The Reconstructionisttherra.org/Reconstructionist/Fall2005.pdfThe Reconstructionist Fall 005 • For most of its first four decades, The Reconstructionist appeared biweekly, with twenty

The ReconstructionistVolume 70, Number 1, Fall 2005Table of Contents

2 From the Editor

The Reconstructionist at Seventy

5 Richard Hirsh,AmericanJewishLifeSince1935: AReconstructionistRetrospective

15 Rebecca T. Alpert and Jacob A. Staub, Exploring Judaism andFindingReconstructionism

22 Mel Scult, KaplanAfterSinai:EvolutionorRevelation?

31 Michael M. Cohen,ZionismToday:AReconstructionistReflection

36 Ann Eisenstein,KohutMeetsKaplan:TheParadoxofRelating PersonallytoaNonpersonalGod46 Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer,ScienceandSpirit: ReconstructionistTheologyforthe21stCentury

58 Toba Spitzer, TheBlessingofUncertainty: Kaplan,GodandProcess

69 Daniel Goldman Cedarbaum, TowardaRedefinition ofReconstructionism

82 Carl A. Sheingold, ManagingDualities:AViewof ReconstructionismfromtheRadicalCenter

93 ReconstructionistJudaism,PastPresentandFuture:ASymposium David Teutsch, Jane Susswein, Amy Klein, Brant Rosen, Isaac Saposnik, Dan Ehrenkrantz, Amy Goldsmith, Shawn Zevit

Viewpoint

107 Barbara Hirsh,Values-BasedDecisionMaking:SomeSecondThoughts ResponsebyDavid Teutsch

Book Reviews

114 Lawrence Bush,GoingforBroke, Reviewof The Jewish 1960s: An American Sourcebook, editedbyMichaelE.Staub

120 George Driesen, TimeforaParadigmShiftinJewishThought ReviewofJudaism, Physics and God: Searching for Sacred Metaphors in a Post-Einstein World, byRabbiDavidW.Nelson

124 Rebecca T. Alpert, JewishRootsoftheAmericanSoul ReviewofJews and the American Soul: Human Nature in the Twentieth Century, byAndrewR.Heinze

The Reconstructionist� • Fall �005

From the editor

70: Shades of Gray

AccordingtothesageJudahbenTema(Pirke Avot5:24).theageofseventy(shiv’im)isreckonedasl’sayva,whichinitsliteralsensemeanssomethinglike“theageofthegrayinghead.”Inthemidrash(Bereshit Rabba59:3),therabbisraisethequestionofwhatthedifferenceisbetweensayvaandzikna,whichap-peartogetherinPsalm71:18:“...andeveninhoary(zikna)oldage(sayva),donotforsakeme...”Sincebothhavetheconnotationofadvancedage,aretheymerelysynonyms?RavAhaexplained:“IfIamgivenoldage,mayIalsobegiventhe[wisdom,dignityand]venerabilitythatcomeswithit.”Putdifferently,ziknaisquantitative;sayvaisqualitative.

Withthis issue,wecelebratethe70thanniversaryofThe Reconstructionist.Seventyyearsofcontinualpublishingisnosmallaccomplishment,andweareappropriatelyproudofourrecord.Butitisnotonlythezikna,thelongevity,thatwehonorwiththisissue;itisthesayvathatwehonoraswell.Tohavemain-tainedanongoingdiscussionontheimportantissuesofJewishlifeoversevendecades,whilekeepingthelevelofdiscussiononasophisticatedaswellasacivilplane,hasbeenamajorcontributionnotonlytoourmovement,buttoNorthAmericanJewishlife.

Shiv’im l’sayva;age70isthegrayhead.Whatanappropriateobservationforthispublication,whichhasasitslegacyarefusaltoreducecomplexissuestosimplesolutions.Forthosewhoneedblackorwhiteanswers,The Reconstructionistisnottherightpublication.Thisisajournalforthosewhounderstandandappreciatetheimportanceofshadesofgraywhendiscussingissuesofconsequenceaboutwhichgoodpeoplecanhaveavarietyofviewpoints.

The Reconstructionist is not merely a document of a small but influentialphilosophyofJewish life.Asonereads throughtheback issues,majorworldandnationaleventsofthepastseventyyearsareallreflectedineditorialsandinarticles.Ofcourse,thelegacyofseventyyearsalsorecordstheunfoldingstoryoftheJewishpeopleinthe20thcentury,andThe Reconstructionistisaremarkablerecord of the challenges, transitions and adaptations that affected the NorthAmericanJewishcommunity.

Initssevendecades,theeditorialboardofThe Reconstructionist hasincludedmanydevoted,thoughtfulandarticulatepeople.Spacedoesnotallowforafulllistingofallthemenandwomenwhovolunteeredtheirtimetoreflecttogetherontheimportantissuesoftheirtime,andtoshapeaprogressiveJewishresponsetothoseissues.Thelistofcontributingeditorsisequallydistinguished,andreflectsthemanypeoplewhotookthetimetoputtheirthoughtsinwriting.Elsewhereinthisissue,wepaytributetothosewhohaveservedThe Reconstructionistinaprofessionalcapacityaseditors,assistanteditorsandmanagingeditors.

The Reconstructionist Fall �005 • �

Formostofitsfirstfourdecades,The Reconstructionist appearedbiweekly,withtwentyorthirtypagesoftightly-packedtextperissue.Evenwhenthepublicationschedulebecamemonthly,eachissueincludedafullofferingofreviews,articlesandeditorials.AsIlabortogettwoissuesofourjournalouteachyear,Imarvelattheabilitiesanddedicationoftheeditorswhocamebeforeme,wholargelyworkedwithoutthebenefitsofcomputers,electronicfiles,word-processingandemail.Istillamnotsurehowtheydidit,butweareallintheirdebt.

Iampleasedtobeabletotaketheopportunityofour70thanniversarytoannouncethattheAmericanTheologicalLibraryAssociation(ATLA)hasbeguntheprojectofscanningtheentirerunofThe Reconstructionistfrom1935inordertomakeitavailableonlineontheInternet.IamgratefultoRabbiSandyE.SassoofCongregationBeth-ElZedeckinIndianapolisforinitiatingthecontactswithATLAthathaveenabledustotakethisimportantstep.

WewillkeepourreaderspostedastotheprogressoftheATLAproject,andwewillcertainlyannouncewhenThe Reconstructionist goesonline,alongwiththestepsnecessarytogainaccess.Meanwhile,rememberthatalloftheissuesfrom1994onareavailableonlineatwww.therra.orgorwww.rrc.edu.

Itistrulyanhonortobeintheeditor’sseataswecelebratethismilestone.MaythefutureofThe Reconstructionistextendatleastasfarintothefutureaswehavecomesofar.Barukh . . . shehehianu, v’kiyamnu, v’higianu lazman hazeh.

In This Issue

Our70thanniversaryisanappropriatemomenttoreflectonReconstructionistJudaism.Inthisissue,wehaveinvitedmanyofthekeyprofessionalandlaylead-ersofthemovementtoofferreflectionsondifferentaspectsofReconstructionistthoughtandpracticeinasymposiumdevotedtoourpast,presentandfuture.WealsofeatureaseriesofarticlesexploringvariousaspectsofReconstructionistthoughtandpractice.

Inthe“Viewpoint”section,wefeatureanexchangeontheconceptofvalues-baseddecisionmaking(VBDM)thatraisessomeimportantquestionsaboutthatprocess.ThreebookreviewsroundoutthisissueontopicspertinenttoRecon-structionism:oneisontherelationshipofscienceandreligion;anotherchroniclesthe1960s,thesamedecadeinwhichReconstructionistJudaismemergedasafullandseparatedenomination;thethirdexplorestheimpactofAmericanJewsontheformationoftheAmericansoul.

Weinvitereactionsandresponsesfromourreaders,whoaretoday,astheyhavebeenforthepastsevendecades,anintegralpartofintellectualadventureofThe Reconstructionist.

—RichardHirsh

.


On the Occasion of Our 70th Anniversary

We Honor the Editors, Assistant Editors and Managing Editors

Who Have Sustained The Reconstructionist

Mordecai M. Kaplan, Founding Chairman

Ira Eisenstein, Managing Editor, Associate Chairman, Editor, 1935-1983

Eugene Kohn, Managing Editor, Editor, 1935-1959

David Sidorsky, Managing Editor, 1959-1960

Emanuel Goldsmith, Assistant Editor, 1966-1968

Jacob J. Staub, Editor, 1983-1989

Joy D. Levitt, Editor, 1989-1993

Herb Levine, Editor, 1994-1996


AmericanJewishLifesince1935:AReconstructionistRetrospective

By RichaRd hiRsh

henMordecaiKaplanpub-lished Judaism as a Civiliza-tion: Toward a Reconstruc- W

tion of American Jewish Life in1934,theoriginal“Reconstructionist”syna-gogue,theSocietyfortheAdvancementofJudaism,wasalreadyfourteenyearsold.Kaplan’sradicalrethinkingofJuda-ismwasdocumentedinarticlesdatingbackto1915.A1927offertoKaplantobecomepresidentoftheindependentJewish Institute for Religion in NewYorkhadbeenrejectedmorethanonce.Kaplanhimselfwasfifty-threeyearsold,andonecouldarguethatthebookwastoomuch,toolate.

Remarkably, Judaism as a Civiliza-tionprovokedanenthusiasticresponsein the Jewish community (as well assome not unexpected criticism fromtraditionalquarters).OneconsequenceofthisreceptionwasthecreationofThe Reconstructionist magazine,whosefirstissuewasdated“January11,1953-She-bat7,5695,”asthemastheadpointedlynotedintwo-civilizationshorthand.

A New Voice

Appearingasabiweekly in itsfirst

decades, The Reconstructionist wasthepreeminent Jewish journalof theAmericanJewishcommunity.ManyoftheJewishmagazinesandjournalswetake for granted todaydidnot comeinto existence until afterWorldWarII,orevenlater.Organizationalpubli-cationsthattodayincreasinglydevotepagestodiscussionoftopicsratherthanjustreportingonactivitiesbegantheirlivesprimarilyashouse-organs. The Re-constructionist wasthefirstJewishjour-nal toengagesubstantiveconceptual,theologicalandideologicalissues,justas second-generation American JewswerecomingofageandseekingwaystointegratetheirJewishandAmericanidentities.

The early Reconstructionist edito-rialboardswerecomprisedofmanyofthe leading intellectual figures of theAmericanrabbinateaswellasleadersinthefieldsofJewisheducationandcom-munalservice.Ifonewantedtomakea statement about, influenceopinionon, or comment on critical issues ofAmericanJewishlife,onewroteforThe Reconstructionist.

The Reconstructionistthatappearedin1935was,infact,anexpandedversion

RabbiRichardHirshhasservedasEditorofThe Reconstructionistsince1996andistheExecutiveDirectoroftheReconstructionistRabbinicalAssociation.Thisarticleisadaptedandexpandedfrom“TheReconstructionist:AWindowonJewishLife”(Reconstructionism Today,Autumn1999).

The Reconstructionist6 • Fall �005

ofThe SAJ Review,whichKaplanhadbeenpublishing(untiltheDepressionintervened)aspartofhisvisionoftheSAJasmorethanjustacongregation.Intypicallyinnovativefashion,KaplanhadusedThe SAJ Review as a forumfor discussion of important issues ofJewish life,andnotonlyasanorganofcongregationalcommunication.The Reconstructionist continuedtobepub-lishedbytheSAJuntil1941,whenthenewly-formedJewishReconstructionistFoundationassumedresponsibility.

Finding a Name

WhenJudaism as a Civilizationap-peared, agroupofKaplan’sdisciples,includingRabbis IraEisenstein,Mil-tonSteinbergandEugeneKohn,sawan opportunity to capitalize on theexcitement and interest generated bythebook.ThecreationofamagazinedevotedtoReconstructionistthinkingwasseenasatimelyandcrucialvehicleforkeepingKaplan’sprogrambeforetheJewishcommunity.

But what to name the nascentpublication?Inhisautobiography,Re-constructing Judaism,IraEisensteinre-portedthatmanyoptionswerefloated,butthosewhowouldbecomethecoreoftheeditorialboardkeptcirclingbackto“Reconstructionist,”despitethesome-whatcumbersometerminology.MiltonSteinberg argued for the name as anindispensableandauthenticrepresenta-tionofthemagazine’smission,andthuswasbornThe Reconstructionist.

Thosecalledtogetherfortheinitialeditorial board represented the veryspectrum of the Jewish community

thatReconstructionismsoughttobringtogetherundertheslogan“Judaismasacivilization.”Includedwereseverallead-ingConservativerabbis,allKaplaniandisciples:IraEisenstein,EugeneKohn,IsraelGoldstein,BenZionBokserandMiltonSteinberg.TheReformrabbin-ate(at leastthatwingsympathetictotheconceptofpeoplehoodthatKaplanadvocated)wasrepresentedbyBarnettBrickner and Edward Israel. Educa-tors Alexander Dushkin and JacobGolub,andHillelrabbiMaxKadushinroundedouttheroster.

The Importance of Editorials

Fromitsinception,The Reconstruc-tionistwascommittedbothtopublish-ingarticlesandreviewsandtoproduc-ingeditorials inwhichcontemporaryissues—including Jewish,Americanandglobal—wereanalyzedthroughaprogressiveJewishperspective.Appear-inginthemidstoftheprewarDepres-sionyears,andwiththerumblingsofwarfromEuropealreadybeginningtobeheard, The Reconstructionistunder-stood immediately the importanceofapplyingJewishperspectives to issuesthatconfrontedJewsonadailybasis.

Theeditorialswere theproductofregularmeetingsoftheeditorialboardmembers, and normally appeared asunsignedconsensusstatements.(Guesteditorialsnormallycamewithattribu-tion.) Rabbis Kaplan and Eisensteingenerallyassumedresponsibilityfortheactualwriting,withEisensteinpresid-ingatthemeetingsothatKaplancouldparticipatefreely.

Theveryfirst issue included seven


editorials.The lead editorial, “TheReconstructionist Position,” includedasummaryofkeyKaplanianconceptsand then went on to address socialissues, opposition to fascism amongthem.Reflecting theeconomic times,the editorial bluntly states, “we darenotbereconciledtoaneconomicsys-tem that crushes the laboring massesand permits the existence of want inaneconomyofpotentialplenty.Socialrighteousnessispossibleonlyupontheestablishmentofacooperativesociety,theeliminationoftheprofitsystem,andpublicownershipofallnaturalresourcesand basic industries.”This flirtationwith socialism would permeate The Reconstructionist uptoandintotheearlyyearsoftheSecondWorldWar

Other editorials in that first issuedealtwithacritiqueofZionistthink-ingthatsawZionismasself-sufficientratherthanaspartofalargerprogram;anendorsementofanAmericanCom-munist weekly for being the onlypublicationthatcaredasmuchaboutanti-SemitismasdidthosepublishedbyJews;acritiqueofPresidentRoosevelt’sNewDealforfailingtoachievemoreeq-uitabledistributionofincome;awarn-ing to avoid the rhetoric ofVladimirJabotinsky, spokesperson for right-wingRevisionistZionism;atributetoeducator Alexander Dushkin on hisdepartureforPalestinetobecomeheadof education at Hebrew University;andastatementofsupportfortheat-temptof“JewishSoviets”toestablishan“independentJewishterritory”inBiro-Bidjan,Russia,noting the anticipatedendorsementoftheRussiangovernmentforthismove.

The Particular and the Universal

From 1935-1945, The Reconstruc-tionist wastheprimaryvoiceofAmeri-canJudaism,as itmirroredthecom-munity’s involvementwith themajorexternal issues (the gathering war inEurope and American involvementafterDecember1941)andtheinternalissuesfacingtheJewishcommunity.

In theOctober22, 1937 issue, aneditorialontheanarchyofkashrutregu-lationsuggestedacoordinatedcommu-nalresponseinwhichtherabbinate,theAmericanJewishCongress,theAmeri-canJewishCommittee,theFederations,theSynagogueCouncilandtheJewishWelfareBoardwereeachaskedtoenterintocooperativecommunalplanning,akeyReconstructionistposition.

ThegeneralaswellasspecificissuesofJewishritualpolicywereaddressedin1941inaseriesoffourarticlesentitled“TowardaGuideforJewishRitualUs-age”(October31,1941-December12,1941issues).Thisfirstattempttode-lineateReconstructionist adjustmentstoJewishritualpracticewasadefiningissueintheseparationofseverallead-ing Conservative rabbis from activeassociation with The Reconstructionist magazine.Thisearlyskirmish,withtheliberalsarguingforadaptationandthetraditionalists settling for interpreta-tion,wasanoverture to theeventualseparation of the ReconstructionistsfromtheConservativemovement.

