Syndication
Where Have All the Theologians Gone?
Opinion
Print this article
Email this article
Other articles by Elliot Cosgrove
More in Forward ForumName five contemporary Jewish theologians saying something interesting about Jewish belief who had not already published a major work by 1990.
Stumped? So am I.
Over the past few months, I have asked my theologically minded colleagues this question, and the responses have been disheartening.
Elie Wiesel? He is undoubtedly the premier spokesman on post-Holocaust Judaism, but “Night” was first published more than 50 years ago. Eugene Borowitz, Neil Gillman, Yitz Greenberg, David Hartman, Harold Kushner? It is to their credit that they continue to be productive, but the magnitude of their contributions only makes it clear that a new generation has yet to take their place in contemporary Jewish theology.
With Borowitz and Gillman retiring from their teaching positions at, respectively, Hebrew Union College and the Jewish Theological Seminary, it is altogether troubling that there is no theological heir apparent at either institution. And last month’s passing of Mordechai Breuer serves to underscore the shortage of Orthodox thinkers who are fully engaged with the claims of modernity and critical scholarship.
It was not always this way.
The 1950s and 1960s saw the growth of a generation of theologically minded scholar-rabbis who would leave an extraordinary and enduring imprimatur on the institutional and theological landscape of American Jewry. Numerous journals — including Judaism, Commentary, Conservative Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis Quarterly Journal and Tradition — were founded, all devoted to explorations in Jewish theology.
This coterie of theologians included such luminaries as Arthur Cohen, Emil Fackenheim, Will Herberg, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Jakob Petuchowski, Joseph Soloveitchik, Arnold Jacob Wolf and, in England, Louis Jacobs. In their journals, institutions and retreats, they were gripped by a spirit of theological inquiry remarkable in both its sophistication and its cooperative spirit.
The 1950s were an exciting time for Jewish theology for a variety of reasons. On the one hand, Jews were simply doing what their Christian contemporaries were already doing. Herberg, for example, made no secret of his debt to the great Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. And as the evocative writings of Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig arrived in America by way of Nahum Glatzer’s translations, American Jews were prompted to formulate their own homegrown response.
Moreover, the horrors of the Holocaust impelled Jews to ask difficult questions about God’s presence or lack thereof. In many ways, the Holocaust revealed the dangers of excessive secularism, and American Jews grew disenchanted by Mordecai Kaplan’s optimism in human achievement and began to turn back to a God-centered Judaism. This flourishing of Jewish theology can also be traced to the establishment of the State of Israel. After all, if you were going to be a committed Jew in the 1950s and choose not to live in the Jewish state, you needed a thought-out theological response to justify a distinctive Diaspora community.
There are many reasons for the surge of theological thinking in the 1950s, but the most important reason why theology matters — both then and now — is because while Judaism may be a religion of deed and not creed, a generation that does not invest its energy into the question of Jewish belief is a generation that will find itself without the life-sustaining aquifers necessary to keep it vital.
When kashrut is practiced without a theological matrix in place, it is a form of dietary cliquishness, not a distinguishing and distinctive expression of commandedness. When circumcision is practiced without an understanding of covenant, it is not a sign of a sacrosanct relationship with God, but a primitive if not objectionable rite. If commitment to Israel is framed solely in political terms, the argument for a modern state becomes less and less compelling for American Jews, Israelis and, for that matter, gentiles.
At every critical juncture in Jewish history, Jews have understood that a dynamic theology is the sine qua non to a vital Jewish community. From Mount Sinai to the prophets of the Exile, to Maimonides’s “Guide for the Perplexed,” to Kabbalah, to Hasidism, to mid-20th century North America, theological inquiry has sustained our people. Without it, Judaism becomes a dry, brittle and lifeless artifact.
The Jewish achievements of our age, and there are many, have overlooked the importance of Jewish belief. Our campus Hillels, federations, Holocaust museums, commitments to Israel and social justice work are all extraordinary feats, but they are cultural, institutional or political, not theological.
So, too, the fundamentalisms of the Orthodox world have resulted in a profound insularity that has marginalized the likes of Soloveitchik, Eliezer Berkowitz and Yeshayahu Leibowitz — Orthodox Jews who stood firm in their beliefs yet contended bravely with the claims of modernity. They have been replaced by literary achievements in the form of ArtScroll translations or popular books on Jewish literacy.
