Instead of sociology, how about psychology? I have thought for a long time that one of the great deficiencies of conservative Catholicism was that it was only attractive to people with particular personality traits, and people without those traits were just out of luck. I don’t know how exactly it would fit within, for example, a Meyers-Briggs matrix (other than it has much more appeal for people with a J rather than P personality). I don’t know if this applies for Orthodox Judaism, but I have to wonder if this is the case. A religion that has no capability to appeal to a large section of the population just seems deficient to me.

To be fair, morally therapeutic religious practice suffers from the same failing–it just excludes a different set of people. I’m just not sure what the answer is here.

You’re kidding right? Orthodox Judaism thriving? Don’t think so. And it’s not just Judaism. Almost all orthodox faiths are seeing declining memberships. The days of mass market religion are pretty much over. Today, it’s all about niche groups and faiths. Even in Buddhism there are growing sects.
peace out,
don

‘In the short run, the more demanding forms of Christianity may lose out to the more permissive ones, but the forms of religion (and not just the Christian religion) that are more likely to endure are those that require something serious of its adherents.’
Rod, that’s one plausible meachanism, but you don’t mention the other side. The Mormons refused admit blacks to full membership until 1978. Suppose that instead they’d refused to budge. The active Mormon membership today would be much, much more hardcore than today, but the Mormon church would be a tiny fraction of its present size. Mormon politicians would be unelectable. No university would play football with BYU. Young people would flee the church in droves. The LDS church would probably eventually disappear entirely, the way that these guys did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_Latter_Day_Saint_denominations
(and I don’t believe that the list is complete).
So, pragmatically, the LDS leadership made the right call to change. However, the Mormons have a lot of other habits that go against the culture that help maintain their identity and ‘distinctiveness’.
You can see something similar in the Catholic church’s slow progression from heresy burnings to championing religious liberty in Dignitatis Humanae.
What will be fascinating to see is how the gay marriage issue turns out. Will rejecting gay marriage be a rally-point, a mark to be worn with pride, or will it eventually become something that a sufficiently large majority of sufficiently orthodox adherents are sufficiently ashamed of that it will seal a denomination’s doom? Not sure.

Rod,
I think this can be related to the St. Paul post you put up the other day (As a fervent historian and Latinist, I feel it’s a shame you didn’t allow comments on it, but I do understand).
That is to say, Christianity succeeded because it had the strength to condemn practices that were completely normalized and accepted in the Roman Empire, but nonetheless barbaric and de-humanizing. Moreover, joining the nascent Church meant rejecting the secular world and committing one’s self to a radically different way of life. Only by adhering to this way could one escape the sordid embrace of the culture of pagan antiquity.
In the same way, any faith that vaunts itself today on its rigorousness should also be able make clear how this rigor steels adherents against a poisoned modern culture. If the rules – however rigorous – are seen to be only for their own sake, they will not draw in adherents.

“You’re kidding right? Orthodox Judaism thriving? Don’t think so. And it’s not just Judaism. Almost all orthodox faiths are seeing declining memberships.”
Now, this is simply not true. In the Christian world, those groups with declining memberships are the “liberal” (I hate to talk about religion in L v. C terms) ones, and the more traditional ones, while perhaps not gaining in absolute numbers, are growing. I don’t disagree that the “days of mass market religion are over,” but I don’t think that has anything to do with “liberal” religions as opposed to “conservative” ones.
The larger point here is very true: I honestly believe that, from this point onward, traditional Christianity will only thrive to the extent that it offers a real, tangible alternative to “the world” (as opposed to a social/ethnic club, or something that we ‘have’ to do even if we don’t want to).

You answered this question quite well a few posts ago:
“Once again, we see the potential cost of allowing a morally unaccountable and politically connected elite operate in the shadows.”

I’ve always heard that Orthodox Jews were 10% of Jews overall. But the linked article claims they are one third of all self-identified Jews ages 18 to 34. These two figures seem initially at odds and here’s my attempt to reconcile them.
Non-Orthodox Jews have had a 50% intermarriage rate for a generation, and two thirds of mixed couples do not raise their children Jewish. So the increase in the percentage of Orthodox Jews might not be young Jews migrating to Orthodoxy, but a decline in the number of non-Orthodox Jews. This would fit with the ARIS survey results which showed a -0.6% decline from 1990 to 2008.
Now it is entirely possible that they would constitute a majority of all American Jews in another two generations. But they would be a majority of a group declining in absolute numbers.
Jon in the Nati, according to ARIS all religious groups lost ground, not just liberal denominations. For example the Baptists and Catholics would generally be considered conservative denominations and they lost -3.5% and -1.1% respectively.