World War II

ThesesortsofinternalJewishissues


soonpaledbeforethelargerissuesfac-ingAmericaandAmericanJews.Evenasthefinalarticleontheritualguidewas on press, the Japanese bombingofPearlHarborbroughttheU.S.intothewar.Aneditorial,“OurCountryatWar”(December26,1941),statedthat“Wearefighting...notonlyagainstanimmediateevilbutforanultimategood—theachievementofthateraofuni-versalfreedom,justiceandpeacewhichthe prophets of Israel first envisagedandproclaimedtomankind.”Duringthe war years, The Reconstructionist continuedtocommentonoverseasaswellasnationalissues,anddespitethenaturaltendencytosubordinatealldis-cussiontothealliedwareffort,articlescontinuedtocomeforthontopicsofcontemporaryJewishconcern.

Astheseconddecadeofpublicationapproached,thewareffortwasshiftingtowards what would eventually be asuccessfulconclusion.Whilecelebrat-ing the increasing Allied victories inEuropeandthePacific,AmericanJewsin particular were stunned to learnofwhatwould laterbenamedas theHolocaust.A1943editorialstridentlyrebuked those Jews “who seem tobewhollyindifferenttothetragicplightoftheirEuropeanbrethren...outoffear of raising an undue clamor . . .nothing too bitter can be said aboutsuch Jews.” While American JewishleadershipdividedoverwhethertopushfortherescueofEuropeanJewry,The Reconstructionist advocated action, or“weshallbeguiltynotonlyasJewsbutasAmericans...”Againstthosewhofearedprovokinganti-Semitism,theed-itorialboardconcluded“Nothingmust

standinthewayoforganizedunitedac-tiononthepartofallAmericanJewstosaveEuropeanJewry”(“SaveEuropeanJewryNow!”March5,1943).

OnDecember14,1945,ahalf-yearafter the endof thewar, an editorialentitled “In Memory of Six MillionDead” captured the emerging realitythat the extermination of EuropeanJewryhadnoparallelinthecatalogofJewishsuffering.Anticipatingthede-batewhichwouldemergeinthe1950sandwhichcontinuestothisday,The Reconstructionisturgedthatappropriateliturgical and ritual forms be createdthrough which memorial could bemediated, including the “setting of adayinthecalendarwhenall...mightjoininsayingtheKaddish.”

The establishment of the State ofIsraelin1948wasthefulfillmentoftheZionistdream,whichReconstruction-ismhadembracedfromitsinception.ThecreationofahomelandinwhichJewishcivilization,Hebrew,Jewishartsandcultureand literatureandJewishhistorywouldbeprimaryratherthansecondary thrilled the editorial writ-ers.Aneditorialentitled“TheMiracleHasHappened”(May28,1948)stated“Whowouldhavebelievedpossiblefiftyyearsagowhathashappenedtoday?...ItisanevidencethatmencandrawonaDivinePowertomakedreamscometrue if those dreams conform to thelawofrighteousnessthatexpressesHistranscendentpurposeintheevolutionofhumansociety.”

New Intellectual Currents

The Reconstructionist message


in the fifties and early sixties foundits rational (naturalism) aswell as itssociological (peoplehood) approachesin competition with new forces. Onthe intellectual front, the existential-ist religious thinking that had ariseninEuropeafterWorldWarIreachedAmericanshoresintheyearsaftertheSecondWorldWar. Disillusionmentwith reason, despair about humannature and a hopelessness about theameliorationofhumansufferingposedachallengetotheKaplanianemphasisonrationality,the“Powerthatmakesfor salvation” and the hope for the“achievement of that era of universalfreedom,justiceandpeacewhichtheprophets of Israel first envisaged andproclaimedtomankind.”

MiltonSteinberg,aclose friendofIra Eisenstein and a loyal disciple ofKaplan,wasamongthoseaffectedbythe new existentialist theologies. Inanarticleentitled“TheTestofTime”celebrating the fifteenth anniversaryofThe Reconstructionist(February24,1950), published shortly before histragic and untimely death, Steinbergresponded to Kaplan’s avoidance ofultimatequestions: “Forme, the rid-dleoftheuniverseisnotsoreadilytobe dismissed, and faith is not only apsychologicalandethicalventurebuta cognitive one also, an affirmationconcerning the ultimate nature ofthings.”WhileendorsingtheessentialvalidityoftherestoftheReconstruc-tionistplatform,Steinberg’stheologicaldissentprovedtobeapreviewofthenewthinking thatwas to takecenterstageinAmericanJewishlife.

Jewish Suburbia

Whiletheintellectualelitestruggledwith such issues, the social circum-stancesofthenewJewishsuburbanitesstoodinsharpcontrast.ThousandsofreturningJewishsoldiersmovedwiththeirnewfamiliestothesuburbssur-roundingthemajorcities,andastheydid,theycreatedthesuburbanJewishcongregationsandculturethatwouldbecome the context in which thatgenerationwouldadaptJudaismtoitsneeds.Incommunityaftercommunitynewtemplesandsynagoguessprouted,as the third generation of AmericanJews proudly took their place in anAmericacomprised,inthetitleofWillHerberg’sfamousstudy,ofProtestant,CatholicandJew.

Thepriceofthiseasyaccommoda-tion,however,wasanemergingiden-tificationofJudaismasafaith,ratherthanacivilization,whichwasinconsis-tentwithReconstructionistapproach.“Believing” now took priority over“belonging”asAmericanJewssoughtapositionofsocialequalitypremisedonasharedAmerican“faithinfaith.”“TheChristianshavetheirchurch;theJewshavetheirSynagogue”wroteAbrahamFleischmanin“TheUrbanJewGoesSuburban”(March6,1953).Itwouldnotbeuntilafterthe1967Six-DayWarinIsraelthatareassertionofJewisheth-nicitywouldfindareceptiveaudienceamongJewishcollegestudents.

Roots of Jewish Feminism

Thefifties also saw the emergenceof what would burst into full flower


a decade later as the movement forequality of women in Jewish life. IntheMarch6,1953issue,IraEisensteinreported on the now-equal status ofwomen at the SAJ after the vote tograntfullreligiousaccesstoallritual.Heattributedthechangeinpartto“theopen testimony of one of the youngwomen[attheSAJ]whohadpreviouslybeenthebulwarkofthosewhofought[against equality]. She described herexperiencewithherownfiveyearoldinthesynagogue... ‘onlythemen?’...afterthistouchingtestimony,thevotewastaken.Therestishistory.”

Dr.JudithKaplanEisenstein,well-known as the first contemporary bat mitzva,alsohadthedistinctionofbeingthefirstwomannamedtotheeditorialboard,appearingonOctober2,1942.FromthepolicychangeatSAJin1951totheentranceofthefirstfemalerab-binicalstudentattheReconstruction-ist Rabbinical College in 1969, The Reconstructionist continuedtodocumentandtoendorsetheexpandingclaimtoequalitybyJewishwomen.

The Turmoil of the Sixties

On February 19, 1960, the “25thAnniversary” issueofThe Reconstruc-tionistwas published, just in time tousherinanewdecade.Theeditorial,“OnTheThresholdofaQuarterCen-tury,”sawanopportunitytocapitalizeon the new beginning and reassert akey Reconstructionist teaching: “Atthestartofanewquartercentury,wepledgeourbestendeavorstoteachtheperfectibility of man based upon theconvictionthatthePowerthatmakesfor

salvationisaninvinciblePower,beforewhichnoman-madeevilcanstand.”

The Reconstructionistalsoweighedinonthethen-thornyissuessurroundingpresidentialcandidateSenatorJohnF.Kennedy,whoseCatholicismwasbeingusedtocallintoquestionhisultimateloyaltyifheweretobeelected.Beyondtheobviousandeasydismissalofsuchaccusations, theeditorial“Religion intheElections”(May13,1960)suggest-edthatreligionproperlyunderstoodasawayoflifeandnotmerelybeliefindeedlegitimatelyinvitedquestionsofcandi-datesforoffice.“Suchquestionsshouldnotberegardedasintolerancetowardareligionnotone’sown.Theyshouldratherbe regardedas showing respectforhonestreligiousdifferences.”

Justthreeyearslater,inDecemberof1963,The Reconstructionistjoinedinthenation’smourning for theassassinatedpresident. “We were shaken to thinkthatany[assassin]shouldhavehadsuchscantrespectfortheoffice,ifnotfortheman.David’swordsonhearingofthedeathofSaul,echoedinourears:‘Howwast thounot afraid toput forth thyhandtodestroytheEternal’sanointed?’”(“TheMartyredPresidentandaNation’sJourney”December13,1963.)

Cultural Critiques

The sixties also witnessed culturalreflectionsonJewishidentityemanat-ingfromliteratureandmusic,inaddi-tiontothoseissuingfromrabbisandsocialanalysts.IntheMarch4,1960issue,JuddTellerandHaroldRibalowofferedessaysonthecontroversialcol-lectionofstoriesbyPhilipRoth,Good-

The Reconstructionist Fall �005 • 11

bye Columbus. Roth had lampoonedand lambasted what he portrayed asthe bland, insecure, superficial andsocial-climbing suburban Jews of thelate1950s,andnotallAmericanJewswerehappy.

SidingwiththosewhofeltthatRothwroteoutofself-hate,andthathissto-riescouldnotbe“goodfortheJews”,Ribalow represented one side of theJewishdebate. Incontrast,Tellerdis-missedthehand-wringingof“AmericanJewry’s so-called national leaders andtheirorganizations”for“pursuingthewisp of public relations.” The Recon-structionist presentedbothsidesofthedebate,reflectingitslongcommitmenttopublishingdiverseperspectives.

In1963,comedywriterAlanSher-manscoredahitwithanoveltyrecordentitled “My Son the Folksinger” inwhichSherman’soriginalsongsaboutsuburbanJewishlifeweresettopopularfolk tunes. Sociologist Herbert Ganswroteanessay(“AlanSherman’sSoci-ologistPresents...,”May3,1963)onwhatthosesongsreflectedaboutJewishidentity.“Sherman’sJews...havere-linquishedthenostalgiafortraditionalJudaism, and they worry little abouttheJewishnessofthethirdgeneration.Indeed, they are Jewish only in thattheyliveinJewishneighborhoodsandearntheirlivingintypicallyJewishoc-cupations.”

ThecriticismofRothandthesatireofShermansuggestedthattherewasaspiritualhollownessatthecenteroftheplenitude of suburban Judaism, not-withstandingthecomfortablepresence,sociallyandcongregationally,thatJewshadachievedin“TheNewFrontier.”

AsthesixtiesexplodedinprotestovercivilrightsandVietnam,andasassas-sinationscontinuedtoeradicatehopeandfaith, thequest formeaningandvalueandtheplaceofreligiouscom-munitiesinconfrontingsocietalcrisisbecamemoreimportant.

Reconstructionism Becomes a Movement

The Reconstructionistmagazinewasinfactthefirststepinthelongdevelop-mentofReconstructionismasaninde-pendent fourth Jewishdenomination.Bythe1960s,whathadearlierbeenaJewish journalofwide readershipandinfluencehadnarrowed to apublica-tionthatincreasinglyspoketoasmalleraudience:theslowbutsteadilygrowingnumbersofJewswhosoughttocreateaReconstructionistmovementthatwouldstandapartfromtheConservativeandReformmovements.

With the establishmentof theRe-constructionist Rabbinical College(RRC)in1968,thelong-awaitedfinalstepwastaken.Fromthattimeforward,The Reconstructionist increasingly be-cameavoicefordiscussionanddebateaboutissuesindigenoustoanemergingmovement.Whileeditorialscontinuedto address general and wider Jewishissues, the content of the magazineshiftedtowardsanalysisofissueswithinthemovementandtheapplicationofthe Reconstructionist perspective tocontemporaryissues.

Student Radicals

Theinstabilityofthelatesixtiesand

The Reconstructionist1� • Fall �005

early seventies, particularly as playedoutintheso-called“generationgap,”founditsaddressinThe Reconstruction-istaswell.Aneditorial,“RiotsatCo-lumbia,QuietinJewishLife”(May31,1968),sympatheticallyacknowledgedtheconcerns(ifnotallthetactics)ofthecollege studentswho that springhadshutdownthatuniversity,applaudingtheirpassionandsocialconcern.Theeditorial thenasked:“Howstrange itisthattherearenoriots,nosit-ins,nopicketing,nodemonstrations at Jew-ishinstitutions–synagogues,temples,seminaries, social agencies...we mustconfess that we look wistfully at theburningzealofthestudents,andwishthatsomeofitwouldmakeitsappear-ancewithinJewishranks.”

In November of 1969, the Jewishstudent unrest that The Reconstruc-tionistoncelongedforsurfacedattheGeneral Assembly of the Council ofJewishFederationsandWelfareFunds.Students disrupted the proceedings,demandingashiftinallocationsfromoverseaseffortstoJewisheducationandspiritualissueshereathome.The Re-constructionist applaudedthe“decorumwhich characterized theirdemonstra-tions”butmoreimportantly,sawthat“theyput theircollectivefingeruponthemost sensitivepoint inAmericanJewish communal life, namely, thefailuretoassigntheproperprioritiesinthedistributionof communal funds”(“JewishYouthDemonstrateforJewishEducation”,December12,1969).

But theprotestsapplaudedby The Reconstructionist were not necessarilywelcomedaswarmlycloser tohome.TheinauguralyearsoftheRRCwere

in fact marked by struggles betweenstudents and faculty and administra-tionoverpolicy,procedure,principleandpractice.AMarch5,1971edito-rialcriticized“thoseradicalJewswho,ostensibly devoted to Judaism andJewish sancta, misappropriate bothin the interests of causes inimical tothe JewsandJudaism.”ThisbroughtforthasharpresponsefromagroupofstudentsattheRRC,publishedintheMay7,1971issue:“We...dissociateourselvesfromtheviewsexpressed[intheeditorial]...whichheapsabuseonso-calledJewishradicals...Weutterlyrejectthisattemptbytheunrepresenta-tiveEditorialBoard(alas,theiragedoesshow)...”Inhisreplytothestudents,editorIraEisensteinconcludedwiththeobservationthat“...ifourageshows,[therabbinicalstudents]shouldknowthat,withourlast,waningstrengthwearetryingtocreateaschoolinwhichyounger leaders may be educated sothattheycantakeoverwhenevertheyareready.”

A New Direction

In1982,anorganizationalrestruc-turingoftheReconstructionistmove-menttookplace.Beginningin1983,publication of The Reconstructionist was taken over by the Federation ofReconstructionist Congregations andHavurot(nowtheJewishReconstruc-tionistFederation,orJRF).RabbiJacobStaub became editor after the 1982retirementofIraEisenstein,whohadservedaseditorformanyyears.

For the next ten years, under theeditorshipofStaubandlaterofRabbi

The Reconstructionist Fall �005 • 1�

JoyLevitt,The Reconstructionisttriedtostrikeabalancebetweeneditorialsandarticles thatdealtwith contemporaryissues,andtheneedforahouseorganto bring Reconstructionism into theincreasing number of households af-filiatedwiththemovement.

StaubandLevitt,bothgraduatesoftheRRC,inauguratedaformalprocesswhereby the intellectual evolution ofReconstructionismcouldbeengaged.Articlesandsymposiaofferednewper-spectivesonsuchtopicsastheChosenPeople,democracyinReconstruction-ismandliturgicalrevision.

Editorialsandarticlesmaintainedthecourageousandpathfindingtraditionoftheearlierdecades.Asymposiumonintermarriage in theNovember1983issueanticipatedbyadecadetheshiftinattitudeonthisissuefrom“threat”to “opportunity.”The editorial “TheBestInterestsoftheChild”(October-November1985)boldlyadvocatedfortherightofgayandlesbianparentstoadopt children, have custody rights,andallotheroptionsavailabletohet-erosexualparents.TheattemptbytheIsraeligovernmenttodirectthefloodofRussian Jewish immigrants to ter-ritoriesovertheGreenLinegeneratedthisobservation:“Afanaticalobsessionwithatinypieceofrealestatecannotbepermittedtosignalthecollapseof[theZionistdream.”(Spring1992,“What’sAnAmericanZionistToDo?”)

From Magazine to Journal

AstheReconstructionistmovementcontinuedtogrowrapidlyinthe1990s,thecontentandfunctionofThe Recon-

structionist becamesubjecttoreevalua-tion.TherewasaneedforapublicationtocomeintotheincreasingnumberofReconstructionist-affiliatedhouseholdsthatbrieflyandeasilycommunicatedReconstructionist thinking on issuesofpersonalandcommunalJewishliv-ing.Within themovement therewasalsoanemergingneedforasustainedintellectualanalysisofReconstruction-istpositionsaswellasanexplorationoflargerissues.