Ironically, the very successes of the Jewish community have also worked to the detriment of Jewish theological inquiry. The past 50 years have witnessed an extraordinary growth in Jewish studies programs and professors. But with very few exceptions, their achievements have been in journals and the classroom, not in the day to day of Jewish communal life.
The scholar-rabbis of yesteryear — Solomon Goldman, Robert Gordis, Milton Steinberg — simply do not exist anymore. The Jewish world is bifurcated between producers of Jewish esoterica and Jewish popularizers, communal leaders and academics, but not both. Our generation has precluded the possibility that administration, scholarship and religious vision are compatible, if not mutually dependent, elements of Jewish leadership.
There are many reasons for the dearth of theological thinking, but there is one reason that is particularly worrisome: Maybe there are no fresh Jewish theological voices because Jews are no longer interested in listening.
We are so focused on Israel, antisemitism and intermarriage that we have come to ignore the linchpin for all discussions on Jewish continuity — namely, a compelling case for Jewish belief.
This past month, Jews observed the festival of Shavuot, celebrating the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Do we believe that Mount Sinai really happened? Do we believe that the Torah continues to command us, shape us and bind us as a people? How can a Jew stand simultaneously at the base of Sinai and firmly in modernity?
These are difficult questions and there are no easy answers, but a Jewish community that does not ask them will not get very far in its journey. It is incumbent upon every generation to formulate a theology that makes Judaism compelling to the Jews of its age.
The time is ours. Nevertheless, the question remains: Is anyone interested in being part of the conversation?
Elliot Cosgrove, a Conservative rabbi at Anshe Emet Synagogue in Chicago, is a doctoral candidate in modern Jewish thought at the University of Chicago.
Comments
What a brilliant, promising young Rabbi. How lucky is his congregation to have him.
How can he talk about 20th century Jewish theologians without even mentioning Mordecai Kaplan?
I think that Rabbi Cosgrove needs to expand his reading list. How about (within the world of Orthodox thought) Tamar Ross, Jonathan Sacks (talking about hybrid communal leader/scholar), Rav Shagar (who whose untimely passing this week has left a major hole), and Haim Sabato, just to name a few. Perhaps it is time to realize that "Ki Mitzion Tetse Torah" (and maybe the U.K. also -- Rabbi Sacks.)
The problem might be an indigenous American one, not an intrinsically Jewish one.
Rabbi Cosgrove, I see implicit & questionable assumptions in the essay: there should be(great)Jewish theologians in every generation in a single country (compared to how few over about 4000 years in all our homes and wanderings?); old discussions are not good enough for contemporary American Jews. If you do hold with the latter, why or what's different now?
I find it ironic that the author considers the works of RYBS to be marginalized when in fact RYBS's philosophical writings are being published by the Toras HaRav Foundation. It should be underscored in bold that while RYBS was very familiar with the secular world and disciplines, his first loyalty was to that of Torah, Halacha and Mesorah and that his philosophical works showed an ability to use secular and even Christian sources to aid the Orthodox Jewish reader and seeker.
Yet, one other legacy of RYBS is the emphasis on halacha as the source for not just daily life but as the source for the Jewish view on all issues. Therefore, unless one knows how to keep Shabbos, put on Tefilin or keep a kosher house, one cannot even begin to talk about the Jewish view on these or any other issue.
I, too, must take issue with Elliot Cosgrove.
1) The American and English speaking Jewish community is neither the only nor the most important Jewish community. What about Israel or Europe? In the latter two places there are active thoughtful communities and writers. Thay just happen to write in a language not English. 2) One question left unanswered (or alluded to) is why was there such a flurry of "thological writings" in the 1950's in America? Was it because they was a perceived need to explain Judaism to the greater American community; how Jews were intrinsically no different than their fellow American (viz. Will Herberg), helping post-war subhurbizing Jews better fit in ... What's at issue today and and what means are available to facilitating a theological conversation? In a period of "post-denominational" Judaism, it's difficult to conduct a serious conversation about God, mitzvot, Torah and Israel with people who generally see themselves as unconnected to a larger community and institutions (see A. Eisen ann S. Cohen recent [2004/5] writings). 3) What makes 1990 so sancrosant? It was only 17 years ago, and many of the people referred to above, wrote later in their lives; i.e. well past their 'disseration period.' 4) Lastly, I would refer R Cosgrove to Levinas (discovered by English world after 1990), Moshe Halberthal, Avinoam Rosenack, Yoram Hazony ...