Great post. So much for The Church of The Itching Ear.

Throughout history, it seems, the Catholic Church has been more attractive and more vibrant when it has taken a counter-cultural stance. It is the secret of its success against the Roman Empire in past ages and the secret of its success in Ireland until recently and Poland today.
We Catholics of immigrant stock have got to get over our inferiority complex as Americans that, for example, makes us sometimes more enamored of the man-made U.S. Constitution than of the Bible.
Our greatest gift to ASmerican culture and society should be our determination to uphold the sacredness of human from conception to natural death no matter what a corrupted Supreme Court rules. We must succeed in this endeavor and not fail as German Catholics did in the 1930′s.

Notice near the end of Mr Greenberg’s article, he mentions the significant (or full?) inclusion of women in leadership. Thus, these Orthodox Jews remain true to the best traditions of their faith, but adapt to the modern world. This to me is a sign of a vibrant faith.

In the Christian world, those groups with declining memberships are the “liberal” (I hate to talk about religion in L v. C terms) ones, and the more traditional ones, while perhaps not gaining in absolute numbers, are growing.
That’s not completely true. There are “tradition” groups that aren’t growing and are actually losing members. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod comes to mind. THe Orthodox are losing members, overall. The Reformed churches aren’t growing and are losing members.

“Thus, these Orthodox Jews remain true to the best traditions of their faith, but adapt to the modern world. This to me is a sign of a vibrant faith.”
Orthodox Jews have also made some overtures for inclusion of gays and lesbians.

One problem with adherence to holy days, any holy days, or even holidays, is that they generally arise in a context where everything shuts down, the whole community. If the community doesn’t shut down, a family has to squeeze them in, or, claim a right to time off from work, school, etc. on religious grounds. Without advocating that one religion be preferred, or that we all get days off if it is anyone’s holy day, it would be nice if we really shut down for Christmas — everyone gets the day off, even the 24 hour store clerks, or, if employers had to be flexible around religious observances of any employee, with advance notice of course. Orthodox Jews really have to work at being observant. A really homogenous Amish community has it a little easier, in that respect.
Nobody asked why Orthodox Jews haven’t all become Christian by now. Its not a PC question, even among evangelicals, but technically, if Jesus was the Messiah… well, I have a half-baked idea about that too. A few years ago, I accidentally became acquainted with an Orthodox rabbi, and have found him very helpful in explaining the original Hebrew meaning of the Old Testament, as Christians call the Tanach. I even find his criticisms of the Synoptic Gospels, and his critique of John’s virulent anti-Semitism, helpful to understanding what Christianity does and does not mean. I have developed a sense that God had his own purposes for NOT having all the Chosen People become Christians.
The entire Bible is a history of God telling people something, and those same people, or their immediate descendants, getting it all wrong. God knew the gentiles would misunderstand and mistranslate and get things all distorted. Somebody had to hold on to the original meanings and context, to straighten it all out for us. I don’t think the future lies with churches or faiths that are certain they hold The Truth and all others are apostate. The future lies with practice of faith, individual and corporate, which recognizes that we don’t have a perfect grasp on exactly who and what God is, but there are certain basics he requires of us, and we are called to explore the rest, without too much arrogance toward our fellow man.

Frog Leg basically said what I was going to say.
Some people are attracted by a religion that provides them with a great deal of structure. Obviously, those people won’t think much of what’s called MTD here. Others see a look at religions with all that structure and see people beating themselves up every day for no discernible reason.
People don’t like it when we discuss religions as being essentially interchangeable, but, in the absence of any further information, they pretty much are (they have equally valid claims of being “true” in other words; the likelihood of meeting the Christian God in the afterlife is the same as that of meeting Hermes or Xenu or no-one at all). Given that that’s the case, and that selecting the “right” religion is basically a crapshoot, you might as well pick one that suits your temperament.