In1993,theJRFdecidedtocreateanewpublication,Reconstructionism To-daytofulfilltheroleofpopularjournal.TheRRCtookoverthepublicationofThe Reconstructionist in the spring of1994,recastingitasajournalappear-ingtwiceyearly,inwhichideascouldbeexploredindepthbyfocusingeachissue on one topic.The intellectualrigor,debateanddiscussionwhichThe Reconstructionistwascreatedtosupportcontinuetofillthepages.

Past and Future

Inthefallof1934,whenahandfulofJewishleadersconvenedtolaunchanewpublication,itisdoubtfulthattheyanticipatedseventyyearsofcontinualpublication.Theycertainlycouldnothave imagined that someday therewouldbemorethan270Reconstruc-tionist rabbis (many of whom con-tribute articles and reviews) and 105Reconstructionistcongregations(manyofwhosemembersalsocontributear-ticlesandreviews).

Inourtime,whenreligionisreducedeithertoablandandgenericsenseof“spirituality,”orwieldedasaweapon


in thehandsofculturalandpoliticalconservatives, the need for a rationalvoicedevotedtoembracingthecom-plexitythatcharacterizesissuesofsub-stance remains. The Reconstructionist continuestorepresenttheimportanceofideas,thevalueofusinglanguageinameaningfulandconstructivemanner,and the centrality of discussing anddebatingideasinthelightofreason.

As The Reconstructionist celebratesits70thanniversary,thewordsonthe

coverofthefirst issue—“Dedicatedto the advancement of Judaism as areligiouscivilization,totheupbuildingof Israel’s ancient homeland, and tothe furtheranceofuniversal freedom,justiceandpeace”—continuetoinflu-enceourcurrentmission:“Toserveasamediumforthecontinuingdevelop-mentofReconstructionistideas,prac-tices, and institutions, by addressingreligious, political, social and moralissuesofcontemporaryJewishlife.”


Exploring Judaism andFindingReconstructionism

oftheexperienceofyoungReconstruc-tionists who realized that we neededa simple text to introduce the basicideasofReconstructionistJudaismtoabroaderaudience.Whilemostofushadfalleninlovewiththismovementby reading Mordecai Kaplan’s classicJudaism as a Civilization,weknewthatdatedandweightybookwasreallynotahelpfulintroduction.Somethingeasierand more accessible was necessary tointroduceKaplan’s ideas toabroaderaudience.

Oneofus(Rebecca)hadbeenraisedintheReformmovement.Theother(Jacob)grewupintheworldofmod-ern Orthodoxy. Reconstructionismrepresented for us (in diametricallyopposite ways) a rich and promisingpaththatwouldenableustothriveasJews,andwesharedapassionatecom-mitmenttospreadthewordaboutthismovementthathadbroughtmeaningtoeachofus.

Whatmadeus think thatwewerepreparedforthejob?Mostofall,what

By ReBecca T. alpeRT and JacoB J. sTauB

he first edition of Exploring Judaism: A Reconstructionist Approach(1985)emergedout T allowedustodothiswassimplythehu-

brisofyouth.Whenwewrotethefirstedition,wewerebothunder35yearsofageandlessthantenyearspastrab-binicordination.Eachofuswasalreadyserving as a leaderof themovement:Rebecca was dean of students at theReconstructionist Rabbinical College(RRC)andJacobwasdirectorofRRC’sMedievalCivilizationdepartmentandeditoroftheReconstructionist.Wetookon the taskbecausewewere tiredofansweringthequestion,“WhatisRe-constructionism?”Wehopedtowriteabriefandaccessiblebookthatcouldprovideaclearanswer.WehadalreadycollaboratedonwritingprojectsforThe Reconstructionistandwereexcitedaboutundertakingajointwritingprojectofsuchimportance.

The First Edition

Aswesetouttounpackthedefini-tionofReconstructionism—JudaismistheevolvingreligiouscivilizationoftheJewishpeople—highonthelistofourgoalswastoexplainthatKaplanianideascouldactuallybe livedbyJews,

Dr.RebeccaT.AlpertisAssociateProfessorofReligionandWomen’sStudiesatTempleUniversity.Dr.JacobJ.StaubisDirectoroftheDepartmentofMedievalCivilizationattheReconstructionistRabbinicalCollege.TheythankRabbisRichardHirshandDavidTeutschforhelpfulsuggestionsaboutbotheditionsofExploring Judaism,andHirshforhishelpwithanearlierdraftofthisarticle.


providinganinspiring,viablemodeltoenrichourlivesthroughanengagementwithJewishtradition.Weknewitwaspossiblebecausewewerelivingit.

Wewerealsoalltoofamiliarwiththeusualquestions:•What does it mean to believe in anon-personal Godwho neither hearsprayers nor intervenes supernaturallyinlife?•Why bother studying our people’ssacred texts if you don’t believe thattheyweredivinelyrevealed?•Whyberituallyobservantifyoudon’tbelievethatJewishpracticesareliterallycommanded?• Aren’t you really just picking andchoosingwhateversuitsyou?•WhyisKaplan’s“ethicalnationhood”preferabletoEthicalCulture?•WhatmakesReconstructionismdif-ferentfromReform?•Isn’titreallyjusttheleftwingoftheConservativemovement?

In formulating our responses, wewereaddressingbothtraditionalistswhomightquestionourauthenticityandtherisingnumbersofmembersofRecon-structionistcongregationsandhavurot,aswellaspotentialmemberswhosoughta foundation on which to base theirinvolvement inwarmandwelcomingReconstructionistcommunities.

Descriptive and Prescriptive

Beyond defining Reconstruction-ist approaches to Jewishpeoplehood,God,Torahandtheideaofanevolv-ing religious civilization, we foundourselvesdescribingcommunitiesthatwere still in theprocessofmaturing.

In many ways, our characterizationsof Reconstructionist processes andprogramsweredescriptionsofthewaysthat things worked at that time in asingle congregationor in several spe-cificcommunities.Theseincludedtheideaofasupportsystemnetwork,theparticipatorydecision-makingprocess,intermarriageandnon-Jewishpartnerparticipationpolicies,familyandvalueseducationprograms,creativelife-cyclerituals,socialactionprograms,lessfor-malsynagoguestructuresandrelation-shipsbetweenrabbisandcongregants,amongothers.

Weweredescribingrealcommuni-ties,butinaveryrealsense,wewerealso creating guidelines for how wethought all Reconstructionist com-munitiesoughttowork.Insomecases,positions had been approved by del-egatesatannualnationalconventions.Butforthemostpartweweretryingtocapturethemostexcitingworkinourmovement,which,thenasnow,oftenblossomedlocallywithoutmovement-wideimprimatur.

Fifteenyearslater,in2000,theRe-constructionistmovementhadgrownrapidlyto100affiliates,andasubstantialnumberofthemhadbeenaroundlongenough to have experienced growingpains, capital campaigns, and thede-velopmentof intricate infrastructures.InrevisingExploring Judaism,wefoundourselveswithmuchmoretodescribe.

Changes Since 1985

The first half of the book — thechapters on “Evolving Civilization,”“God,” “Torah,” and “Peoplehood”


—hadstoodthetestoftime,withafewnotableexceptions.

Among the most striking was therealization that the theological rangeand the liturgical life of the move-ment had become much richer andmorediverse.Thepublicationof theKol Haneshamah prayer book seriestransformedReconstructionistworshipinmanyways:throughitspoeticandgender-neutraltranslations;byopeningupnewpossibilities fornamingGodinbothHebrewandEnglish;throughits commentaries and kavannot; andby expanding the use of Hebrew fornon-Hebrew readers by its inclusionofsame-pagetransliterations.In1985,we had embraced feminism but notunderstooditsimplicationsforliturgy;by2000,thoseimplicationshadbeenembracedandadopted.

Inaddition,manyReconstruction-istshadbecomefarlesswaryofusingtraditional liturgical language thatmightbethoughtofas“supernatural.”Wehadcometounderstandandap-preciate the mythic power of poeticimages and could, for example, usethe mi shebeirakh prayers for healingwithout worrying whether God wasliterallylistening.

Similarly,whereasin1985,medita-tion and chanting were not popularmeans of liturgical expression in theReconstructionistworld,fifteenyearslaterReconstructionistsembracedthesespiritualpracticesasvaluableinculti-vatingprayerful,reflectiveandcontem-plativestatesofmind.Intherevisededition,wesoughttoincludethesenewdevelopmentsandtoexplainhowtheymight be understood as compatible

withReconstructionistprinciples.Withfifteen years of experience, a

secondstrikingexceptiontothefirstedi-tionthatwenotedwasthatthescenarioswehadpainted for ritual and ethicaldecisionmakingwereunrealistic.Peoplewerenot, forexample,goingtostudyJewishtextswithagroupoffellowcon-gregantsinordertodecidewhethertohaveanabortion;norweretheygoingtodecidetogetherhowtoobservekashrutonapersonalbasis.Accordingly,fortherevisededition,wecreatednewdecision-makingscenariosthatwehopedcouldbeusedintheprocessofcongregationalandprivatedecisionmaking.

Major Revisions

Bycontrast,thesecondhalfoftheoriginalbookrequiredmajorrevisions.Onepiecethathadbeenmissingfromthe first edition was a description ofhow aReconstructionist Jew actuallylivesherorhislife,daybyday,monthbymonth.ManyreadershadaskedustoincludemodelsofReconstructionistpracticeifwewroteasecondedition.So we composed chapters on how aReconstructionistmight liveaJewishlifeonadailybasisandthroughayearofShabbatotandholidays.

In many ways, this was the mostchallengingaspectoftherevision.Wewanted to avoid generalizations thatimply that all Reconstructionists areidentical inhowwe liveandpracticeourJewishlives.Onefavoritepassageofoursinthisregardisthedescriptionof the range of ways in which a Re-constructionistmightobservekashrut.Wewentintogreatdetailaboutwhich


eatingpracticesmightormightnotap-pealtopeoplebasedontheirpersonalhistoriesand,inthisway,wesucceededinpresentingawidevarietyofoptions.Wesoughttokeepourpluralisticprin-ciplesinmindatalltimes,soasnottoestablish inadvertently a hierarchy ofpreferredbehavior.

Asecondareathatrequiredextensiverevisionwasthechapteron“Women”that we replaced with a chapter on“Creating an Inclusive Community.”Intheinterveningfifteenyears,therehadbeenmajorreportsproducedbyamovementcommissiononhomosexu-alityandbyaJewishReconstruction-ist Federation task force on the roleof the non-Jew in Reconstructionistcommunities. It was clear to us thatthemovement’spioneeringstandsongender equality were the model forsubsequent approaches to intermar-riedJewsandtoqueerJews,aswellastoJewsofcolor,differentlyabledJews,andothergroupsthathavefeltexcludedanddisenfranchisedbytheJewishcom-munity.Byplacingpeoplehoodatthecenterandbylocatingdecision-makingpower in communities of committedpeople, Reconstructionism has fromtheoutsetrepresentedachallengetothetraditionalrabbinicauthoritystructuresthat define inclusion. It was excitingforustobeabletorecordthewaysinwhichthatdimensionofReconstruc-tionismhasdeveloped.

Changing Role of the Rabbi

A third area of revision had todowiththeroleoftherabbi.Theexperi-encesofReconstructionistcommunities

had,by2000,surfacedtheinadequacyoftherhetoricof“lay-rabbinicpartner-ship” thathad emerged in the1970s.MordecaiKaplanandIraEisensteinhadactuallyrarelyexploredintheirwritingstheimplicationsofourcommitmenttoequalityanddemocracyforthedefini-tionofrabbinicleadership.Intheearlyyears ofRRC, somewhatnaively, theideaemergedofrabbias“facilitator”—someonewhowouldusehisorherJew-ishlearningtoteachothersandtohelpthemmaketheirowndecisions.Whilethis construct functions well enoughon a one-to-one counseling level, itworks far lesswell in thecomplicatedand charged dynamics of synagoguesystems.Themovement’sCommissionontheRoleoftheRabbihaddoneex-haustiveandinsightfulworktoexploreusefulmodelsforrabbinicauthorityandpowerwithinacommunitysystem,andwesoughttoincorporatethoseinsightsintotherevisededition.

The Next Revision

Whatmightwepredictaboutathirdedition?

Westatedintheprefacetothesecondeditionthatwewouldnotbeinvolvedin the next revised edition, if othersdecidethatthereshouldbeone.It isimportanttonotethatwearenowinourmid-fifties,andby2015weshouldbethinkingaboutthenewworldswe’llbeenteringduringourretirement,notwriting another version of Exploring Judaism.Toourgreatpleasure,wewon’thaveto.Thereisanewgenerationofableleaderstotakeupthechallengeofathirdedition.Thisisameasureofthe


movement’sgrowthandvitalityandafacttobecelebrated.

Wearereluctanttopredictthefuture,butnotbecauseofalackofinterestorcommitment.Rather, theReconstruc-tionistmovementandtheworld itselfare significantly different than theywerewhenwefirst tookonpositionsas spokespersons and leaders.Today,leadersofJRFcongregationsandRRCrabbinical studentsoftenhaveRecon-structionist backgrounds, and withthegrowthofouryouthandcampingprograms,thatwillbecomeevermorecommon.

While Reconstructionism is stillfrequentlyomittedbythosewhoreferto “the three major movements,” wehavedefinitelyachievedameasureofrecognition in the Jewish world thatwouldhavebeendifficult to imaginein 1985. With our representativeson many national Jewish boards andconferences,wearemoreapartofthe“establishment”thanwemightcaretoadmit.

We have high hopes for anotheredition of Exploring Judaism as Re-constructionist Judaism meets thechallengesofthefuture.Blessedwiththe Reconstructionist legacy of intel-lectualhonestyandacceptanceofwhatisnew,weknowthatwe shapedandchanged the Reconstructionist worldthatweinheritedfromRabbisKaplanandEisensteininwaystheymighthaveanticipated,aswellaswaystheymightnothaveimagined.SoaswebothtrytoenvisionReconstructionism’sfuture,weknowittobebeyondourimagination.Ratherthanmakepredictions,wewilldescribesomechallenges,innoparticu-

larorder,thatwethinkthosewhowritethenextrevisionarelikelytoface.

Future Challenges

1. Maturing: Our coming of ageas a movement itself presents chal-lenges.The affiliation rate of NorthAmericanJewsisnotontherise.Thehallmark of Reconstructionism hasbeen our willingness, even eagerness,tochallengeconventionalthinking,toacknowledgethatjustasJewishciviliza-tionhasalwaysevolvedinresponsetounprecedentedcircumstances,somustitcontinuetodoso.Goingoutonalimbto takeunpopularpositionshasbeen our sacred task. Our challengewillbetoremainfaithfultothatlegacy,eventhoughdoingsomayexposeustorisksandcriticism.

2.Spirituality:Alreadysince2000,movementdevelopmentsintheareaofspiritualityhavebeensignificant,andthat is likely tocontinue.TheRRC’sprograminJewishSpiritualDirection—thefirstatanyrabbinicalseminary— is thriving, and new rabbis arecomfortable talking about the divinepresenceintheirdailylivesintermsthatareconsonantwithReconstructionisttheology.Asrabbis,theycanthenad-dressthoseyearningsinthepeoplewithwhomtheywork.Whenajournalistfrom the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz wanted to report recently on NorthAmericandevelopmentsinspirituality,heknewtospendacoupleofdaysatRRC.This is an important develop-ment in Reconstructionism that willrequireongoingnurturing.

3. Israel: Reconstructionists have

The Reconstructionist�0 • Fall �005

alwaysplacedEretz Yisrael at the cen-terof Jewish civilization.This followsdirectly fromour emphasis on Jewishpeoplehood and civilization. Israelisociety, by definition, embodies theintensivefloweringofJewishcivilizationintheHolyLand,intheholylanguage.Younger generations,however, have amuchweakeremotionallinktotheStateofIsrael,andmanymembersofRecon-structionistcommunitiesarelikelytobeevermorealienatedfromcertainIsraelipolicies.Thechallengewillbe tofindways to cultivate in them the visceralattachmenttoIsraelthatleadstolovingattachmentaswellastopainedcriticism,ratherthanalienationordisinterest.

4. Tikkun Olam: Kaplan and hisearliestdiscipleswerepoliticalradicalsintheirday.Theyunderstoodthepro-pheticmandateofJewishcivilizationasanimperativetoopposeinjusticeandoppression. As Jews become increas-inglyaffluentinNorthAmerica,thatimperativemustbemaintained,evenifitismoredifficulttorememberourownhumble,immigrantorigins.Oursocietyandtheworldasawholeareinneedofourstrongvoicesandconcertedaction,emergingoutof thevaluesofourtraditions.

