not to deal with the problem they ostensibly point to, but to delegitimize opposing groups?

10 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

A lot of it’s harmful levels of pride, I think. They probably feel such Jews “dilute the brandname”, much like the bitter hatred expressed towards the Kairites or the contempt for the early Christians. If you’re going all out to follow the Covenant, seeing outsiders recognize someone who doesn’t keep the Covenant as your equal is a bit galling. The heart of Judaism is in the mitzvot. Thus in a sense, non observant Jews obstruct the influence that Covenant keeping Jews are exerting on the larger world. By misleading outsiders into thinking the mitzvot are secondary or even irrelevant. It doesn’t make this sublimated hatred right. But it’s not some mysterious spite.

I’m glad all these non denominational people and whatnot are happy. I still don’t think they’re goign to avoid become at least as different from Frum Jews as the Kairites are, just in the other direction. And I do find that sad. I have yet to see obligationless religion really help anyone in the long haul. It’s a startling thing. I realize that I believe the world would be better off if they had chosen to be Muslims or Pentacostals or something like that. But of course I could be wrong.

Comment by Kendra — December 18, 2007 #
Kendra, denominationless religion is not necessarily obligationless religion.

And rigid obligationalism is not the only possible form of obligationalism.

Comment by rejewvenator — December 18, 2007 #
Yah, I suppose you’re right. I can’t see it but I can believe it’s true. I suppose that’s what makes Judaism so important to me is that it is literally the only source of (ghostlike, intermittent) light in the world. I guess my mind’s brigthness/contrast filters on the internal TV set playing ‘reality’ are malfunctioning.

Comment by Kendra — December 19, 2007 #
“including perhaps most famously, a calculation of how Noah could have possible fit all those animals in the Ark.”

Seriously?

Comment by No, really? — December 19, 2007 #
Well, his most famous work was actually a calculation of how the family of seventy that entered Egypt with Jacob could have become the 600,000 males aged 20-60 that departed some 210 years later. The math relies on assumptions at least as absurd as those used to for Ark apologetics.

Comment by rejewvenator — December 19, 2007 #
Found that one:
DINKEVICH, Solomon, PhD. “A Calculation of the Israelite Population at Mount Sinai,” B’Or Ha’Torah XV:105-112

Abstract
This paper uses the information found in the Torah to calculate the size of the Jewish families during their 210 years in Egypt until the Exodus. We shall show that the growth of the Israelites from the seventy members of Jacob’s family to ten to twelve million people over 210 years may be reached with an average of six to eighteen children per family-normal family sizes even by modern standards.

Comment by No, really? — December 19, 2007 #
Whether you call them denominations or movements, it still boils down to several rules of human behavior:

1. When free to do as they please, most people imitate each other.

2. Simple rote rules-based systems are easier than making case by case decisions with your heart, soul, and intellect.

3. Familiarity breeds contempt.

4. 1&2 get upended by 3 and you get irregular disruptions and changes in the groups.

So what we see today is not the Judaism of the second temple period which wasn’t exactly that of the first, etc.

I just choose to have faith that G-d will constantly adapt His ways and rules being well aware of the need since He made us with such a nature and capacity for change. So I don’t worry too much about who’s winning any given argument. True obligations are born of the conscience being aware of who it was that created it.

Comment by suitepotato — December 28, 2007 #
Amen to your last sentence. The roots of obligation, whether to God or to another person, lie in the in awareness of a Creator. I’m not suggesting that non-believers can’t meet obligations, only that they ground them in the idea of self-definition, i.e. they’d like to consider themselves and be considered by others as reliable. However, that’s not truly an obligation, it’s enlightened self-interest.

On the other hand, I disagree with your first part. For one, I don’t think that there’s a big enough sample size of humans who are free to do as they please to determine what such people would do. Rather, I think most people feel themselves socially obligated, or even controlled in many ways. Familiarity is not the cause of contempt, despite the saying - it’s really just coincident. Resentfulness and contempt stem from feeling trapped and controlled. We are contemptuous of things with which we are familiar with and cannot escape. Negative aspects of those people or experiences become exaggerated because we know that we cannot change them.

What results then, is that those people who live their religious lives entirely out of obligation develop a contempt for the rules of that life, but also a dependence on following those rules in order to feel a sense of well-being.

But there are those who find in God a source not just of obligation but of love, nurturing, and even passionate abandon. Tapping into those aspects of the divinity may lead to the shucking or modification of traditional obligations, but with that comes a vitality and sincerity that cannot be found in the obligatory life.

Comment by rejewvenator — December 28, 2007 #
Hi, does anybody knows where I can find books or articles written by Pr. Solomon Dinkevich to buy? thanks.

Comment by Albina Tkach — June 25, 2008 #
Sorry Albina, I don’t - but I’ll ask him next time I see him.

Comment by rejewvenator — June 26, 2008 #