In Christianity, I think that the issue of ritual plays as big a role as the liberal/conservative divide. The churches experiencing the most explosive growth are those that combine doctrinal conservatism with a liberal view towards individual practice. A commitment to ritual is a stumbling block in some cases, I think. People want old rules observed in culturally relevant ways, basically. My own very conservative church can’t launch new churches quickly enough.

Minor clarification for Koyla,
Mormons from the beginning of the church allowed black members full membership and fellowship in the church. What wasn’t allowed before 1978 was for black males to hold the priesthood, which is entirely different from membership. (I’m a full member, but don’t hold the priesthood because I’m female) See blacklds.org
And yes, I agree, a religion must require something of this members or it will wither an die.

I’ve always thought religiosity has as much to do with personality as it does with the actual belief. The same person who’s drawn to Orthodox Judaism would be drawn to equally demanding forms of Christianity or Islam or Wicca or Buddhism or political expression if they were raised in another sort of environment. I suspect the militant atheists who are so prominent would be Opus Dei Catholics in a slightly different context. It’s all about intensity. So the most strict and most demanding forms of all religions will always attract those types. The trick would be to persuade people from other traditions that Christianity is “The Truth” with capital letters.

The thing that grieves me in the “culture war” debate (that last word deserving of scare quotes in many cases) is the inability of many to take the next logical step after identifying the distinct entities “culture” and “religion” (insert synonyms of your choice).
That step is what Rod keeps trying to take with his many posts about culture and religion, and which many fail to follow: the dynamic interactions and changing balance betwee culture and religion within the constructs of a give society. Some point to it with the topical tangent of church and state. Others try to look at it from the neighborhood or local community POV. But that step continues to elude them.
Religion informs culture. Culture informs religion. Neither is the chicken or the egg. One does not “create” the other. Over a long enough span of time, one can discern patterns and cycles, but no matter how far back we go (within the criterion of “civilization”), one cannot see a “starting point”.

Andrea, I think there’s something to what you identify. I’m trying to grapple with this question from a neutral, sociological point of view, to overcome my own biases. I think too often people on both sides of this question (myself included) are guilty of confirmation bias: we believe what suits our preferences. In truth, I don’t think the news is as good for liberals or conservatives as both sides would like to believe.
As someone who is theologically conservative but also mystically inclined (this is why I can’t dismiss the charismatics/Pentecostals), I find myself drawn to a religious tradition that emphasizes strong core traditional dogmas, but also is mystically focused, and not legalistic in its outlook. That’s Orthodoxy. I would find it difficult to thrive in either a Pentecostal church, or a church that was highly cerebral. Orthodoxy is balanced — and it’s also true that within Orthodoxy, you don’t have the kind of culture wars that afflict other churches. I don’t know why that is — I suspect most people in my previous parish were quite conservative, but this kind of stuff never came up).
It makes intuitive sense to me, though, simply as a matter of human social behavior, that a religion that made few demands on its adherents will not have within it what it takes to hold its ground over time against the powerful currents of secularism and individualism driving our culture. Now, if you see religion as being only the expression of the individual’s thoughts and emotions about divinity, this may not be a problem for you — that is, if you don’t think religion has any core content that’s true outside of individual emotions and judgment. We so often see people who identify as church liberals chafing against what they see as the restrictions of traditional/conservative religion against individual freedom. But if there really are no religious norms, if we’re entitled to make it up as we go along, on what grounds does one condemn people who identify as Christians and also affirm Aryan Nations-type theology? Without a core dogmatic theology that stands outside of time as the standard by which claims made within specific times and places can be evaluated, you really are hostage to the Zeitgeist.
This is why I think that only the more conservative expressions of religion will survive modernity intact. This does not imply political conservatism; a friend of mine is a liberal Democrat and a Modern Orthodox Jew. Nor does this imply that people 100 years from now won’t be religious. What it means is that it’s unlikely that they’ll be Christian in a way that would make sense to me, or to our ancestors. And that matters.