What a beautifully written and thought-provoking piece. I think that Rabbi Cosgrove may be one of the next generation to step up to the theological plate! We look forward to hearing more from him.
Hi there -
I’m a self proclaimed “contemporary Jewish theologian saying something interesting about Jewish belief”.
just thought i’d let you know
www.atzmus.com www.urbanguru.co.uk
Theological thinking requires a modicum of serenity and an ability to distance one's self from the mundane. We are living in sensory bombardment-- sound plugged into our ears, video bites eating our time. We try to cope with internet, internment and internecine wars. We're long on talk and short on listening-- to each other and perhaps to the "still small voice." Perhaps Boomers may find the time and motivation to think theologically as they become the elders of our community.
Bufoonery, sheer bufoonery. The output of Rafael Moshe Luria, Rav Moshe Shapiro, and the previous Slonimer Rebbe wipe those others to shame. Not to mention many other outstanding thinkers like Avraham Schorr, Moshe Wolfson, Tzvi Kushelevsky, Elya Weintraub, and Rav Brevda that are authetic scholars, not just theologians. But a Conservative am-ha'aretz would be unable to even access their material let alone understand a fraction of it! They're to busy defending abortions and gay rights to entertain a serious theological point
The author should read David Gelernter's extended, provocative piece, "Judaism Without Words" that appeared over several issues in Commentary. By the way, I don't consider Harold Kushner to be a theologian, comforting to many as his books may be.
Why should anyone do [non-Orthodox] theology, when no one really cares? In their approach to the "normalization" of homosexuality and Jewish religious rituals for same-sex "unions," Reform and Conservative Judaism have shown their total intellectual and theological bankruptcy. The Jewish tradition, without exception, including Reform Judaism until less than twenty years ago, has disapproved of homosexual behavior. If one seriously believes that God speaks through our religious tradition, in any manner whatever, one doesn't upend that without a very good explanation. None was forthcoming, and it didn't matter; Judaism just had to do the "right thing" by modern liberal standards and that was that. Why try to reconcile tradition with modernity when you have already surrendered to modernity? Jewish same-sex marriage is inconsistent even with Reform Rabbi Eugene Borowitz's approach articulated in his book Renewing the Covenant. Did Reform try to follow it? No. Did Rabbi Borowitz protest? Not to my knowledge.
I have followed this matter for ten years, and I am disgusted with the intellectual dishonesty and shabby thinking displayed by both the Reform and Conservative movements. "[Making] Judaism compelling to the Jews of its age" evidently means giving people what they want, tradition and honesty be damned, rather than what Rabbi Cosgrove seems to call for, a modern justification for something recognizably continuous with traditional Judaism-- which would likely conflict with liberal individualism. I am personally not Orthodox, and have more or less shared Rabbi Cosgrove's hope for a modern Jewish theology. It may be impossible, but the first step has to be admitting we don't have one and junking our past pretensions.
Theologically, Reform and Conservative are bankrupt. (Reconstructionism never had theology; Judaism is just culture and folkways.) Orthodoxy isn't bankrupt only because the money it prints doesn't circulate outside the Orthodox community, so nobody asks what stands behind it. We're in bad shape, folks. Shabbat shalom.
How can there be any discussion of Jewish theologians without mentioning Jacob Neusner.?
I am grateful to Rabbi Cosgrove for the thoughtful op-ed piece. I do agree with him that there is a dearth of theological activity cetainly at the seminaries and in the major national(international) agencies of Jewish life today. Issues of identity without a raison d'etre have become the norm. Demographers have become our theologians and how to have continuity without a telling and cogent reason have become the agenda (supported by the megaphilanthropists many of whom see programs as the answer and not theology). In fact many synagogues are looking for good programmers as their clergy and leadership. However, programs are no substitute for telling reasons to be Jewih today. In fact the question for our day is Why be Jewish? That's the question we need to be addressing especially in the voluntary judaism and jewishness of our times. Yet there are places where conversations are taking place and people are in search. certainly in the synagogues I served (Central Synagogue, NYC and Temple Emanu-El these were the questions that were on and in people's minds. Changing prayer books does not bring people to prayer. It is belief through and with the prayers and beyond the pryers that is the object of the search. What can covenant mean for us today? - surely another issue that can and must be asked. Our people will respond. it is not they who are the problem.