5.Theplaceofnon-Jews:Itisnowtwenty-fiveyearssincetheReconstruc-tionistRabbinicalAssociationdevelopeditsgroundbreakingpolicyonintermar-riage,inwhichitpioneeredthepositionthatJewswhochosenon-Jewishpartnersshouldnotbetreatedastraitors,andthatinterfaith couples and families shouldbe welcomed wholeheartedly.Thelandscapeinthisregardhascontinuedtochangedramatically,andpressureis

likelytocontinuetoincreaseonrabbistoofficiateatinterfaithmarriages,andoncongregationstogoyetfurtherinin-tegratingnon-Jews.TheJRFtaskforcereportontheRoleoftheNon-Jewwasamajorstepforwardinaddressingtheis-sues,butweshouldbepreparedforevermoreconsiderationandreconsiderationastheyearsgoby.

6.Ethics:Witheachnewpublica-tionofRRC’sCenterforJewishEthics,therichnessanddepthoftheRecon-structionist approach to values-baseddecisionmakingbecomesmoremani-fest.Wehavelongclaimedtoengagetraditional Jewish teachings seriously,buttheCenter’srecentandprojectedwork will be concrete testimony ofthatclaimthatshouldbecomecentralto our self-definition.We are liberalJewswhoarenotcommanded,butarenevertheless meaningfully guided bythepastinconstructingJewishlivesofrighteousnessandjustice.

7. Ritual Practice: Similarly, theplanned multivolume Reconstruction-ist Guide to Jewish Practice will becompletedintheyearstocome,pro-viding Reconstructionists and manyothers with an invaluable tool fornavigatingthecomplicatedjourneytoJewishlivingandpracticeinthe21stcentury.Themultivocal commentarytotheGuidedoesawonderfuljobofembodying how pluralism and seri-ouspracticebuildoneachother.Thisworkpromisestotransformthewayinwhichthemovementunderstandsourrelationshiptoourtraditions.

8.Gender and Inclusion:TheRe-constructionist record is exemplary:Thefirstbat mitzva in1922;women


countedinaminyanin1950;womenordainedasrabbisin1974;egalitariandivorcein1983;openlygayandlesbianJewsadmittedtorabbinicalschoolin1984;endorsementofsame-sexcom-mitmentceremoniesandcommunitiesthatwelcomegay,lesbian,bisexualandtransgenderJewsin1993.

Thechallengehereistoavoidrest-ingonourlaurels.Kolot:TheCenterforJewishWomen’sandGenderStud-iesatRRCcontinues todopowerfulwork in confronting and healing thewoundscausedbyourtexts’andtradi-tions’ treatment of women, and thatwork should be integrated into ourcommunities.Andwestillhavemuchworktodobeyondformallywelcom-ingGLBTJewsintoourcommunities— rereading hurtful texts, movingbeyond the inadvertent assumptionthatheterosexuality isnormative andcreating atmospheres in which beingoutaslesbianorgayisunremarkable.There are many exciting develop-ments inregardtoinclusionofothercommunities that have experienceddisenfranchisement in Judaism, mostnotablymulticulturalJews,Jewswithdisabilities (and their families), andtransgender Jews. Our commitmentto inclusion means finding bold andcreativeways to involve these groupsinourworldaswell.

9.GrayingJews:Thismayappearself-serving coming from a pair ofbaby-boomers, but the aging of theJewish community proceeds inexora-bly. Reconstructionist programs andinstitutions, like all others in NorthAmerica, will be challenged to self-transforminordertoaddresstheneeds

ofourmembers.Hiddur:TheCenterforAgingandJudaismatRRCislikelytobecomeanessentialresourceinthisenterpriseandshouldleadthewaywithcreativethinking.

10.Youth:Hasanyonenoticedthat,howeveryoungwethinkweare,manyofourcommunitiesarenotattractinga lot of twenty-something membersor singles?That may reflect a largertrend with regard to synagogue (andchurch)affiliation,butweshouldrecallthatReconstructionistsynagoguesandhavurotwereoncepopulatedbyyoungpeople who weren’t comfortable inmoreestablishedsettings. JRF’sNoarHadash youth groups and campingprogram are addressing the needs ofthe pre-college set, and those youngpeoplepromisetobecomecommittedtwenty-somethings. But it would bewise toexplore seriouslyhowwecantransform our services and programstoattractyoungerpeople.

Mandate and Legacy

Twentyyearsago,wesetouttowriteanintroductiontoReconstructionismwiththefollowinggoal:

Kaplan set the standard for us:to reconstruct. It is up to us tostudytheprogramhecreatedforthereconstructionofJudaisminhisgeneration,andthentobuilduponitforourown.Thisishowwe understand his mandate andlegacytous.

Andthisisthemandateandlegacywepassontothenextgeneration.

The Reconstructionist�� • Fall �005

KaplanAfterSinai:EvolutionorRevelation?1

be honest. “There is no spiritualitywithout honesty,” he would tell thefuture rabbis whom he taught at theJewishTheologicalSeminary(JTS).

Well, let’s be honest. A significantnumberofpeoplewithin theRecon-structionist movement see Kaplanas vestigial and irrelevant. For them,Kaplan’sideasareunrelatedtocontem-poraryproblemsandarefromanotherera,onewhosevaluesandanswersdonotspeaktoourfundamentalquestionsorproblems.Havingspentthebetterpart of the last thirty years trying tomake Kaplan’s thought available andunderstandable,Idisagree.

The issue of Kaplan’s continuingrelevance was highlighted for me bymyrecentexperienceteachingacourseatJTS,fromwhichKaplanretiredin1963.IwasverysurprisedtofindthatConservativerabbinicalstudentsintheyear2005appreciateKaplan’squestionsand find his solutions stimulating. Ialso came to a deeper understandingofKaplan,notonlyasthefounderofReconstructionism,butalsoasarabbi

By Mel sculT

ordecai Kaplan said manytimes that inorder tobe areligious person, one must M

MelScultisProfessorEmeritusatBrooklynCollege.HeistheauthorofJudaism Faces the �0th Century: A Biography of Mordecai M. Kaplan andeditorofCommunings of the Spirit — The Journals of Mordecai M. Kaplan: Vol. 1, 1913-193�.

within the Conservative context. Asmuchashewasanoriginalandcreativethinker,KaplanwasalsoaConservativerabbistrugglingwiththeproblemsthatConservativeleadersfacedandstillface.SeeingKaplaninthiscontextwillhelpustoseethelong-termprinciplesthatbecamethebasisofhisReconstruction-istsystem.

Problems with Revelation

PerhapsthemostthreatenedareaofConservativecommitmentintheearly20th century involved thebelief thattheTorahcamedirectlyfromGodatSinai.WhilethequestionofrevelationdoesnotseemtobeaproblemforRe-constructionists thesedays, exploringKaplan’sdismissalofdivinerevelationwillbeproductiveandwillshedlightonhiscontinuingrelevance.

In the early decades of the 20thcentury, Darwin was still very muchoneveryone’smind.HisevolutionarymodelseemedtounderminethebasictenetsofWesternreligiousconscious-ness. It was not merely the physicalandbiologicalsciencesthatthreatenedreligiousfaith,buttheemergentsocial


sciencesaswell.Religionwasnowseentobeaproductofthehumanlycreatedculturalenvironment.

Insuchacontext,thedivineoriginsattributedtoholyscriptureseemedtobeunderminedinafundamentalway.Howcouldpeoplecontinuetobelieveindivinerevelationandin“theword”as coming from the mouth of Godif theyknewthat religionarose fromthecollectiveconsciousnessofagivensocietyandservedprimarilytoexpressthevaluesofthatsocietyandtheforcesthatheldittogether?

Kaplan’s Bold Response

Many of the younger generationabandonedtheirbeliefintheTorahastheybegantoentertheAmericancul-turalmainstream.Conservativerabbiswere at a loss as to how to convinceyoungpeoplethattheTorahwasstillrelevant.As oneof the then-youngermembersofthefacultyatJTS,Kaplanproposedaratherradicalsolution:Letus accept theconclusionsof thenewsocialsciencesandoftextualcriticism;letusacceptbiblicalcriticismandthenseewhethertheTorahcanstillbemain-tainedassupremelyworthwhile.

Acceptingthefundamentalsofbibli-calcriticismwasaveryradicalmove.Solomon Schechter, the president ofthe Seminary, had branded biblicalcriticism as “higher anti-Semitism.”If the event atSinaiwas amythandtheTorah was really written later bymany hands over a long period oftime, thewhole edifice of traditionalJudaism seemed poised to crumble.Revelationandallthatflowedfromit

were severely threatened. Jewish law(halakha)wouldhavenobasis.IfthevoiceofSinaiissilent,whatwasitthatcommandedus?Whatwasthebasisofthemitzvot?Wheredidtheexperienceofbeingcommandedcomefrom,ifthestatementsintheTorahwerenotfromGodbutfromhumanbeingsintheirsearchfor thegoodandthetrueandthebeautiful?

The Value of Tradition

Kaplan didnot dismiss traditionalbeliefs easily. He had grown up in astrictlyobservanthome,whereheliveduntilhewastwenty-eight.The“vote”thathewouldgivetothetraditionwasnot amatterof idle rhetoric.Kaplandidnotoftenexpressthesupremevaluethatheputonthetradition,butwhenhedidhisremarksweredeeplymoving.Listentohimonthetradition:

Thegreatvaluewhichthereligioustraditionhadformankindlaynotso much in the specific beliefsandpracticesthatitprescribedasin the general orientation that itprovided.Asaresultofsuchorien-tation,humanbeingsfeltathomein theworld.Men struggledandsuffered,buttheyhad,sotospeak,aroofovertheirheads.Nowadays,theynolongerhavethatfeelingofbeingathomeintheworld.Thesenseofhomelessness,offorlorn-ness,dampensallourjoysandaddstormenttooursorrows...2

Atthesametime,asadeeplycom-mitted social scientist and historian


ofJudaism,KaplanfeltthatthebeliefthattheTorahcamedowntoMosesonMountSinaisimplymadenosenseand,moreover,theimplicationofabsolutetruthinherentinitwasmorethanhecouldtolerate.Heconfidedthefollow-ingtohisjournal:

The problem of Judaism wouldnotbesoacute if the traditionaldoctrineofrevelationweremerelyobsolete.The trouble is that tocherishthatdoctrineisasunethi-calasbeingguiltyofbigamy.Tobelieve thatwe are inpossessionof the authentically revealedwillofGodisincompatiblewithreli-gioustolerance,tosaynothingofreligiousequality...Ihavecometofeelaboutthetraditionaldoc-trineofrevelationastheprophetsfelt about the baalized worshipofYHWH and as Maimonidiesfelt about the anthropomorphicconceptionofGod.Thatdoctrinemustnowbeopposedasbeingavestigeofancientidolatry.3

Obligation and Inspiration

Thereremaintwocentralproblemsthat must be addressed in a “post-Sinaiticera.”Onehastodowiththesourceandmeaningofobligationandtheotherhastodowithinspiration.

The question of obligation hasbeen a problem for all liberal formsof Judaism. Reconstructionists arefamiliarwithKaplan’ssubstitutingtheconceptof“folkways”(minhagim)for“commandments” (mitzvot), but thatis not helpful in understanding why

we should practice those customs inthefirstplace.

The other issue is inspiration. Inanaturalistic,Kaplanianworld,whatdowedowith theconceptofdivineinspiration?Mustwe give it up alto-getherorcanitbereconstructed?Whatwouldanaturalistictheoryofrevelationlooklike?

Kaplan did not shrink from theseissues but faced them boldly. In apathbreakingarticle inthe1914Stu-dents Annual oftheJewishTheologicalSeminary,hestatedhisthesisthattheconclusions of biblical criticism hadto be accepted without reservations.He thenproposedan interestingandnovel approach to maintaining thecentrality ofTorah:The supremacyofTorahcanandmustbemaintainedthroughtheconceptoffunction.Thiscentralmethodologicalideacamefromthe sociological realm and from thephilosophyofpragmatism.Asappliedtoscripture,originsdidnotmatter—itwasfunctionthatdeterminedvalue.Inotherwords,iftheTorahcontinuedtobethecenterofJewishmoraldiscussionandtheJewishsearchformeaning,itsoriginwasofnoconsequence.Functionwasdeterminative;originwasnot.

Fulfilling Our Potential

Onthematterofbeingcommandedin the post-Sinaitic world, Kaplan’spragmaticanswerisclearandfamiliar:TheTorahandJudaismwillbefunda-mentalinoursearchforself-fulfillment,both individually and collectively. Initsmodernformulation,“salvation”asthegoalofreligiouslifealwayscomes


down to self-fulfillment. One of themostilluminatingandcharacteristicallypragmatic versions of the concept istounderstandsalvationas“becomingeffective.” Kaplan believed that forhumanbeings,being effective ispartoftheurgetolive.Humanbeings,bynature, have a desire to be effective.Kaplanhereisshiftingthetraditionalphilosophicalemphasisonhumanna-tureawayfromtheAristotelianempha-sisonknowledgetotheverypragmaticdesiretobeeffective.4

Toput itanotherway,wehaveanobligation to fulfillwhat itmeans tobe human, to fulfill the potential ofourhumanity.Atfirst,thisargumentforobligationstruckmeasweak,butthenIrealizedthatthisisthestrongestobligationwehave.ItiswhatSocratessoughtwhenhesearchedfortheanswertothequestionoftheessenceofourhu-manity.Whatdoweowetoourselves,notjustinapersonalway,butasapartofthehumanprojectingeneral?

Intheareaofmodernreligiousethicsandreligiousritual,whatweneedisawaytoconvincepeoplethattherightiswhattheyoughttochoose.Wecannolongerfrighten,commandorcoercethem.Wemustconvincethem.Whydo the right thing? Kaplan’s answeris “because it is the most fulfilling,”becausebydoing the right thing,wefulfillourpotential.

Duties and Rights

Althoughthegoalofself-fulfillmentmayworkmostofthetime,therearetimeswhenweneedasenseofobliga-tion that is stronger. Where does it

comefrom?Thereareanumberofwaysinwhichdutyorobligationmakessenseinanaturalisticrealm.Themostillu-minatingdiscussionofthisforKaplancomestousvia thewell-knownlegaltheoristOliverWendellHolmes(1841-1935).Holmeswasapragmaticthinkerwhom Kaplan read and admired. Ina casual diary remark, where KaplannotedHolmes’“robustskepticism,”herefers tohimas“oneofthefewmenaftermyownheart.”5

Holmes believed that in commonlaw“duty”wasmorefundamentalthan“rights,”althoughinordinaryconversa-tionwetendtotalkmoreaboutrightsthan about obligations. For Holmes,dutyflowsfromtheobligationtocare.Ifyouownahouse,youhaveanob-ligationtocareforitsothatitisnotdangerousforpeopletobeinsideit.Inthesameway,ifyouareaparent,youhave a natural obligation to care foryourchild.Suchobligationsissuefromtheessenceofthesituationratherthanfromanycommandfromonhigh.

Exile and Expectations

Extending this understanding ofobligation,wemight say that certainmoralobligationsnaturallyflowfromthehistoricalexperienceoftheJewishpeople.This line of thinking beginsintheTorah,whichcommandsustobeconcernedforthestrangerbecausewe were strangers in Egypt. Becausewewere strangerswe should identifywith theuprootedand theexiledev-erywhere.

WhatpeoplemorethantheJewishpeopleunderstandthesufferingofexile


andalienation?Ofcourse,theultimateexile,theultimate“otherhood,”isthedehumanizationoftheHolocaust.Isitnotnatural—indeed,acommand—forJewstoidentifywiththosewhoaresufferingfrom“ethniccleansing”?Afterthe Holocaust, we know the mean-ing of genocide better than anyone.Shouldwenot strongly identifywiththedefenseoftherightsofminoritiesasageneralprinciple,becausewehavesooftenbeenanunprotectedminor-ity?Kaplanat theendofhiscreativelifewroteoftheimperativeof“ethicalnationhood”andthereisnocommandmoreimportantthanthis.

Theconceptofself-fulfillmentfunc-tionsaswellintheareaofmoralityandintheareaofritual.Likemanyborninto the late Victorian age, Kaplanhad no trouble seeing the lawfulnessofmoralbehaviorasprimary.Heoftenrefers toImmanuelKant’scategoricalimperativeastheessenceofthemorallife,despitehisdeepdedicationtothepragmaticmodeofthinking.

Ritual Regulations

Whileethicalimperativeswerebind-ingforKaplanandotherliberalJewishthinkers,ritualruleswerelesscompel-ling.Inthetraditionalunderstandingofritual,forexample,Godcommandsustorefrainfromcertainfoodsinthesame way as God commands us torefrain from violating the person orpropertyofourneighbor.