Rod, what’s your view of those components of religion that transcend local, other-bias informed beliefs? You cite the Aryan Nation types and offer them an implied benefit of the doubt. That’s part of the step I describe earlier.
The culture-religion dynamic is complex at any level. Local variations make general statement problematic. But are their concepts that can be viewed as transcendant? One such, as you know about me, is the “mystical” element. It causes much conflict between belief systems — as with (for example) Christianity and Paganisms — that tends to mask any commonality that exists.
Note my lack of qualifier. I assert that the commonality is there.

“– and it’s also true that within Orthodoxy, you don’t have the kind of culture wars that afflict other churches. I don’t know why that is — I suspect most people in my previous parish were quite conservative, but this kind of stuff never came up).”
Of course, this is not to say that there are not “culture warriors” in the church; of course there are. They do, however, know enough to check their baggage at the door; in the parishes I’ve been in, anyone bringing that kind of political or culture-war garbage into the church would have been run out on a rail.
Good thing, too. I really don’t care what the people around me in church believe as a political persuasion. It is unimportant, and focusing on things like that only serves to muddy the waters. I come to the church to fall down before the altar of Christ, not to fall down before the altar of conservative (or liberal) politics. If I want that, I will turn on CNN or FoxNews.

I was intrigued by some of the comments on the article you cite, written by Catholic priests, who seem to ignore the profound theological differences between Nicene Christianity and rabbinic Orthodox Judaism.
Both of these religions cannot be true. Each was formed, to some extent, in reaction to the other, and there are texts and history to prove it.
One analogy that occurs to me is Mormonism. Although the theology is bizarre, in a worldly sense Mormon life has much to recommend it–an emphasis on family, social cohesion and discipline, and so forth. Although the flavor is different, Orthodox Judaism is similar.
However commendable their practitioners in a worldly sense, an Orthodox Christian must say, both religions are false. We cannot say that these faiths possess grace or are devoid of it; that invades God’s territory, though He is ?????????? (the lover of mankind), and we are called upon to love all people.
In their repentance for past sins against Jews, it seems, official Catholicism has been reluctant to dwell upon its differences with rabbinic Judaism. Is the view similar to Eisenhower’s, that everyone should have a religion, and I don’t care what it is?

I see no breakdown between Modern Orthodox and the ultra-Orthodox – two groups who lead very different lives and have very different stories to tell about their success.
This discussion has failed to discuss the population aspect: Orthodox families (Haredim especially) have far, far more children than do Reform or Conservative Jews, sometimes 10 or more – the number of Orthodox Jews receiving food stamps for their large families would shock you. Even if a high percentage of Orthodox kids convert or become less observant, the population would grow. And you’re paying for a good chunk of it.
We also see a Benedict Option at the more extreme end of the spectrum: some Orthodox communities have their own towns in which they run the government, receive exemptions from school districts and have gone so far as to block non-Jewish firemen from responding to emergencies within their borders. There is a strong stigma to those who take a different path.
Modern Orthodox, on the other hand, are not recognizable by dress (except for the kepah, or yarmulke) and are more likely to live in mixed neighborhoods. Their children have more exposure to the outside world and are more likely their beliefs challenged.
I have no trouble believing Modern Orthodox have less intermarriage and conversion, but I’d prefer to see further breakdown of the statistics.