Kevin Snapp -
One of the most important theologically charged statements in the Bible, which is recited perhaps 4-5 times a day by the Observant Jews (and it's something that i'm sure you've said yourself) is the 'Shema'.
the first word of the Shema - is the word Shema - and it simply means LISTEN!!!
It itself is a profoundly important and potentially life altering message from the author of the Bible - Moses - God etc..
The primary theological step we are compelled by the Shema is to learn how to listen.
(Loosely paraphrasing the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe:) 'Listening means having room in oneself for another, for Other, internal; mental, emotional and spiritual space for the existence of another being and another opinion, even one that is completely different to your own.'
The 'Ethics of our Fathers' teaches us 'who is wise those that learn from everyone'.
Then they go on to say that anyone you learn from you must treat them with the same respect that you would the Divine Presence!
The point is, each and every human being has something to say about theology, and Jews, by virtue of their ontologically divine nature (according to the Alter Rebbe - every Jew is a part of God [although God doesn't have parts]) have something to say about Jewish theology no matter their religious affiliation, level of intellectual honesty or otherwise.
I doubt very much that your view of Jewish Theology in non-orthodox camps is very accurate.
But I do hope that rather than your homophobia influencing your view of Jewish Theology, Jewish Theology (which is alive and well) will become the main influencing factor in helping you form your views of Jewish Theology.
This week I was speaking to a friend who teaches Jewish Philosophy in Hebrew U's Dept of Jewish Thought ("Macshevet Yisrael"). He pointed out an interesting phenomenon in a department that has a significant number of secular students.
My friend pointed out that the number of courses in his department in Buber and Rosenzweig has dwindled to practically nothing while the number of courses on 19th and 20th century ultra-orthodox thinkers has increased very significantly. This is also reflected in the theses that have been submitted by students in the department and that are currently being worked on.
As they say in Hebrew "Zeh Omer Darshani", this phenomenon requires reflection. Could it be that the "modern" is ephemeral and the "old" timeless?
How can you minimize Artscroll's contributions? Such tremendous work in opening up the world of the Chachamim to those of us not blessed with a Yeshiva education is a Kiddush Hashem; it is indeed a meeting of the "modern" world
How about Rabbi Rami Shapiro? Or Rabbi Goldie Milgram? Or Rabbi Gershon Winkler?
And where is Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi in your history?
As the years wax strong with continued degradation, the Jewish people will have to further define their role as theologians in the global arena. This entails Israel’s adjusting it current political thought to change and embrace the idea of a state that serves G-d. The transition means a state that embraces the statutes of Sinai, given to Moses, in order to re-establish a selfless model, which implies an obligatory responsibility to others. Personally thinking the current mind set of the Jewish people states the mission given to the Jewish people on Sinai was forfeited but, the current mindset should be to re-establish the statues given at Sinai that edifies life over death (commandments and feast and the foreshadowing of Messiah). However, the denial of Messiah as the third Holy Temple emphasizes Israel’s reluctance to recognize Messiah’s kingship over the House of Judah and the Sanctuary (Heavenly Temple); meaning humanity can no long pervert either the Kingship or the Holy Temple. People around the world are waiting for Israel to recognize this discrepancy, for they want a promise land to go to live in unity like their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and believe and live by the Law under the Government of G-d. This leaves the Jewish people the responsibility to seek and impart theological truth to all; furthermore, re-establishing the Holy Land for true believers to gather for the final conflict that requires Messiah’s return. Israel’s current state of trying to sell this promised land re-emphasizes Esau’s forfeiting the Holy birthright (story of Esau and Jacob) and must rethink its political savvy in conjunction with the spiritual over its current worldly course. However, true belivevers (does not imply the current Christian entities) must help Israel return and achieve theological savvy bring the government of G-d to full awareness to help others; thus, implying the G-d's mecry and grace is given to all. We who neglect Israel and the Jewish people also neglect the statutes of G-d,forfeiting everlasting life.