Jewish law, likeany systemof law,livesinitsspecifics.TheRav(RabbiJ.D.Soloveitchik)emphasizedtheessen-tiallymathematicalnatureofhalakha.6

In seeking the meaning of a mitzva,Soloveitchikargues,thehalakhaalmostalways ends up asking a quantitativequestion. For example, how muchmilkdoesonehavetodrinktomakeameal“amilkmeal”?OnemaywalkontheSabbath,buthowfar?Therewerealwaysattemptsatfindingthereasonsfortheritualcommandments(ta’amei hamitzvot),themostfamousofwhichisfoundintheworkofMaimonidies,butthe quantitative question was alwaysmuchmorepressing.

In considering ritual law as “cus-tom,” Kaplan hoped to move thiscategory away from the essentiallydetailedandquantitativenatureoflawintoagreateremphasisonmeaning.Heexpressedhisattitudequiteclearlyonanumberofoccasions,butnoneismorecompellingthanaconversationhehadwith Louis Finkelstein in 1930. Fin-kelstein,thefutureheadofJTS,wasatthetimetheassistanttoJTSpresidentCyrusAdler.Theissueinquestionwasthe reorganization of the Law Com-mitteeoftheRabbinicalAssembly.TheLawCommitteehadbeenreorganizedtoincludebothliberalandtraditionalparticipants.Kaplandidnotthinkthenewlyorganizedcommitteewithdif-ferentfactionswouldwork.Hisrefusaltojoinalsocamefromhisexpectationthatthelawcommitteewoulddealwithmatters of ritual. Kaplan records theincidentinhisjournal:

FinkelsteinisaftermethatIshouldworkwiththeCommitteeonLaw.AtfirstItriedtoputhimoffwithexcuses about my being unwell(which is true to a large extent),


butafterawhileIexplainedtohimthatinmyopiniontheCommit-tee was [of ] too heterogeneous acharacterevertoarriveatanythinglike a unanimous opinion aboutanyissue...SecondlyIcouldnotsanction the legalistic attitude inquestionsofritualandthereforeifIamtocooperatewiththecommit-teeitwouldhavetoconfineitselfinmattersoflawonlytocivilanddomesticproblems.7

Minhag or Halakha?

Kaplan is quite radical in his dis-missalofritualhalakhaandintheac-ceptanceofpluralismimpliedinsuchastand.Tosome,hispositionwouldhave seemed almost an advocacy ofanarchy. In one diary passage in the1930she states that the supernaturalrevelationoftheTorahmustbeequatedwith“hashelemut haenoshi”(“humanperfection”)8andthe“ideologyandthelawsmustbecalculatedtoachievethatend.”Hethencontinues:

WhenanumberofJewsfindanyelementinthetraditionalorpre-vailing ideology or code of lawsthat fails tofurtherthatpurpose,[i.e.,perfection]andallthemoreif it hampers that purpose, theyare duty-bound to see to it thatsuchanelementberemoved . . .Wemust...regardmodificationof theTorah as the only meanstowarditspreservation.Eveniftheentireweightoftraditionweretoresist modification of theTorah,asitapparentlyseemsto,itwouldbenecessarytoproceedwithsuch

modification since the weight ofexperience counter-balances thatof tradition and that experiencepoints to the irresistible fact thatintransigence must lead to moraldisaster.9

Thus Kaplan’s stand on halakhaisquite clear. It iswell to remember,however, that the use of “custom” astherubricfor(ritual)mitzvotdoesnotmean the absence of all obligations.Kaplanpointedout that customs areoften so strong anddeeply ingrainedthattowedonotreallyexperiencehav-ingachoiceofdepartingfromthem.The concept of custom is significantbecauseitcarriestheconnotationthatonecansaywhenandwherethecustomwillbeobserved;itallowsforpersonal,communalandregionalvariety.

Kaplan always went for the ap-proach thatallowed formorechoice.Hisvisionofthe“messianictime”wasof a Jewish community inwhich themembers could express their differ-ent approaches in various synagoguecommunities,evenas theysupportedthe overall community (the kehilla).Thekehilla,inturn,lookedaftereachmemberandtheinterestsoftheJewishpeopleasawhole.

From Revelation to Inspiration

Asindicatedabove,thedismissalofrevelationleavesusnotonlywiththeproblem of obligation, but also withthe issueof inspiration.Or, toput itin the formof a question:Whenwedismissrevelation,doesthatmeanthatnoconceptofinspirationisnecessary


orpossible?Kaplandidnotdealextensivelywith

thisproblem,buthedoespointusinaproductivedirection.Inhisdissatisfac-tionwiththetraditionalliturgy,hepro-posedthattherenewalofprayer(andhencetheuncoveringofnewsourcesofinspiration)mightcomefromtheuseof modern poetry, especially Hebrewpoetry.Thepoet is the seer,and it isthroughhimorher thatwebegin togainaccesstothecontemporaryformu-lationofeternalveritiesthroughwhichwecanrenewourcommitments.

Thepoetoftenfeelslikethevehiclefor the poem rather than its creator.Perhaps theverynotionof revelationcouldbereconstructedandultimatelycouldcomefrompoetry.BuberquotesNietzsche: “We take and do not askwhoitisthatgives...”10Indeed,onesometimesfeelsthatapoemprecededitscreationandwasherebefore,justasthetalmudicrabbissaidthattheTorahexisted before creation.When wordsare sublime, we can almost imaginethattheyexistedfromtimeimmemo-rial.RalphWaldoEmersonputitthisway:“Forpoetrywasallwrittenbeforetimewas,andwheneverwearesofinelyorganized that we can penetrate intothatregionwheretheairismusic,wehearthoseprimalwarblings....”11FortheGreeks,weoughttoremember,thepoetandtheprophetwereoneandthesame.Itisthepoetwhogivesvoicetotheeternal.

Poetry Is Paramount

The notion that poetry could notonly become paramount but even

substituteforreligionisnotanewidea.Themostrecentexpressionofthisno-tion comes from George Santayana.Hesaiditmanytimesandindifferentforms.Discussingthefunctionofreli-gionandpoetryastheprimaryvehiclefortheimagination,Santayanaputitthisway:

Religion,whenpure,contemplatessomepertinentidealofintelligenceandgoodness.Bothreligionandsci-enceliveinimaginativediscourse,one being an aspiration, and theotherahypothesis.Bothintroduceintoourmidstanidealsociety.12

Or, as one of Santayana’s studentsastutelyputit:

Santayanabelievedthatthedogmasof all supernatural religions canbe justified only as imaginativeportrayals of human aspiration.Forhim,religionis,andofarightought to be, nothing more thanpoetrysuperveninguponlife.13

Butrevelationnotonlyembodiestheeternal: It “commands.”What is theconnectionbetweenthepoeticandthedemandsofmoralityandritual?Kaplanisthemanofreasonwhobelievedthattherationaliscentraltoanintelligentviewoftheuniverse.RabbiJacobAgus,verymuchanadmirerofKaplan,be-lievedthatrevelation,nomatterwhereitcomesfrom,mustalwaysbejudgedbythecannonsofreason.14

IfImaybeallowedthefreedomofaReconstructionist,wemightsaythatperhapsthescribewhowrotethewords“naaseh venishma”(“wewilldoandwe


will listen,” Exodus 24:7) really didfallasleepforananosecondandsogotitwrong,becauseitisclearthatintheblindinglightofrevelation,thethoughtis always followed by the command—naturally,seamlessly.

Emerson’s Influence

Thiscentralpointisexpressedinacompelling manner by RalphWaldoEmerson, whom Kaplan read andadmired.Emersontendedtowardthenaturalistic, although many of hiswritings anticipatewhatKaplan laterdesignatedas“transnaturalism.”Inoneverypowerfulpassage,Emersonspeaksabouttheconceptofrevelationandthecommandsthatflowfromit.Emerson’spointherecanbeviewedwithinatra-ditionalrealmornaturalistically.

Inthesecommunications[revela-tions],thepowertoseeisnotsepa-ratedfromthewilltodo,buttheinsightproceedsfromobedience,andtheobedienceproceedsfromajoyfulperception.Everymomentwhentheindividualfeelshimselfinvaded by it is memorable. Acertain enthusiasm attends theindividual’sconsciousnessofthatdivinepresence.Thecharacteranddurationofthisenthusiasmvarieswith the state of the individual,from an ecstasy and trance andprophetic inspiration — whichis its rarer appearance— to thefaintestglowofvirtuousemotion,inwhichformitwarms,likeourhousehold fires, all the familiesand associations of men and

makessocietypossible.15

Thus,weliveinanaturalisticworldwherewearefree(orhopetobefree)from the overwhelming power ofdivine authority. Kaplan understoodour situation better than any othercontemporary thinker.The pressuresofmodernity forceus to lookwithinfor the imperatives. Our halakha (ifindeedwearetohaveoneatall)mustbe an individualized halakha wherethere are indeed obligations, but wedecide when, where and under whatconditionsweareobligatedor“com-manded.”

Yetwhetherornotwehave ahal-akha, theproblemofobligationdoesnotletusalone.Inapost-Enlighten-mentworld,wemustbeinchargeofour lives. Imperativesofamoralandritual nature remain strong but theycome from us. More than any othermodernthinker,Kaplanhelpsushon-estlyfaceourobligationsandthefactthat,althoughwehavepassedbeyondthetraditional,weremainaccountableforouractionsandourlives.

1.Inthecourseofdiscussingthetraditionalnotionofsupernaturalrevelationandtheneed to reinterpret it, Kaplan notes inthediary, “Iwasn’t surewhatour sloganshouldbe,whetheritshouldbe‘comestheevolution’or‘comestherevelation.’KaplanDiary,entryforApril14,1948.2.Kaplan Journal, entry forFebruary8,1950.3. Kaplan Journal, entry for July 11,1943.4. The well-known first sentence inAristotle’sMetaphysics reads, “Allmenby


naturedesiretoknow.”SeeAristotleinhis“Metaphysics” inBasic Works of Aristotle, ed.RichardMcKeon,(NewYork:RandomHouse),689.Iamindebtedtomybrother,ProfessorAllenScultforthisinsight.5.Communings of the Spirit —The Journals of Mordecai M .Kaplan,Volume11913-1934 ,ed. Mel Scult (Detroit: WayneState University Press, 2001), entry forSeptember 3, 1932, 484; our discussionof Holmes is drawn from The Essential Holmes: Selections from the Letters, Speeches, Judicial Opinions, and Other Writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,editedbyRich-ard Posner (Chicago:The University ofChicagoPress,1992)passim.6.J.B.Soloveitchik,Halakhic Man,trans-lated by Lawrence Kaplan (Philadelphia:TheJewishPublicationSociety,1983).Seeespeciallysection1,partVI.7.Communings,op.cit.,entryforApril2,1930,397.

8.KaplanwritestheterminHebrewhere,whichechoesMaimonides9. Kaplan Journal, entry for December14,1938.10.MartinBuber, I and Thou(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1958),110.11.RalphWaldoEmerson,“ThePoet,”inThe Portable Emerson,editedbyCarlBode(NewYork:PenguinBooks,1959),244.12.GeorgeSantayana,The Life of Reason or Phases of Human Progress (NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1955),183.13.IrvingSinger,George Santana — Liter-ary Philosopher (NewHaven:YaleUniver-sityPress,2000),21.14. Jacob B. Agus, “Torah M’Sinai,” inGuideposts in Modern Judaism(NewYork:BlochPublishingCo.1954),271-306.15. RalphWaldo Emerson, “The Over-soul,” in The Portable Emerson, ed. CarlBode(NewYork:PenguinBooks,1959),218.

The Reconstructionist Fall �005 • �1

T

ZionismToday:AReconstructionistReflection

RabbiMichaelM.Cohen,theExecutiveDirectoroftheNorthAmericanofficeoftheAravaInstituteforEnvironmentalStudies,iscurrentlyspendingtwoyearswithhisfamilyonKibbutzKetura.

By Michael M. cohen

he centrality of Israel in Re-constructionist thought hasbeenaconstantsinceMordecai

Kaplan’s seminal work, Judaism as a Civilization: Toward the Reconstruction of American-Jewish Life,waspublishedin 1934.With the Reconstructionistcivilizationalorientationthiswas,andis,alogicalstance.AsRebeccaAlpertandJacobStaubpointout:

The Reconstructionist under-standing of the civilizationalcharacter of Judaism predictablyhasledustoZionistconclusionsfrom the veryoutset. If Judaismisrecognizedasthecivilizationofthe Jewish people, then there isnodenyingtheparticularattach-mentofourpeople to theLandofIsrael–thesiteofouroriginsandgenesis,andthefocusofourhopesandidealsthroughthemil-lennia.1

The early recognition of the im-portanceofZionismalsotouchedonanother key point of Kaplanian phi-losophy:thechallengetotheconceptof a supernatural God. On this, IraEisensteinwrote:

Zionismwas,forKaplan,thegreatrevoltionary movement whichcarriedtheJewishpeopleoverthethreshold from medevalism tomodernismbecauseitinterpretedtheancientyearningofJewsto“re-turn”totheirmillennialMessianicaspirations in naturalist insteadof supernaturalist terms.Thus,ratherthanwaitfortheMessiahtoredeemthemfromexile,theJewsthemselvesundertookthetask.2

It is now more than seventy yearssinceKaplanputforwardtheideaoftheimportanceofIsraelinthelivesofJewslivingoutsideofIsrael.Thequestionforus today is:Howrelevant is Israel toDiasporaReconstructionistJews?

Zionism in Reconstructionist Judaism

Asamovement,weinvestenergiesinensuringthatIsraelplaysanimportantroleinwhatwedo.ThewebpageoftheJewish Reconstructionist Federation(JRF)hasaseriousmulti-facetedsec-tiondedicatedtoIsrael.3StudentsattheReconstructionist Rabbinical Collegeareexpectedtohaveahighlevelofpro-


ficiencyinHebrew.TheyarerequiredtospendayearstudyinginIsrael.ThisyearwearerunningaReconstructionistslateforthefirsttimeeverintheWorldZionistCongresselections.ThestudyofIsraelisapartofReconstructionistyouthandadulteducation.ThereisaReconstructionist minyan that meetsmonthlyinJerusalem.

We can and should be proud ofthese accomplishments. But is theremore that we could be doing? EarlyZionism saw the Diaspora as a poorsecondchoiceofwheretoliveaJewishlife.WhileKaplansawtheimportanceof Israel to living a Jewish life, evenmakingaliyawhenhewasinhis90s,henevernegatedtheideaofJewsliv-ingoutsideofIsrael.LikemanyotherZionistthinkers,Kaplanforesawanon-goingrelationshipbetweentheJewishcommunityinIsraelandcommunitiesoutsideofIsrael.Thequestionis:WhatshouldthatrelationshiplookliketodayforReconstructionists?

Israel and the Diaspora

TherearethoseintheZionistmove-menttodaywhostillsaythatlivingout-sideofIsraelislikebeingintheaudi-encewhentherealactionishappeningonthestage.AsReconstructionists,werejectthatviewpointasafalseandeveninsultingdichotomy.OnecanmaketheargumentthattheexplosionofJewishcreativityandlearninginNorthAmeri-cainthepastquartercenturyis,inpart,adirectresultofIsrael’sexistence(thereare other factors as well).This givesJews in the Diaspora the emotional,psychologicalandphysicalsecurityto

actJewishandliveJewishlivesinwayswithwhichpreviousgenerationswouldnothavebeencomfortable.Andthatisexactlyhowitshouldbe.IsraelasahubreachingouttoJewishcommuni-tiesthroughouttheworldwasamodelthat Reconstructionism felt was veryimportant. But that relationship is atwo-way street as well, with aTorahalso going out from the Diaspora toIsrael.Andthatisalsoexactlyhowitshouldbe.

Oneof thegreat ironiesof thees-tablishmentoftheZioniststateisthatKaplan’sDiasporamodel of living intwocivilizationsalsoholdstrueinIs-rael.IntheUnitedStates,forexample,thechallengeistoknowhowtonavi-gatethroughahumashwiththesameeasewithwhichonecanfindthe“Arts&Leisure”sectionoftheSundayNew York Times.IntheDiaspora,mostJewsdefinetheirJudaismasbeingreligious,whileinIsraelmostJewsindentifymorewithasecular-nationalidentity.

National and Religious Identities

It was Martin Buber who pointedoutthatthereligious/nationalsplit,go-ingbacktothe“Sanhedrin”convenedbyNapoleanintheearly19thcentury,isfalse.Ashewrote:

.