I think what Orthodox Judaism does best is provide an all-encompassing lifestyle that allows people to sanctify every aspect of their lives, both through adherence to a set of rules that are understood as obligatory (along with optional practices) and which are designed to bring people closer to G-d in everything that they do, in the context of a tight-knit community. There are many things Christians could learn from Orthodox Jews in reconstructing a lifestyle devoted to striving for holiness in a religious community.
1 Daily study. The ideal in Judaism is to spend lots of one’s free time studying religious texts — the Bible, commentaries, mystical works, legal works, etc. I guess the equivalent for Catholics could be reading a few pages of the Catechism, reading books by or about saints, reading the Bible of course, reading classical Christian texts or theological texts, etc — whatever appeals to the individual. Jews tend to study with a study partner — this might work for Christians too (I know they have Bible study, so this may be similar).
2 Not being afraid to act and look a little different from everybody else. Orthodox Jewish women don’t wear clothes that violate the laws of modesty. Christians should do this too — not the precise laws necessarily, but the general principle of not wearing very tight or revealing clothing, low neck lines, short skirts, etc. It seems that few Christians nowadays are strict about this, but it is important — among other things in making a statement that we do not follow the general society’s glorification of public sexiness and premarital sex.
3 Having a general sense that religion, in the sense of building one’s connection with G-d, as being the most important thing in life. Ideally one should be connected to G-d all day long, praying to him for everything we need (physical and interpersonal things, self-improvement, greater faith and trust in G-d, joy in serving G-d, doing acts of lovingkindness to others, etc), meditation on feeling great love and yearning for G-d and feeling his love and closeness.
4 Making every act sacred. When you wake up in the morning your very first thought should be, thank you G-d for giving my another day by your compassion. Before and after eating you should pause and slowly and deliberately thank G-d for the food. Every time your wife complains or criticizes you about something (or your kids have a fit), you should silently thank G-d for this test and pray that you respond appropriately and humbly, without causing a fight. We even have a blessing to say after you leave the bathroom, thanking G-d for allowing the wondrous creation of our bodies to function normally.
5 Having set daily prayers — rosary, stations of the cross, and more informal personal prayer and meditation — is an important practice as well. The group I identify with most, the Breslover chassidim (which include many “modern” fellow-travelers like myself), advocates very strongly spending at least an hour a day in personal prayer and meditation, thanking G-d for everything we have (even the seemingly “bad” since that do is sent by G-d for our very best!), talking to Him like a parent or friend, confessing our sins, praying for everything we and our loved ones and the whole world need. This is just as important — even more so — than the prescribed daily prayers. Our prescribed daily prayers are quite lengthy — they take at least 20-30 minutes in the morning, often longer, then 5-10 minutes in the afternoon, and 10-15 minutes at night.
6 It may be useful for many Christians to study Jewish law to see what things may be helpful for them to adopt or imitate in part. For certain things (like the precise rules of Shabbat and Kashrut and ritual items like tefillin) this wouldn’t be appropriate, but there many other things that could be useful. (Even the Noahide prayer book, Service of the Heart, may be of interest to some Christians). For example, we have a rule that a man is not allowed to be in a room alone with a woman besides his wife with the door closed. Billy Graham apparently came up with the same rule and it apparently was successful in saving him from temptation. The rules against hurting others with words, and against gossip, are other examples of things that may be helpful. There is nothing un-Christian about learning about and partially using Jewish law — Christians have read the Talmud and other Jewish works for centuries (though it was more common to burn the Talmud in many periods, unfortunately).

You use Hassidic to mean ‘Haredi’. All Hassidim are Haredi (well, except for a few Breslev and Chabad tagalongs), but the majority of Haredi Jews are not Hassidic.
On a different note, I’d add a note of caution to your portrayal of Modern Orthodoxy. There’s a meme which goes something like “if they say they’re modern orthodox, the ‘modern’ means they have sex outside marriage” and, while wildy unfair on the Rabbininical leadership and many of their followers, it’s sadly not so far from the case. Further, it’s only getting worse with the influx of new recruits happy to be as machmir as possible with regard to Kashrut (after all, they can afford it), but not willing, or even all that interested, in giving up the seedier delights of modern world. When modern western civlization meant Turner, Wittgenstein, Lizst and all the rest of it, modern orthodoxy made a lot more sense than now when it means clubbing and Britney Spears and generally comporting yourself like a savage. Going to university as well as Yeshiva was a much more worthwhile endeavour before, even at Oxbridge, university life became not a passport into adulthood and the life of the mind, but an extension of infanthood minus the restrictions on automony proper to that level of mental maturity (manifested at Oxford in the ubiquitous ‘bop’, the very antithesis of what the university was founded to do and be). Unfortunately, the space between Modern Orthodoxy and Haredi Judaism is becoming ever narrower, except in Israel where the Dati Leumi community avoids the absurdities of either camp, while entertaining its own set of foolishnesses, like an inisistence of short sleeved shirts.

