I sometimes hear concerns about the future of Modern Orthodoxy if it fails to adapt to the times. People say that the generation of Millennials, those born roughly between 1982 and 2000, will not accept traditional teachings on gender roles, homosexuality, the authorship of the Torah, or whatever pet issue is bothering the speaker. Therefore, it is claimed, we must find a way to change Modern Orthodoxy or risk losing the next generation. Not only do I reject this argument, but I see it as pointing in the other direction.
First, as a parent of Millennials, I do not see these attitudes among my children and their friends. Maybe my sample size is too small or too right-leaning, but I hear this from other parents in different communities. Let us not allow the media to control our perceptions. Even if the claim is true, I deny that we risk losing the entire generation. We may lose some, even many, to the right or the left, as Orthodoxy has consistently experienced for over 200 years. The recent period of high communal retention rates may have been a historical anomaly. If true, this would be a tragedy, particularly for the parents who have to navigate contemporary complex and difficult situations. But it would not be the end of Modern Orthodoxy, merely a difficult period we will have to endure. But there are more important reasons to reject this argument.
In a column in the January 2015 issue of First Things magazine, the editor, R.R. Reno, writes about the recently translated memoirs of the Nazi-era Catholic thinker, Dietrich von Hildebrand. Throughout the 1930s, Hildebrand tried to raise the alarm within Catholic leadership about the dangers of Nazism and the need to oppose the evil regime. Time and again, he was frustrated. He faced many arguments, such as that fascism is better than communism and that its victory was inevitable. Additionally, he was told that the youth wanted the fascist nationalism. Indeed, there was ample and enthusiastic membership in Nazi youth groups. If the Catholic Church opposed the Nazis, Hildebrand was warned, it would lose the young generation.
Hildebrand rejected that line of thinking and he was obviously right–this is why Reno raised this historical episode and why I retell it here. While we cannot compare contemporary challenges to Nazism and we dare not equate our religious or political rivals to such odious villains, we can learn a lesson from the arguments and ideas of the time. Polls do not tell the full story because public opinion is fickle. What is popular today may be despised in a year. Intellectual fads rise and fall faster than gas prices. Imagine the embarrassment and regret of someone who abandons a cherished belief because he finds it morally unsustainable, only to find a decade later that the intellectual climate has changed and the belief has regained acceptability. Sometimes, losing the youth today means being in the right place when they return later.
More importantly, we cannot set aside our principles for the sake of embracing the public mood. Yes, emphases can be adjusted and methods of engagement modernized to meet the needs of the day. But we must stand resolutely and proudly on our principles, even–perhaps particularly–when they are unpopular. We should be proud, not embarrassed, of the Torah. Popularity can justify anything, even pure evil. If the youth truly want to go in that direction, we must try to lead in the other direction. The Torah has always been a corrective to societal views, a countercultural push of divine values. We are morally obligated to stand firm in our Torah principles in the face of opposition.
In the decades before and after Hildebrand’s battle with the Nazis, Jews in America were rejecting Torah observance in large numbers. The young generation had little interest in strict adherence to the commandments. Some communal leaders chose to compromise, whether by allowing driving on Shabbos or otherwise changing laws and beliefs. However, the leading Orthodox rabbis, who were the custodians of a tradition dating back thousands of years, refused to compromise. Torah is not subject to a popular vote. Even if the youth demand something else, Jewish leaders have no right to fundamentally alter the tradition because it is not theirs to change. Judaism is not for sale to the bidder with the most adherents.
Even if we could change Judaism in substantial ways, doing so would be unwise. We may very well find that the youth respect people who are consistent and principled, if not immediately then later as they mature. Today’s youth will be tomorrow’s middle-aged. If we change the religion every 20 years to fit the mood of the youth, to ensure we do not lose the next generation, we will lose prior generations.
Rabbi Norman Lamm, writing in 1972 about the need for strong but gentle leadership, described the early Reform response to emancipation in a way that I think applies well to the pressures we face today (Derashot Ledorot: Numbers, p. 128):
“What was the rationale for this radical surgery performed [by Reform] on the Jewish tradition? Simply, that this is what people demanded, as reflected in the popular saying, ‘Give youth what it wants!’ What they forgot was that, first, youth does not always know what it wants (that is the special privilege of youth); second, youth changes its wants every few years; and third, the word of God is permanent and the plaints of whining youth are temporary. Halakha must always remain superior to fashion.”
We must all be concerned about losing young people from our tradition. It is difficult to live a restrictive lifestyle in the middle of a prosperous, permissive, and intellectually exciting society. Therefore, it is our responsibility to teach our children and students that the Torah is a beautiful inheritance that is true and just. Intellectual fads come and go, but God’s word will never change.
Rabbi Gil Student writes frequently on Jewish issues and is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TorahMusings.com. Raised in Teaneck, he is a graduate of Solomon Schechter, Frisch, and Yeshiva University.
By Rabbi Gil Student