IamsettingupHebrewhuman-ism in opposition to that Jewishnationalism which regards Israelas a nation like unto other na-tions and recognizes no task forIsrael save thatofpreserving andasserting itself. Israel isnotana-

The Reconstructionist Fall �005 • ��

tionlikeothernations,nomatterhowmuchitsrepresentativeshavewisheditduringcertaineras.Israelisapeoplelikenoother,foritistheonly people in the world which,from its earliest beginnings, hasbeenbothanationandareligiouscommunity.Inthehistoricalhourinwhichitstribesgrewtogethertoformapeople,itbecamethecarrierofarevelation...Israelwasandisapeopleandareligiouscommunityinone,andit isthisunitywhichenabledittosurviveinanexilenoothernationhadtosuffer,anexilewhichlastedlongerthantheperiodofitsindependence.HewhoseversthisbondseversthelifeofIsrael.4

whocombinethetwobutinwaysthatmost Reconstructionists would findproblematic,inparticularwithregardtoanall-too-prevalentnegativeattitudetoward non-Jews.The ideal that wearetalkingabouthereisawholesomeintegrationbaseduponaninteractionofthevaluesandtraditionsofJudaismthroughthelensofexperience,intu-ition,andreason.5

Challenges in Israel Today

We read in theTorah, “You shallnotoppress a stranger, foryouknowthe feelings of the stranger, havingyourselvesbeenstrangersintheLandof Israel”( Exodus 23:9).6 We oncewerepowerless,soweshouldremem-berwhenwehavepowernottoabuseit.WhileIsrael’srelationshipwithherminoritiesismadecomplicatedbytheongoing conflict, it can be said thattheoftenpainfullessonsofcenturiesofbeingaminorityintheDiasporahavenot always been applied as Jewsfindthemsleves in the majority position.Asanexampleofthisdynamic,thereis Israel’s national anthem, Hatikva,whichreflectstheaspirationsofeightypercent of the country, but not thetwentypercentArabminority.

The Law of Return

TheLawofReturnisanothersacredcowthatneedstobeaddressed.WhileJewsshouldalwaysknowthattheycancometoIsrael,theLawofReturnasitstandsnowisbasedontheassumptionthatthephenomenonofJewslivingintheDiasporashouldbeunderstoodas

The challenge for Jews in the Di-asporaistounderstandthatwhilethechallengeistoliveintwocivilizations,anationaloneanda Jewishone, thelatter contains a national element aswellasareligiousone.ThechallengefortheJewsofIsraellivinginasecu-lar-national world is to learn how tointegratethereligiousaspectofJudaismintotheirlives.

Theargumentcanbemadethatthisis already happening:The languageof Israel is Hebrew, the language ofthe Bible; the Jewish holidays arenational holidays. But the holidaysare approached from a nationalisticperspective(whichcanbelimiting)andwithacontentthatcanoftenbeshallowand superficial.There are those JewswholiveamostlyreligiousJewishlifeandputupawallbetweenthemselvesand the rest of Israeli and Westerninfluences; and then there are those


temporary.The truth is thatmostofJewishhistoryhas takenplace in theDiaspora,ahistorythatmaybecom-plicated,butthatalsoproducedsomeofourgreatestaccomplishments.

Fromanenvironmentalperspective,the belief that the land can hold anendless number of people is unten-able.Fromtheperspectiveofphysicalsurvival,thenotionofallJewsbeinglo-catedinonephysicallocationmayalsohaveitsdrawbacks.FinallyitistimetofaceuptotheinequalityandinjusticeofallowingJewswhoseancestorshavenotlivedonthelandforthousandsofyearstoreturnatwill,whilePalestin-ians who lived on the land in theirandtheirancestor’slifetimearedeniedthatright.

Therehavealwaysbeentwopreval-ing perspectives in Zionist thought:the political Zionists, who primarilyforcusedonobtainingarefugeforJewswho suffered from persecution, andthespiritualZionists,whoweremoreconcernedwiththetypeofJewishso-cietythatwastobebuiltintheLandofIsrael.TheReconstructionistmove-menthas seen itselfmore situated inthespiritualZionistcamp.

Thatsaid,thereremainmanyareaswhere many Reconstructionists caneasilyfindIsraelwanting:thenon-rec-ognitionofnon-OrthodoxstreamsofJudaism; the treatmentofminorities;the ongoing occupation (despite thewithdrawalforGaza);thestateoftheenvironment;7andthegrowingsocialgap, to name a few. For many Jewsin theDiaspora, theseblemishes alsobecomereasonstodistancethemslevesfrombothIsraelandZionism.

The Centrality of Israel

My family and I have been fortu-natetohavespentseveralof thepastnine years living onKibbutzKetura8

inthesouthernAravavalleyofIsrael.Thekibbutz,foundedin1973bytheYoungJudaeayouthmovement,isanIsraelicommunitythatisdemocratic,egalitarian,environmentallyconsciousand pluralistic, with religious andsecularJewslivingsidebyside.BeingthehomeoftheAravaInstituteforEn-vironmentalStudies,9thekibbutzalsoincludesIsraeliArabs,PalestiniansandJordaniansaspartofitscommunity.Ifthe restof Israel looked like this,myguessisthatmoreNorthAmericanJewswouldfeelmorecomfortablewithandbetterconnectedtoIsrael.

Ahavat Yisrael,theloveofIsraelandtheJewishpeople,isanexistentialstateofmindthattranscendstheparticularsofhowthestorygetsplayedout,espe-ciallywhenwedon’tlikethedirectioninwhich the scripthas gone.AsRe-constructionists, we should considerengagingwithIsraeltoagreaterdegreethanwedo.•Weneed tounderstand Israel on adeeperlevel,beyondtheissuesoftheconflict on which we so often focus(The web site www.israel21c.org isan excellent source of informationabout Israelidevelopments inhealth,techonolgy,cultureanddemocracy.)•Itiseasytoinvestthetimetoknowmore about the daily news of Israelthrough such sources as Haaretz,10

The Jerusalem Post 11andThe Jerusalem Report .12

•TheWorldZionistCongress,forbet-


terandforworse,providestheopportu-nityforeveryJewaroundtheworldtoberepresentedindecisionsaboutIsraelandtheZionistmovement. It isverysimpletoregistertovoteintheWorldZionistCongresselections.13•Studyabroadisaimportantpedagogicfeatureofourchildren’scollegeyears.ManyarepulledtostudyinEuropeandother continents.There is no reasonwhyastudentcan’tstudyasemesterinoneofthoseplaces,aswellasasemesterinIsrael.Itisamodelthatweshouldencourage.• Israel faces many challenges, andmany organizations have been estab-lished to help Israel deal with thosechallenges.For Jews in theDisapora,theseorganizationsprovideopportuni-tiestobeinvolvedinbuildingthekindofIsraelweenvision.•Whilealiyamaynotbeforeveryone,its serious consideration should be apartoftheprocessofhoweachofusdefines and builds our Jewish lives.Ifaliya isnotanoption,theenergiesthat would have gone into buildingthe Zionist state should be used tocreateameaningfulJewishlifeintheDiaspora.

“The Silver Platter,” a poem byIsraelipoetNathanAlterman,isamov-ingandpowerfultestamentabouttheestablishmentofthemodernStateofIsrael.ItwasbasedonaquotationfromthefirstIsraelipresidentChaimWeiz-man:“Astateisnothandedtoapeopleonasilverplatter.”ThestoryofZion-ismandIsraelismovingandpowerful,whileatthesametimeitcanbedifficultandtroubling;inshort,itisacomplexstory.TherelationshipofDiasporaJews

toIsraelcanoftenbecomplicatedbythatreality.Thetruthisthatfor2,000years, generations of Jews prayed forthereestablishmentoftheJewishstateintheLandofIsrael.Unlikethem,wearenotonlyabletopray,weareabletowork to turn thoseprayers, hopesandvisionsintoarealitity.ThatrealityincludesshapingthesocietyandcultureofthemodernStateofIsraeldefiningthe relationship between Israel andDiasporaJudaism,andrecognizingtherolethatIsraelcanplayinhelpingtheDiasporameetthechallengeofcreatingmeaningfulandvibrantcommunities.TheReconstructionistvoicehasbeenandshouldcontinuetobeanimportantvoiceinthatunfoldingstory.

1.RebeccaT.Alpert and Jacob J.Staub,Exploring Judaism: A Reconstructionist Ap-proach(ElkinsPark,P.A.:TheReconstruc-tionistPress,2000),652.IraEisensteininGreat Jewish Thinkers of the Twentieth Century, ed.SimonNoveck(Washington, D.C.: Bnai Brith Press,1985),2743.www.jrf.org4.MartinBuber inThe Zionist Idea, ed.ArthurHertzberg (NewYork:AtheneumPress,1979),459-460.5.Eisenstein,op.cit. 2686. See also Leviticus 19:34 and Deuter-onomy17-19.7.www.greenzionism.org8.www.ketura.org.il9.www.arava.org10.www.haaretz.com11.www.jpost.com12.www.jrep.com13.Seewww.azm.org


nthelate1970s,anewschoolofpsychoanalyticthoughtcalledSelfPsychology,basedontheworkof

KohutMeetsKaplan:TheParadoxofRelating

PersonallytoaNonpersonalGod

By ann eisensTein

IHeinzKohut,wasemerging.I foundmyselfpulledtothisnewapproach,onethatwasquitehereticalinitsreformula-tionofclassicalFreudianpsychoanalytictheory.Togetherwithmanyofmycol-leagues,Ifeltthatmysecretandincho-atesenseofwhat“reallyworked”withmypatients,inmyownanalysesandinlifeingeneral,wasbeingarticulatedandlegitimizedbythisnewthinker.

A few years later I had an insightaboutanotherreasonSelfPsychologystirredinmesuchaprofoundfeelingof“cominghome.”Asthegranddaugh-ter of Mordecai M. Kaplan and thedaughterofIraEisenstein,hisdiscipleand the founderofReconstructionistinstitutions,Idiscovered,onanalmostvisceral level, some striking parallelsbetween Reconstructionism and SelfPsychology,bothintheirtheoriesandin their relationships to traditionaltheories and institutions. I began tothinkofKohutastheKaplanofpsy-choanalysis.

Persistence of Personification

Inthisessay,Iwillspelloutanumberofcommoncharacteristicsofthetwomen and their thinking. I will thenexplore a synthesis of their theoriesthatattemptstoaddressthetenacioushumanattachmenttothepersonifica-tionofGod.Thispersonal—and,yes,intrinsicallysupernatural—imageofGodisparadoxicallyclungtobymanywhoholdmoreabstractandsophisti-catedbeliefs ingeneral.Theyarenottroubled by this split consciousness,findingthecommunityfeeling,musicandfamiliarityoftraditionalreligiousservicessatisfyingenough,eveniftherepresentations of God are inconsis-tentwith theirwayof lookingat theworld.

However, therearethose(likeme)who experience a conflict betweenthepulltothefamiliar,personalGodimageryandrationalbeliefs.ItisthisgrouptowhomIwillattempttoofferaperspectivethatisbasedonKohut’sconcept of “selfobject experience.”Suchaperspectivemightprovidesome

AnnEisenstein,LCSW,teachesandsupervisesattheInstituteforContemporaryPsychotherapyandthePsychoanalyticPsychotherapyStudyCenterinNewYorkCity.ShemaintainsaprivatepracticeinpsychoanalysisandpsychotherapyinManhattanandBrooklyn.


understandingofourattachmenttothepersonificationofGodandultimatelysomereductionofthedissonancethatresultsfromitspersistencealongsideabeliefinanon-personalGod.

Common Characteristics Kohut and Kaplan were both im-

migrants from Europe who adoptedastheirowntheAmericanversionoforthodox tradition from which theyrespectivelyemerged.InKohut’scase,thatAmericanschoolof thoughtwasknown as Ego Psychology, derivedfrom classical (orthodox) Freudianpsychoanalysis. Kohut was presidentoftheAmericanPsychoanalyticAsso-ciationandremainedonthefacultyoftheChicagoInstituteofPsychoanalysishiswholelife.HishopewastochangetheAmericanpsychoanalyticestablish-ment,both its theoryand its institu-tions,fromwithin.ThatestablishmentwasultimatelyinfluencedbycertainofKohut’sideasaboutspecificdiagnosticcategories of patients, most notablythosewithNarcissisticPersonalityDis-orders. However, it rejected Kohut’soverarching theoryof thepsychologyoftheselfwhichwasspelledoutinhisseminalbook,The Restoration of the Self,publishedin1977.Attheurgingofafewofhisdisciples,Kohut(reluctantly)agreed to “go institutional,” creatinga separate school of psychoanalyticthoughtknownasSelfPsychology.

Tothosewhohavesomeknowledgeof Kaplan’s biography, Kohut’s storywillsoundveryfamiliar.Kaplan’srela-tionshipwiththe(Conservative)JewishTheologicalSeminarywasambivalent,

but undeniably profound. After de-cadesofurgingbyafewofhisdisciples,Kaplan was ultimately convinced ofthe need for Reconstructionism tobecome a separate movement. Hefinallyagreedtothecreationin1968ofanewseminaryforthetrainingofReconstructionistrabbis.

BothKohutandKaplansawthem-selvesaspromotingideasthatevolvedorganically from, respectively, theirtheoretical and professional/religiousforebears.Inthissense,eachwascon-servative(withasmall“c”).However,becauseoftheirmethodologies,whichwere remarkably similar, eacharrivedat conclusions that were regarded asradical,challengingbasicdogmaoftheinstitutionalandprofessionalestablish-mentstowhicheachbelonged.Thus,bothsystemsofthought,SelfPsychol-ogy andReconstructionism, emergedoutofanambivalentstraddlingofpastandpresentoutlooks,andacontinuousdynamic tension between continuityandchange.Itwasforthenextgenera-tiontoextendtheimplicationsofthesemethodologies.

Grounded in Experience

In1959,Kohutpublishedanarticleentitled“Introspection,Empathy,andPsychoanalysis:AnExaminationoftheRelationshipbetweenModeofObser-vationandTheory.”1Hepositedthatempathy,orvicariousintrospection,isthemodeofobservationofpsychiclife.That is,aperson’ssubjective(thoughnotnecessarilyconscious) selfexperi-ence provides the only relevant dataforpsychoanalytictheory-buildingand


clinicalapplication,therebyexcludingobservations made from an externalvantagepoint.

By making this claim, Kohut de-parted radically from Freud’s zealousapplication of 19th-century scientificstandards of objectivity and neutral-ity,replacingitwithwhathecalledan“experience-near” approach, one thatunderscored subjectivity and process.Forexample,KohuttookFreud’sreifiedconcept of sexual and aggressive “in-stinctualdrives”andreframedthemastheexperiencesofsexualoraggressive“drivenness.”

Outofhisworkwithseverelynar-cissistic patients, using empathy ashisobservationaltool,Kohutbecamesensitizedtothewaysweexperienceourinteractionswithothersonwhomwedependforouremotionalwell-being.Inparticular,hefocusedonhowtheseinteractions function topromoteourfeelings of cohesiveness, vitality andselfesteem.Kohutcalledthe interac-tionswithothersthathavetheseposi-tiveeffects“selfobjectexperiences,”astheyareconstructedjointlybytheself(person)andtheobject(other).2Whenanexperiencethatoccursbetweentheselfandanotherpersonhastheoppositeeffect — fragmentation, depression,injured self esteem — Kohut calleditanexperienceof“selfobjectfailure.”Sometimesthe“selfobject”3isafantasybasedpurelyinimagination,oramentalconstructbasedonperceivedpotentialin,ormemoryof,anotherperson.

Contextual and Pragmatic

Kaplan’sapproachissimilarlycon-

textualandpragmatic.InJudaism as a Civilization4heintroducedtheradicalidea that Jewish religion is groundedintheexperienceoftheJewishpeople,asopposedtobeingasetofreligiousbeliefs andpractices revealedatSinaibyasupernaturalGod.Judaismisco-createdbyJewsandtheirenvironment—i.e., theirparticularsocial,politicalandculturalcircumstances.Judaism,areligious civilization, includes withinit a concept of God, modes of wor-ship,understandingofsacredtext,allofwhichevolvealongwithchangesintheenvironment.

Like Kohut, Kaplan invoked theprinciple of subjectivity, stressing“. . .whatGodmeans tomankind.”5

The pragmatic perspective, focusedon function, was central for Kaplan.Thus, amajor functionof religion is“to fortify the yearning for spiritualself-regeneration . . . and to press itintotheserviceofhumanprogress.”6IntermsofSelfPsychology,thefunc-tionofJewishreligionisthesurvival,cohesion,vitalityandmoralfortitudeoftheJewishpeople.

