A common theme amongst Modern Orthodox intellectual fundamentalists is that the Torah, and Orthodoxy in general, is somewhat metaphorical.
Taking their cue from the famous Zoharic idea that only a fool thinks the plain meaning of the Torah is the true meaning, and compelled by the discoveries of modern science that directly contradict much of Breishis, these intellefundies (TM) propose that the Torah is written in a simplistic style for the 'masses', but the intellectual elites realize that the true meaning is much different. Taken to its extreme, this idea paves the way for a radical reconstruction of almost all Orthodox ideology and beliefs, the kind of approach that Mordechai Kaplan advocated.
I have toyed with this concept in the past, but two things have always bothered me. One, the concept of the 'masses' versus the 'elites', with the elites keeping their true beliefs secret from the masses, has always intensely annoyed me. It reeks of dishonesty, disingenuous and a sort of intellectually smug clique-ishness.
Secondly, the radical reformulation and reconstruction of traditional ideas has always seemed to me somewhat fake. Surely when Chazal said God, they meant God, not the Kaplanian forces that enable personal salvation, or the Spinozian sum of all existence.
However now I'm thinking maybe this was too harsh, and maybe there's some room to maneuver here. For two reasons.
Firstly, with regards to elitism, I'm thinking that maybe it's not about an elite class of intellectuals, withholding the truth from the poor ignorant masses. Or at least it shouldn't be about that. Rather, anyone and everyone can and should be enlightened, and the intellectuals (or the enlightened ones) have a duty to try and enlighten as many people as possible. Unfortunately many people are extremely unenlightened, and remain quite stubbornly so. Also, one has to be careful, because introducing someone who is not prepared to the idea that religion is man made, Torah Min Hashamayim is metaphorical, or other such concepts, can really be damaging. The goal is to enlighten, not destroy.
However, with those caveats in mind, and considering that our generation is both the most educated in history and simultaneously the most gratuitously fundamentalist in history, I no longer see such a stark inherent distinction between the enlightened and the masses. Anyone can become enlightened should they choose to become so, and as long as the enlightened make their best efforts to spread their enlightenment, they can be free of the accusation of elitism.
Secondly, with regards to the reconstruction of ideology, that might not be so clear cut either. SYL asked yesterday whether the Biblical writers and redactors knew that what they were writing and compiling was man made. I think the answer is yes, and no. Of course they knew that they, as mortal men, were writing and redacting the text. Yet they were clearly intensely spiritual people, powerfully in the grip of a spiritual frame of mind. Metaphorically speaking, they felt as if it was all Divine.
Carrying this idea forward, presumably there was always an enlightened elite who realized that much (if not all) of Orthodoxy was metaphorical, an attempt (like all religious mythology) to convey the ineffable and incomprehensible mystery of being into common language. In fact, there is no doubt at all that Chazal were world class masters of metaphors. The famous story of the oven of Achinai is a much quoted but perfect example. Could Chazal have really believed that God laughed? Or that any of those supernatural events happened? Of course not.
Does this mean that every member of Chazal, every Rishon, every Acharon were really reconstructionist Jews at heart? No, I don't think so. But certainly some of them were. And as history progresses, the numbers have grown larger.
John Cottingham, in his very excellent book 'The Spiritual Dimension', makes the point that faith is not a cognitive exercise. Rather it is an emotional feeling, a worldview, a sense. I think this is very true. I think principles of faith, and organized religion in general, are an attempt to set down in words and rituals a series of intense spiritual emotions about life. This is exactly contrary to the oft repeated skeptic claim that religion is at it's core a pseudo scientific attempt to explain how things work, and which now can be replaced by science. I think that is a ridiculous idea. Religion is clearly about spirituality, morality and meaning, not about explaining how rain happens.
I see this borne out in practice all the time. I have friends who grew up Conservative, but are now intensely Orthodox. It's clear (to me at least) that they did not have intellectual reasons for making the leap, and still don't. Rather, being intensely spiritual, they found that Orthodox was an inherently better fit, with more avenues available to enhance and explore their spirituality.
Spirituality and Religion exist in a kind of co-dependant vicious circle. Each feeds off and nurtures the other. Spiritual people seek out religion, whether traditional or new age, and religion (at least in theory) is aimed at enhancing our spiritual side.
But, while religion is 'man made', there is no question that spirituality is a fundamental part of human nature. For the believers, the drive for spirituality is the 'neshamah', a God given spark in our material bodies. For the non believers, spirituality is a strange spandrel of evolution. But either way, all agree that spirituality is a deeply ingrained and very integral human trait. Spirituality, morality and meaning are very closely related, they may even be different aspects of the same emotion. We can't avoid spirituality, and nor would we want to.
So in sum, I see religion as an age old attempt to express our spiritual side, to enhance it with rituals and practice, and was and is an exercise that the original architects, and quite a few of the subsequent leaders, knew all along was metaphorical, yet incredibly 'true' and vital at the same time.
In this way of thinking, Modern Orthodoxy is somewhat of a failure. The intense spiritual passion of Chareidim is mostly missing, yet the conclusions of the enlightenment are forbidden. As I always say; Modern Orthodoxy, neither Modern nor Orthodox. Yet people are drawn to it, mostly for the simple reason that most people are not looking for an intense religious or spiritual experience.
But what about those of us who do want something more intense, yet also need to remain intellectually honest? Perhaps we will be blessed with an intense spiritual experience. The famous Philsopher Pascal had such an experience, he called it 'la nuit de feu' (the night of fire), and it changed his life. The Jewish Philosopher Franz Rosenzweig had a similar experience, at an Orthodox shul on Yom Kippur, the day before he was due to convert to Christianity. No doubt there are some Baal Teshuvah readers here who can recount similar life altering experiences.
But if the nuit de feu does not come, we shall have to remain in the struggle. And maybe this is not a bad thing. Holy Hyrax recently remarked that he had 'made his peace' with his doubts. This reminded me of an intellectual friend of mine, who transitioned from Conservative to Modern Orthodoxy, and who refused to seriously engage in thinking about Biblical Criticism or other challenges to his new found faith. 'I have made my peace with that' he told me, which to my mind is code for 'I don't have the emotional or intellectual energy, ability or desire to deal with that'.
Maybe that's okay for some people, but for the truly honest that just will not do. Boruch Hashem for the struggle! And no, I don't mean the struggle to answer questions on Orthodoxy. That ship sailed long ago, about 400 years now. As Ken Wilbur says, fundamentalists are just cognitively immature, they need to grow up. No, I'm talking about the struggle for spirituality, morality and meaning, in a seemingly meaningless universe.
How could any thinking person not be torn to his core at such a struggle? Making peace with that simply means you have mentally and spiritually checked out.
Rav Soloveitchik actually expounds a similar theme: that religion is not there to ensure a happy calm existence, but rather so that one should struggle intensely his whole life. I'm not sure whether the Rav was one of the enlightened ones, maybe he was just a depressive. But it's quite possible he was enlightened, and that would explain why he famously said, somewhat enigmatically, that he had never been bothered by questions from science, evolution or similar.
So, let's not check out, or 'make our peace', except perhaps with the fact that Orthodoxy is not literally true. But then it really never was, and the enlightened ones knew that all along. We didn't so much lose something, as realize we never had it in the first place. Which is still painful to be sure, but perhaps not quite as painful as it might be.
But as for the struggle to live meaningful, moral and spiritual lives in a seemingly meaningless, amoral and material universe, that is the core struggle of human existence. And in that struggle, our ancient traditions and texts do have much to say. Metaphorically of course.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
