There is a distinction to be made between those who are ideologically Modern Orthodox and those who are behaviorally Modern Orthodox. In general, most people are not philosophically inclined, and most of what people do is not done for ideological reasons. People's behavioral patterns are formed by habit, by what they find appealing, and by what the people around them do. While Modern Orthodoxy is defined by its ideological synthesis of the wider culture with fully committed Orthodox Judaism, there are many people who identify as Modern Orthodox and behave in ways consistent with Modern Orthodox ideology, but give little or no thought to that ideology. They believe in Orthodoxy, but reject the rigidity and isolationism of Chareidim, and so the norms of Modern Orthodoxy are a good fit for them. While the ideologically Modern Orthodox engage with the wider culture because they believe that all human pursuits have religious significance, the behaviorally Modern Orthodox do so because that's what works for them. The ideologically Modern Orthodox ground their behavior in halacha and the Jewish tradition, while the behaviorally Modern Orthodox don't bother to justify their behavior beyond that that's what they and those in their community do.[i] (The same, of course, is true of Chareidim, and of every group with an ideology.)
The accommodationist nature of Modern Orthodoxy can be traced to its roots in 19th century Germany. It was a reaction to the Reform Movement, which also originated in Germany. The new Reform congregations remained part of the kehilos, the official government-recognized organizations that coordinated Jewish communities’ affairs. In many communities Reform Jews were the majority, and they dominated their local kehilos. R’ Hirsch sought to heal the rift between Reform and the traditionalists and to prevent those still within the traditional camp from becoming Reform. This required accommodating modernity within traditional Judaism. R’ Hirsch felt that by doing so the traditionalists would be able to retain their members, bring back to traditional Judaism those who had become Reform, and regain control of the kehilos.[ii]
In Germany, the goal was to make traditional Judaism as attractive to the modern Jew as the Reform Movement was, and to bring Reform Jews back under traditionalist hegemony. While there was bitter conflict between the traditionalists and reformers - and R’ Hirsch himself separated his community from the Reform dominated Frankfort kehilla - it was an internal conflict, a conflict within the kehilos of German communities. In the East, in the Chasam Sofer’s Hungary, in Lithuania and Galicia and Russia, the Reform Movement was an intrusion, something from the outside to be fought off.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Second Son to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.