Evolving Judaism and the Evolving Self

AnotherhallmarkofKohut’stheo-reticalperspectivewashiscontentionthatpeopleneveroutgrowtheirneedforotherstoperformselfobjectfunc-tions, unlike the prevailing FreudianviewknownasEgoPsychologywhichcharacterizes human development asmoving us further and further awayfromdependencyonothers.Sensitiveto the judgmental implications of a


modelthatemphasizesthedesirabilityof the child’s increasing autonomy,Kohutreferredtothisas“maturationalmorality.” However, he did believethattheparticularnatureof(implicitlydependent)selfobjectneedschangesasapersonmatures. It evolves from themore concrete, bodily communica-tion(holding,feeding,rough-housing,etc.) to themore symbolic, includingsubtlegesturesandverbalmodessuchas praising, encouraging, supportingandinquiring.

Earlytypesofselfobjectexperienceareinternalized,adynamicprocessthatKohutoftenconcretizedasthebuildingofpsychicorself“structure”(aholdoverfromtheFreudians’reificationof“theego”).Subsequentselfobjectexperienc-esfunctionas“boostershots,”activat-ingandamplifyingexisting“structure”(e.g., self-sustainingand self-soothingcapacities).Thus, the earlier versionof a selfobject experience involving ababybeingpickedupwhenshecrieshasitsfunctionalequivalentlaterinlifewhentheupsetadultisshoredupandcomfortedbysignificantpeopleinherlife.The selfobject function remainsconstant.

Selfobject Need for God

ThesameholdstruefortheJewishpeople:BecauseJudaismisareligiouscivilization,Jewsneveroutgrow,sotospeak, their selfobject need for God.TheconceptionofGodcontinues toevolve,fromtheconcreteandliteralto-wardsthesymbolicandmetaphorical.Thus,theGodofthepatriarchsandofMosesisdepictedashavinga“face”and

asspeakingdirectlytohumans.He(thepersonificationofGodinbiblicaltextsisalmostexclusivelymale)ishailedasa“manofwar”(Exodus15:3)TheGodofthebookofJob,however,ismoremysterious and remote, albeit verymuchthere,andinthebookofEsther,Godisneverevenmentioned.

According to talmudic traditions,prophecywasunderstoodtohaveendedinthebiblicalperiod,andsubsequentlyGodcouldbeexperiencedonlythroughtheinterpretationofsacred(“revealed”)textandthroughprayer.Bythe20thcentury, Kaplan abandoned super-naturalismaltogether,anddefinedGodas thenatural power in theuniverse,includinginhumankind,that“makesfor salvation.”Thus, the function ofthe“God-concept”remainsconsistentthroughouthistory.“God”continues“to fortify the yearning for spiritualself-regeneration . . . and[continues]topress it into the serviceofhumanprogress”throughouthistory.

Radicals in a Conservative Framework

KaplanandKohutbothsawthem-selves as essentially following in thetraditionsoftheirrespectivedisciplines.Reinterpretationofafundamentalandclassical concept was not a rejection,but an “updating” of the concept’sessential meaning.There were someexceptionsforeach.Kaplan’srejectionofsupernaturalismandoftheideaof“the chosen people” departed radi-callyfromJewishtradition.Insimilarfashion, Kohut reinterpreted somebasicpsychoanalyticconcepts,suchas


transferenceandtheOedipusComplex.Hisradicaldeparturefromtheclassi-cal psychoanalytic tradition includedrejectionof sexandaggressionas thefundamental motivational forces inhumanlife.ForKohut,peoplearefirstandforemostmotivatedbytheirneedstodevelop,restoreandmaintaintheirsenseof self.Themostdysfunctionalandbizarrebehaviorcanbeultimatelyunderstoodasmaladaptiveattemptstoachievethesegoals.

Bytakingthisstandwithregardtoba-sichumanmotivation,Kohutreworkedtheplaceofaggressioninhistheoryofthepsychologyoftheself.Aggressionwas no longer understood as an au-tonomousdrivewithaneedforperiodicdischarge.Rather,aggressiontakestwoforms,eachonearesponsetoadifferenttypeofperceivedthreat.Oneisathreattophysicalsurvival,andtheothertotheintegrityandesteemofone’s(senseof )self—an“anti-selfobjectexperience,”ifyouwill.Kohutreferstothesecondformofaggressionas“narcissisticrage.”7Hedoesnotunderestimatetheubiquityofbothtypesofaggressioninhumanlife.Butunderstandingboth as essentiallyreactiveratherthan“primary”behaviorhasverydifferentclinicalimplications.Itreflectsanemphasisonhumanpoten-tial,abasictrust inpeople’spersistentdesire and capacity to grow,howeverderailedorpervertedthemanifestationsmaybe.

Facing Evil with Potentiality

If we postulate the “problem ofevil” as the theological equivalent ofthe psychological category of aggres-

sion, another similarity in approach(orperhapstemperament)revealsitselfbetweenKaplanandKohut,atleastasreflectedintheirtheories.ForKaplan,theproblemofevilisnotreallya“prob-lem,”atleastnotaproblemoftheology.Farfromdenyingtheubiquityofevil,Kaplan does not expect religion or aGod-concepttoaccountforit.Thereisnotheologicalexplanationforevil.Withcontinuityoffunctioninmind,Kaplan redefinesGodas the forceorpowerthatcounteractsevilandenablesustodealwithit.Itisaxiomaticthatsuchaforceexists;thatis,thepotentialtocounteractevilandsufferingdoesex-istintheworldandinhumannature,anditispowerfulpotential.

Thisisanideamosteasilyembracedbypeoplewithatleastamodicumofoptimismintheircharacter.8Kaplan’stheology, reflecting such optimism,is beautifully revealed in this excerptfromapoemhewroteentitled“Godthe Life of Nature,” which appearedinthe1945ReconstructionistSabbath Prayer Book:

GodisinthefaithBywhichweovercomeThefearofloneliness,ofhelplessnessOffailure,andofdeath.

GodisinthehopeWhich,likeashaftoflight,CleavesthedarkabysmsOfsin,ofsuffering,andofdespair.

GodisintheloveWhichcreates,protects,forgives...9


that“someone”isgenerallytheanalyst,whomthepatientexperiencesinfan-tasyaspersonifyingtheneeded,longed-for“other”(usuallyaparentalimage).If the patient’s transferential illusionfunctionswellenough,itisexperiencedaspsychologically“real,”ratherthanasanidealizedconstruction.

Thispotentialforself-curewiththehelpofothersismanifestedinlifebyveryresourceful,imaginativechildrenwhoareabletosurviveextraordinaryhardships, abuse and loss, especiallywiththepresenceofsupportiveothers(e.g.,teachers,siblings,grandparents)–inotherwords,withthehelpofwhattodaywecall“community.”Forexam-ple,tosupplementortosubstituteforexternalsupport,childrenmaysponta-neouslycreatefantasyselfobjects,10likeimaginary friends, from fragmentsoffictionalorpublicfigures

“God” as Fantasy Selfobject

Perhaps “God” is just such a life-enhancingcreationofhumanimagina-tion.ThegeniusoftheJewishpeopleisitsseeminglyindestructiblecapacitytoadapttocircumstancesthatseverelytested its will to survive as a people.These adaptationsmay involve ratio-nalizationsthatgetGodoffthehook,sotospeak.Thus,whenourexperienceasJews(e.g.,exile)conflictswithourbeliefsaboutourselves(e.g.,wehaveacovenant,weareGod’schosen),wemaythink“Godispunishingus,”or“Hisways are unfathomable,”or we mayreinventorreinterpretourconceptionsofGod,soneededis“He.”Therearemany variations of God-images that

The Experience of God’s Presence

Alongwithmuchruminationwithmyfather,thispoemplanteditselfinmy gut during my high school yearsat the Society for the AdvancementofJudaism.ThepoemcomplementedthepersonalGod-imageryof the tra-ditionalprayerswithitstranslationof“God”intohumanexperientialterms;thus, God is in the love, rather than“God loves,”or“weareprotectedbyGod’s love.” Thiskindof syntax re-versal,reflectingKaplan’sunderstandofGodasanevolving,functionalconcept,hasgonealongwayinhelpingmetothinkabouttraditionaltextsand,morepersonally,tomitigatetheshamethatcomes inmomentsof fear, lonelinessand despair with my impulse to ap-pealtoa“God-who-listens.”Whiletheconflictpersists, Idofind inKohut’sselfobjectconceptaconnectingbridgebetween the God of this poem andpersonificationsofGodas“someone-you-can-relate-topersonally.”

Itisabridgethatdoesnotalwaysfeelsosteadyundermyfeet.

The bridge is built on the notionthatGodandselfobjectexperienceareboth manifestations of transference,withGodunderstoodasthecollectivetransference-creation of the Jewishpeople.Inthisway,Godis“createdinman’simage.”ConsistentwithKaplan’semphasisonwhatGodmeanstopeople(ratherthanonwhatpeoplemeantoGod),Kohut’s“selfobjecttransferences”reflecttheneedforsomething/some-one“outthere”thatisexperiencedas“other-than-self.”Inanalytictreatment,


literalmeaning,akindofsuspension-of-disbelief.Itisamomentaryembraceofcreativetransferenceillusion,orfan-tasy,reflectingatemporaryregressiontoanearlier(collectiveandindividual)understandingofGod,forthepurposeofself-soothing.

Three Varieties of “God’s Presence”

Kohut elaborated three types ofselfobject needs and correspondingselfobject transferences: idealizing,mirroring,andtwinship.11Iwillbrieflyreviewthemandaddress the“experi-enceofGod’spresence”associatedwitheachone.

Inmyearlierdiscussionofdevelop-mentallyevolvingversionsofselfobjectexperience,Icitedtheexampleofababybeingpickedupandcomfortedwhenshecriesaswellas some functionallyequivalent experiences in adulthood.In optimal development, the parentcontinuestobeexperiencedasstrongandtrustworthy,someonethechildcanlookuptoandadmire.Thisexperiencegraduallybecomesaninternalimage,orimago,throughaprocessKohutcalled“transmutinginternalization.”Thisin-ternalimageisthesourceofthechild’sability to self-regulate, to self-sootheand (eventually) to hold a system ofvaluesandideals.Asdiscussedearlier,theadultcontinuestoneedselfobjectbolstering from something/someoneoutsideherself.

The Personified Parent

IntraditionalJudaism,Godisper-

historicallyhavereflectedthedifferencesamonggroupsofJews,andamongindi-vidualJewswithineachgroup.

However, some image of God isanintrinsicpartoftheJewishpsychiclandscape,presenteveninabsentiaasthe “God in whom I don’t believe.”Each generation (and individual)brings a particular set of needs andcircumstances,andadapts (or rejects,orstruggleswith)theversionsofGodthat it inherits. Regardless of thoseparticularversions,theconceptofGodiseternalandomnipresent,always(po-tentially)available.

The conception of God that onetakes on corresponds to the person’sparticular internalworld and levelofpsychicdevelopment,aformthatalsocorresponds to the range of normsavailablewithintheperson’ssocial/his-toricalcontext.Overtime,theexperi-enceoftheparent/Godasreliably“outthere,”graduallyevolvesinto(andisthefunctionalequivalentof )thebeliefthat“Icanrelyonmyinnerresources.”Inaddition—andthisiscrucial—IcantrustthatthesupportIneedisavailable(atleastpotentially)intheworld,andthat Ihave theability tofindand/orcreatethatsupport.Whatis“outthere,”then,isthisinnerandouterpotential.WhenIam in touchwith thatconfi-denceinmyselfandintheenvironment,“Godispresent,”or,inclassicalbiblicallanguage,“TheLordismyShepherd,Ishallnotwant”(Psalm23).

Needless to say, that confidenceis not always accessible. It is elusive;sometimes, it feels too heady andabstract.Atsuchmoments,thewordsofthe23dPsalmmaytakeonamore


sonifiedasjustsuchafigure:thepar-ent experienced (and/or longed-for)inchildhood.Thus,Godispowerful,compassionate, just, merciful, etc.Kaplan’spoeticchoiceof“Godisinthelove,” rather than attributing loving-kindnesstoGod,reflectstheideathatthequalitiesattributedtoGodrepre-sentidealsofhumanbehavior—idealslongedforinothersandaspiredtowardinoneself.“Godispresent”whenwefeel “held” and secure, or when wefeel the courage of our convictions,or when we are confident about thepotential in the world for furtheringourvalues,aswhenwearemovedbyevidenceof justicesoughtandjusticedone.TheexperienceofGod’spresencealsoincludesthatofaweinthefaceof“miracles,”likethatofchildbirth,orinthepresenceofnaturalbeauty,likethatof the Andean mountain-top MachuPichuortheGrandCanyon.

The experienceofbeingmirrored,accordingtoKohut,involvesperceivingandfeelingthedelightedandadmiringresponsesofotherstous,firstfromthecaretakersweexperienceininfancyandchildhood, later from others as well.Theinternalizationoftheseexperiencesformsthebasisofhealthyself-esteem.In Judaism, God is often personifiedasaloving,mirroringparent.Helovesevery one ofHis “children” (human-ity) and, in traditional Judaism, hasa special love for the Jewish people.Godseesourcollectiveandindividualuniqueness and expects that we canfullyactualizethebestinourselves.HeseesusasobjectsofHisdelight,evendesire.12Itisoutofthisloveandtrustthat“HehasgiventhegiftofTorah”

— His moral law — to us. “God ispresent,”then,whenwefeelespeciallyloved and valued; especially worthyof trust and high expectations; andespecially confident in our capacityto liveaccordingtoourtalents, skillsandvalues.

Twinship Transference

Kohut’s twinship transference de-rivesfrompeople’sneedtofeelasenseof “essential alikeness” with others.Developmentally, this experience hasits roots in early childhood, such aswhen the child experiences himself(especiallywhenmirroredas)a“chipoff the old block.”This deep senseof connection through identificationwiththesignificantpeopleinone’slifeevolvesovertimetoincludeanabidingsenseofbelongingintheworldofhu-manbeings.Therapistssometimeshearpeoplesaythattheyfeellikealiens,visi-torsfromanotherplanet.Theyhavenointernalprecedentforfeelingconnectedbycommonalitywithothers.

In Genesis, it is written that Godmadehumanity inGod’s image.Thedeeppsychologicaltruthinthismeta-phorliesinitsreverse:Godwascreatedbyhumanityinhumanity’simage.Inaddition to seeking an idealized andlovingparentinthefigureofGod,weneedto“findourselvesinthedeity.”13InJewishtexts,moststrikinglyintheBibleandinMidrash,Godisoftenren-deredasremarkablyhuman.NotonlydoesHehavetheidealqualitiesalreadymentioned,Heisalsorageful,jealous,manipulativeandcapricious.Likeus,Godhasvulnerabilities.Likeours,His


characterevolvesandmatures.14

“God’s Presence”

Anexperienceof “God’spresence”associatedwithtwinshipneedsmightbeaheightenedawarenessofourhu-manity— i.e.,our imperfectnatures— alongside a feeling of self-com-passion and self-acceptance. God is“present”whenwecanexperienceourstrengths and abilities, tempered byhumility, and when we feel at peacewithourlimitationsandimperfections.Godmayalsobe“present”whenweareparticularlymovedbythebeliefthatweareallcreatedintheimageofGod,thatweareallequal.AndGodis“present”when we feel a sense of connectionandbelongingintheworld,15andtheconvictionthatloneliness,withitster-riblesenseofisolationfromothers,canbeovercome.

IhavebeenexperimentingwiththeideaofGodascollectiveselfobjectinanefforttomitigate, ifnotresolve,aconflictthatImaysharewithothers,particularlywithotherReconstruction-ists.Itistheconflictbetweenanattach-menttopersonalGodimageryontheonehand,anddisbeliefinapersonal,supernatural God on the other.Theidea of God as collective selfobjectcombinesaspectsofKohut’sSelfPsy-chologyandKaplan’sReconstruction-ist philosophy. As someone deeplyaffectedbyboththeories,Ihavefoundthat theworksofKohut andKaplancomplement,andcanevenilluminate,each other. For me, the bridge thatconnects my grandfather’s God withtraditional,personifiedimagesofGod

still stands, wobbly as it is. PerhapsthebestI,andotherslikeme,candoistolivewiththeparadoxofrelatingpersonallytoanonsupernaturalGod.This involves unashamedly allowingourselves moments of surrender to afantasy of a personal God, a fantasythat has its precedent in our earliestanddeepestselfobjectexperiences.Thecrucialdistinction—andoneclearlyrepresentative of a Reconstructionistperspective—isrecognizingthatthisis a fantasy, one from which we canreturnstrengthenedandsupportedaswegoabouttheworkofcreatingthehealthy,matureandconfidentselveswehavethepotentialtobecome.