Rabbi Cosgrove makes some telling points but he also neglects an important and relevant phenomenon. In a conference I organized in 2005 at Princeton University, we assessed the "Renaissance of Jewish Philosophy in America." Such philosophical theologians as Leora Batnitzky, David Novak, Norbert Samuelson, Peter Ochs, Lenn Goodman, Michael Morgan and others described their work at the intersection of contemporary philosophy and Jewish theology. These writers work in a somewhat technical idiom, which may be beyond the ken of ordinary synagogue goers. Nonetheless, to say that Jewish theology has gone out of fashion is, I think, to misspeak. Serious-popular Jewish theology may have declined, but serious Jewish theology per se is in the midst of a comeback. I invite your readers to view the sessions of the Louis Finkelstein Institute's Princeton conference on Jewish philosophy at the following website:
http://www.jtsa.edu/research/finkelstein/rjp.shtml
Alan Mittleman Professor of Jewish Philosophy and Director, The Louis Finkelstein Institute The Jewish Theological Seminary
Marc-Alain Ouaknin is quite a bit younger than your top five, though it is true that his big book, The Burnt Book, was published in 1986 (in French).
Rabbi Cosgrove askes if contemporary Jewish theologians are saying something interesting about Jewish belief. And what about Jewish history? Has any important event in Jewish history occurred in North America in the last 30 years? If we were to read a future Jewish history book, which event of Jewish history in North America of this present generation would deserve a chapter? The question of Jewish theology, as the question of Jewish history, is actually a question of one's central identity. American Jews for whom the America identity and experience are the central life experience are people busy with the philosophical and historical issues of others. When the Jews spoke their own language (Yiddish), when the Jews had names that obviously identified them as Jews, when it was self-evident that any education for a Jewish child would include the Jewish text - well, it was an entirely different Jewish people with an entirely different point of reference.
The problem you raise is serious and it has troubled me for a long time. I have a fairly good personal idea as to why there is no flowering of Jewish theology, especially in an age where we are freer and more affluent than ever before to engage in this vital pursuit. To be frank, this idea has met with resistance, and is likely to continue to do so. But I am undeterred and continue espousing it because I am deeply concerned for the state of our faith and deeply convinced that there is no other way.
Think about it: In the past Jews were always at the forefront of every intellectual revolution. Not only were they capable of mastering and contributing to such advances in general, but they were able – and this is the main point – to harness these advanced capacities for the sake of gaining a more profound understanding of their own theology in general and in relationship to the times they lived in and the challenges they faced.
This unfortunately was not the case with the most recent intellectual advance. This was not the case in the age of the modern scientific revolution. Here for the first time, there was a profound advancement in human cognition, in the understanding of the world; in the development of technology and medicine. Yet, the method that made all this possible was simply not applied to Jewish theology. To be sure, Jews mastered science. To be sure they contributed disproportionately to it. But what they could not or would not consider was the employment of the most radical advancement in human cognition to the religion itself.
Maimonedes, it will be recalled, was a Jewish philosopher who mastered the philosophy of the age, and applied it masterfully to his understanding of Jewish theology. This was true throughout history. Until, that is, the modern age. Einstein, in contrast, in his time, was also a Jewish scientist, but he, and his numerous Jewish contemporaries failed to apply science to the underlying theology which, at the same time was under siege from the rationalism of science, from the ravages of secularism and the historic events that decimated the Jewish population.
As difficult as it might be to imagine how the empirical science could serve Jewish theology, to bolster its fundamental understanding and relationship with God; to make sense of Torah and to revive the halakhic imperatives that define Judaism most essentially, this is precisely what is missing.
The history and evolution of Judaism has always been a process that acquitted itself on the highest level of cognitive sophistication. In fact, whenever it was challenged, whenever it had to redefine itself, it was always the rational path that saved the day. If Torah is the greatest gift of spirituality we received from God, and the power of science is the greatest resource we have been given for the understanding of nature, then why should it be that the two should not be seen as mutually supportive?
i am supremely surprised that no one has mentioned the serious and exemplary work of rabbi arthur green.
re: the gentleman who remarked on enrollment at Hebrew U, the turn to which you are referring is an effort to understand the thinker to whom you allude in the context of the time they wrote. for instance, this summer, i studied the work of the pachad yitzchak. however, i did not study him as merely a link in the timeless chain of essential, original jewish theology. only a naive scholar would think that such a thing exists. rather, i studied him as a surprisingly radical thinker engaging with modernity. this was key. it is borne out by the excellent work done by the late great jewish theologian and philosopher steven schwarzschild.
What about Rachel Adler? Plaskow or Waskow? Michael Lerner?