P.S. Pace the article, Avi Weiss is not an Orthodox Rabbi (I mean he says he is, but…

” Judaism assembled at a buffet of individual preferences has small interest for young adults seeking direction and meaning in their lives. Young Jews are likely either to abandon their religion altogether or to take it seriously. That is why there is a migration to Orthodoxy by young Jews raised in liberal or secular households.”
In my opinion, one of the most important issues is hinted at in that statement.
People given the choice of what to believe will believe strongly or not at all. People given no choice but forced into a doctrine will pay it lip service but carry no strong belief.
If you want to seed strong faith, you have to allow the freedom to walk away and risk no faith taking root at all. (As per one of the possible takes on the parable of the seed scatterer)

Gabriel, I think you’re talking about left-wing Modern Orthodox, not Modern Orthodox in general — which in many congregations means being pretty machmir (strict). And I don’t think you’re correct that Modern Orthodoxy balei teshuvah (returnees to Orthodoxy) are engaged in all sorts of debauchery as you describe; breaches of morality do happen, but those who are frum from birth are certainly involved in this as well. R’ Avi Weiss is Orthodox, but he is on the far left-wing of Orthodoxy, so some may not think of him as Orthodox (post-Orthodox, maybe?).
Rod asked for sociological observations. One thing that occurs to me is that it may overall be true that traditionalist, stricter versions of faiths seem to be on the whole more successful, there can be problems. Many Orthodox people end up going “off the derech” (leaving Orthodoxy), and there are many reasons for this, but part of it has to do with a) the problem of belief, with some people reacting negatively to the willingness of some of their coreligionists to stand by even quite implausible beliefs (like having to do with the age of the universe or certain scientific statements in the Talmud), even when they aren’t really theologically necessary, b) the problem of gender equality, since it is very hard for women — even Orthodox women — raised in this society to accept differences in gender roles, even in ritual matters, c) connected to a), the general problem of “fundamentalism,” or the legal and theological right wing gaining power and influence over other groups. While Orthodox Judaism is not going to die, there are certainly problems with some people becoming dissillusioned or cynical or just leaving. Stopping the righward slide, perhaps by a more coherent and self-confident Centrist Orthodoxy, or a hypothetical left-wing Charedi tendency, and the ability to sensitively address hot-button issues and tolerate a large amount of theological diversity, are some things that may help. Ultimately I think as the Charedim realize they will soon be a majority of Israel, and have to start being more integrated within the labor force and the other national institutions (like the army), there will eventually be moderating forces within some Charedi groups that will prevent the power struggles (and slide toward a virtual splitting into two denominations) between the Modern Orthodox and Charedim.
Gabriel, as far as college goes, I think you’re right, but fortunately at least some people are going to places like Yeshiva University and Touro and so on (which hopefully will open branches in Israel for Charedim!), which hopefully have somewhat less of those problems.

One thing that helps religion thrive in the US is the lack of governmental involvement. This is especially important for religions that see themselves as orthodox. This forces the faithful to use persuasion, not force, to bring people in.
Contrast your statement about Orthodox Judaism in the US to Judaism in Israel, where Israelis joke that the synagogue they don’t attend is an Orthodox synagogue and where “ultra-orthodox” groups regularly switch political allegiances based pretty much only on who can send the most money. The government-given power over family life doesn’t help. Local Reform and Conservative rabbis can’t even perform legal marriages. By contrast, a decade ago, federal courts struck down a New York law that gave Orthodox Jews a monopoly on the definition of “Kosher” food. American Orthodox Jews must depend on persuasion, not the force of government.
So the same freedom that allows Reform Judaism to flourish also protects the Orthodox from the corruptions of secular power. The US gives religious people the freedom to follow their faith as they see fit. More than anyplace else on the planet, Jews have more freedom to be Jews, Muslims to be Muslims, and Christians to be Christians.
Why does Orthodox Judaism thrive in the US? In large part because we also allow Conservative and Reform Judaism to thrive, too.

I do think that it’s distinctiveness that’s important, more than orthodoxy. Religions which make a person stand out from their culture make the followers identify more with it. (Liberal religionists don’t have strong identities in this country because they’re absorbed into the Moral Therapeutic Deism of those around them.)
One thing I noticed about living with my New Agey friends was that the same thing was true. They were all vegetarians and all went to the same Farmer’s Markets. And they all shared similar views on issues. Even though they are accused of being fluffy believers, they were generally as orthopraxic as most Orthodox Jews and had a strong (for lack of a better term) Hippy identity.

Judaism is an evolving religion. It adapts to the times and to circumstances and this is the “secret” to its success.