1. Kohut, H. “Introspection, Empathy,andPsychoanalysis,”inThe Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 7:459-483,1959.2.Theaspectofjointconstruction,acon-ceptthatallowsforgreaterattentiontotheparticipationoftheanalyst’ssubjectivityintheprocess,andfortheelementofmutual-ity involved, isoneof those implicationselaboratedfurtherbysubsequenttheorists(seeworkof R.D. Stolorow, et al, early1980sonward.)3.This is shorthand for“selfobject-func-tioning other.” Selfobject experience, adynamic process, often gets reified ininformal psychoanalytic parlance; thus,anyone performing a selfobject functionisreferredtoasa“selfobject.”Onceagain,thetenacioushumaninclinationtoreify!(see. R.D. Stolorow and G.E. Atwood,Contexts of Being (Hillsdale:TheAnalyticPress,1992).4. Mordecai M. Kaplan, Judaism as a


Civilization (NewYork:The MacMillanCompany,1934).5.EmanuelS.GoldsmithandMelScult,eds.,“Introduction,”Dynamic Judaism: The Essential Writings of Mordecai M. Kaplan(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,TheReconstructionistPress,1985),p.21(italicsinoriginal).6. Mordecai M. Kaplan, The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion (NewYork:TheReconstructionistPress,1962)62-63.7.H.Kohut,“ThoughtsonNarcissismandNarcissistic Rage,” in The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Vol. 27 (New York:QuadrangleBooks,1972),360-400.8.Myfatherhadmorethanamodicumofoptimisminhischaracter.Justbybeingmyfather,andbybeingtheprimaryconduitofmygrandfather’sideastome(ashewasto many others), he undoubtedly was amajorinfluenceonmychoiceofprofessionandonmywayofthinkingaboutit.SeeIraEisenstein,Reconstructing Judaism: An Autobiography(NewYork:TheReconstruc-tionistPress,1986),241-242.9.MordecaiM.Kaplan,inSabbath Prayer Book (NewYork:TheJewishReconstruc-tionistFoundation1945),391.10.H.Bacal,“Notesonsometherapeuticchallenges in the analysis of severely re-gressedpatients,”inPsychoanalytic Inquiry,Vol.1(Hillsdale:TheAnalyticPress,1981),

29-56.11.Itisimportanttokeepinmindthat,inkeepingwithhismethodology,Kohutdidnotnecessarilyconsiderthisanexhaustiveorpermanentlist.Heexpectedthatotherswouldcontinuouslyrefineandaddselfob-ject phenomena as they were discoveredempathically. (See Kohut, H.,How Does Analysis Cure[Chicago:UniversityofChi-cagoPress,1984],194.)Thishascertainlybeenthecase,andcorrespondingvariationsof experiences of God’s presence are toonumeroustoelaborateinthispaper.12. Compare this with traditional Jew-ishinterpretationsofthebiblicalSongofSongs,whichinterpretstheeroticrelation-shipalludedtoasbeingbetweenGodandIsrael.”13.AvivaZornberg,presentationatWil-liamAllensonWhiteInstituteConferenceon“Desire,”2004.14.SeeJackMiles,God: A Biography(NewYork:VintageBooks,1995).15. For Kaplan, “community is [in fact]theagentthroughwhichGod…actuallymanifests Himself.” (Dynamic Judaism,op.cit., 223; italics added), rendering thecollective nature of God (as selfobject)crucial:Godsymbolizessharedideals,col-lectiveloveandmutualresponsibility,andafeelingofbelongingtosomethinglargerthanoneself,anentitythatisgreaterthanthesumofitsparts.


ScienceandSpirit:ReconstructionistTheology

forthe21stCenturyBy nancy Fuchs-KReiMeR

noneoftheearlyReconstruction-ist pamphlets, Mordecai Kaplanproudly proclaimed: “Recon- I

“InorderordertoreallyunderstandKaplanweneedtoimaginehimasayoungpersontoday.”—MelScult1

structionismishabituatingJewishlifetothescientificclimateofopinionofourday.”2Andindeeditwas.Ofallthecontemporary movements in Jewishlife,nonehasbeensoidentifiedwithscience as Reconstructionism.3 Sci-ence was a critical challenge, Kaplanbelieved; ifmet, itwould “be to ouradvantagespiritually.”4

Who would have imagined thattheopeningyearsofthe21stcenturyinAmericawouldseeanewlyreviveddiscussion, often acrimonious, abouttherelationshipbetweenreligionandscience?Thebattlesbeingfoughtoverthe teaching of Darwin’s theory ofevolutioninpublicschoolsarepartofalargerconversationinwhathasbeencalledthe“culturewars.”Thescienceclassroom is clearly not the place topursuethatdebate.Thatsaid,thecon-versationaboutscienceandreligionis

wellworthhaving.5That conversation involves what

some believe to be the over-reaching“scientism”thatclaimstoaccountforaspects of life traditionally ceded toreligion.Somepeopleoffaithbelievethatthereareimplicationsofscientifictheory,particularlywhenitmakesin-roads into areas beyond the naturalsciences,whichmaychallengetheverycoreoftheirfaith.Theyarenotwrongto think so.This does not mean thechallengescannotbemet.Thedeeperquestionsraisedbymaterialist,natural-ist social scienceought tobe studiedin courses on comparative religion,andReconstructionistsoughttohavesomethingtocontribute.

A Course for Rabbinical Students

Withthatinmind,inthespringof2004IcreatedacourseattheRecon-structionistRabbinicalCollege(RRC)on“ScienceandReligion.”IchosetofocusonwhatIconsideredtobeanareathatmightposethegreatestchallengetoReconstructionistthought:thegrowing

Dr.NancyFuchs-KreimeristheDirectoroftheReligiousStudiesProgramattheReconstructionistRabbinicalCollege.


impactofbiologyonsocialscience.6Pictureagroupofnativetribesmen

discoveringanautomobileandtryingtodiscoverhowitworkswithoutlift-ingthehood.7WhenMordecaiKaplanwas developing his theology, no onehadeverseenalivingbrain,letaloneagene.Now,advances in technologyhavemadeitpossibleforscientiststo“liftthehood.”Manyscientistsbelieveweareatthebeginningofanincrediblenewerainourknowledgeofourphysi-calselves.Increasingly,socialscientistsaretakingnote,sothatfewtodaydoubtthe increasing importance of biologyinanunderstandingofhumannature,thought and behavior.8 If biology isindeedatthecuttingedgeofthehumansciences,ifanewgenerationofthink-ers — ethnologists, psychobiologists,behavioralgeneticists,cognitiveneuro-scientistsandmore—arecreatingnewchallenges,oughtnotReconstruction-iststobegrapplingwiththem?In1970theSocietyforNeurosciencehad500members;in1998ithad25,000.9Atlastreport,thenumberwasmorethan37,000.Isn’tittimeforustolisteninonwhatisbeingdiscussed?

Itwascleartomethatfuturerabbisshouldlearnaboutcurrentparadigmsinthelifesciencesinordertobeliter-ate in two civilizations.The growingbody of literature on these subjectsincludesmanywidelyreadtitles.10MyguessisthatmoreAmericanJewsreadthe“Science”sectionofthe New York Times eachweek thanpickup a textofJewishtheology.Oneneednotbeareadertobecaughtupinnewculturalparadigms.Inthedayswhenpsycho-analysiswasinascendancy,peoplewho

neverreadFreudwouldtalkabouttheir“Oedipal Complex.”Today, we aremorelikelytohear“thatpersonmusthaveahighserotoninlevel”or“she’saveryright-brainperson.”

Inourcoursewegrappledwiththeimplications of these new views ofthesciencesforourunderstandingofhumannatureandoftheroleofreli-gioninculture.Wealsoprobedtheirimplicationsforreligiousideassuchastheunique sacredness of human life,freewill,moralvalues,humanrights,mystical experience and the healingpowerofprayer.

The Challenge for Kaplan

Kaplan naturalized the traditionalideas ofTorah (seeing it as a histori-callyconditionedhumantext)andofIsrael (denying the Jewish peoplespecialmetaphysicalstatusattheheartof the universe). He left standing,however, a transnatural God. I sug-gest that he found the “rumors”11 ofthisGodinthreeinterrelatedthemes:intheuniquelyhumansoulorspirit,inuniversalethicsandinhope.Theseconceptsmapthetraditional ideasofcreation,revelationandredemption.Intheclass,westudiedeachoneindia-loguewithaparticularareaofscience:the idea of the “soul” with cognitiveneuroscience;theclaimforauniversalethics with evolutionary psychology;andtheconceptofhopewithdevelop-ments in medicine. In particular, wefocusedontheincreasedimportanceofpsychopharmacologyinmentalhealthandofcomplementaryandalternativemethodsintreatingphysicalills.


Inordertogiveanideaoftheworkof thecourse, Iwillbrieflyshareoneof the areas we examined: cognitiveneuroscienceandthesoul.

Neuroscience and the Soul

Whathappensifwebegintounder-standhumanbeingsasmoredeeplyem-beddedinnature?Asbiologybecomesmoreimportantinunderstandinghu-manbehavior,isKaplan’stransnaturallanguage supported or subverted? Asnew technology allows a far deeperunderstandingofourbrains,howdowewanttotalkaboutour“souls”?

In the 1960s a Soviet cosmonautcame back from outer space and re-ported that he definitely did not seeany God up there. A similar reportregardingthesouliscomingfromsomeneuroscientists exploring inner space.Thesoulistypicallythoughtofasthenon-materialorspiritualaspectofthehuman being, what Jewish traditionhasreferredtoas“theimageofGod.”Westernreligionsrestontheassump-tionthatsomekindofspiritexiststhatembodiestheessenceofahumanbe-ing,whatthephilosopherGilbertRylecalled“theghostinthemachine.”Thisspiritisbelievedtobeinhumansbutnotinanimals.Thisisthetraditionalbasisofourreligioussenseofhumanlifeassacredandinviolable.

In1996PopeJohnPaulIIreaffirmedtheCatholicChurch’scentury-oldac-ceptanceofthedoctrineofDarwinianevolutionbyexplainingthatourbod-iesmayhaveevolvedbutoursoulsareprovidedbyGod.Butwhatisasoul?In a famous passage in the Hebrew

Bible,theprophetElijahcallsoutforGodanddiscoversthat“Godwasnotinthefire”butrather“inthestillsmallvoice” (IKings19:12).Kaplanoftenspokeaboutthatstillsmallvoice,butuseddifferentlanguage:

The spiritual insightsofmenarenot fortuitous, but are clues tothe ultimate nature of mankindandtheworld,amanifestationorrevelationofauniversalSpirit,ofwhichthehumansoulisapart.12

Thinking of God as a processratherthanentityinnowaytendstomakeHimlessreal...thesoul-processtooissuperfactual,super-experientialandtransnatural.13

Kaplan also believed that it wasmeaningful to speak of a qualitativedistinction between animals and hu-manbeings. In fact,oneof thewaysherevaluedthe“chosenpeople”con-ceptwastosaythatwhileJewsarenotliftedupaboveotherpeoples,humansthemselves are elevated above otherspeciesbyvirtueoftheiruniqueabilitytohearthe“callofGod,”byvirtueoftheirspirits:

Manalone,ofallcreatures,hearsnot only nature calling him butalsoGod. As such,he isexemptfrom the lawof natural selectionandbecomessubjecttothelawofspiritualselection.14

Thiswasthestill,smallvoice.

Materialist Science

The reigning perspective of main-


stream cognitive neuroscience is thatthereisonlythebraininall itswon-drouscomplexity;whatwehavecalledthe “mind” canfinallybe reduced tothismaterial reality.All themore so,then,dothesescientistsdismisstheideaofsoulorspirit.Mainstreamcognitiveneurosciencehasfaiththatwhateverwedonotyetunderstandaboutthebrainwesomedaywill.

Oneofthemostenthusiasticadvo-catesof thisextremematerialistposi-tionwasFrancisCrick,thewinneroftheNobelPrizeforco-discoveryofthedoublehelix,whoworkedinneurosci-enceuntilhisrecentdeathinhiseight-ies.OneofCrick’scolleagues,describ-ing the possibility of someday beingabletocreateaphysiologicalmeasurefora“pietyindex,”jokinglysuggestedthattheycouldsettheabsolutezeroonthescalebytestingFrancisCrick.15

CrickwroteinThe Astonishing Hy-pothesis:

thesoul?Theredoesseemtobeaself-awarenessandadrivetotranscendencethat is unique to humans. Dr. JohnAllman’sresearchsuggeststhatperhapssomeofourcellsaresimplymore“soul-ful”mattersthanothers.Hehasfoundsomethingcalledspindlecellswhicharefoundinthefrontoinsularcortexofthebrain.17Theylightupwhenpeoplehavemoralquandaries,experienceguiltorperceive injustice.These spindle cellsmayinfactbewhatmakeushuman.Theonlyotherspeciesthathasthemis African apes, and they have manyfewer.Spindlecellsarenotpresentatbirth;theyappearatfourmonthsandmultiplyrapidlyinthefirstfewyearsof life.Are spindlecells the imageofGodinus?

Whetherornotwewilleverfindthelocusofoursouls,peoplecontinuetoexperiencethemselvesashavingamindthatisdistinctfromthebrain.18Theyfeelthemselvestobeonepersonwhopersistsovertime;moreover,apersonwhomakesdecisionsandhasfreewill.Theremaybeanunruly“convention”goingoninourbrains,withmillionsof neurons chatting with each otherday and night, but it feels like thereisalsoa“littleman”or“littlewoman”running things.That decision-makerisus.Outofthisperceptionhasarisenthechaoticfieldof“consciousnessstud-ies,”inwhichwholearraysofdifferentargumentsaremadeforthepropositionthatindeedthereisamindthatismorethanthebrain.

So now for the Kaplan question:Howwillsocialscienceprovetobetoourspiritualadvantage,helpingusfindareconstructedlanguagetotalkabout

“You,”yourjoysandyoursorrows,yourmemoriesandyourambitions,yoursenseofpersonalidentityandfreewill,areinfactnomorethanthe behavior of a vast assemblyofnervecellsandtheirassociatedmolecules...16

Or as one scientist put it, “there areabillioncellsinthereandnotoneofthemknowsorcaresaboutyou.”

Beyond Dualism

Many neuroscientists believe thatdualistic thinking, the distinctionbetweenthematerialandthespiritual,issimplyahabitofmind.Sowhereis


ourcreatedselvesthatisbothmovingand scientifically sophisticated? If wearenotsurewhatconsciousnessis,thenwhatisthesoul?DowewanttofindnewlanguageinwhichtotalkabouttheimageofGodinus?Ifthesoulisindeedidentified as thepart of our materialbrainthatismostsensitive,deepandinner,dowethenincreasethesenseofaweandmysteryinourlives?

The Biology of Mystical Experience

Ifwecan’tlocateasoulinthebraincircuitry,perhapswecanlocatewherethebrainhasreligiousexperiences.TheMay7,2001coverstoryofNewsweekwasentitled“GodandtheBrain.”Wemaynothaveasoul,orevena“self,”butitnowappearsthatsomescientistsclaimtohaveaphotographofthe“Godspot”inthebrain.Thegoodnews(orbad news, depending upon how youinterpret it) is that these scientistsbelieve they are finding the place orplaces where people experience whatfor centuries has been called “God.”What they seem to be identifying istheexperienceof“oneness”reportedbymysticsofmanytraditions,thefeelingthatFreud(whileacknowledgingthathehadneverhadone)calledthe“oce-anicexperience.”

The development of minimallyinvasivehighresolutiontools suchasSingle Photon Emission ComputerTomography (SPECT) has allowedresearchersactuallytowatchdifferentpartsof thebrainatwork.Thereareimplicationsforourunderstandingoflanguage,visionandmanyotherareas

of human behavior. It was inevitablethatresearcherswouldeventuallywantto“see”forthemselves.

Andrew Newberg and Eugened’AquilioftheUniversityofPennsylva-niagainedwideattentionfortheirworkonchartingspiritualexperienceinthebrain.ScanningthebrainsofselectednunsandBuddhists engaged indeepprayerandmeditation,theysuggestedthattheunitivemysticalexperiencecanbedescribedbiologicallyasradicallyre-ducedneuronalactivityintheposteriorsuperiorparietallobe,aregionofthebrain associated with proprioceptionand our ability to “locate” ourselvesin space.The authors conclude that“Mystical experience is biologically,observably and scientifically real.”19

Theybelievetheyhavefoundmaterialtracesofadivinepresence—intheirwords,a“photographofGod.”20

Implications

Researchinthisfieldisinterpretedin wildly different ways.21There arethosewhowoulduse it to reduce allclaims of transcendence to illusion,exultingintheclaimthatwhatwecallspiritual/religiousexperiencesarenow(allegedly)showntobestrictlyphysi-ological innature.At the same time,otherswouldusethesenewstudiesto“prove”thatGodexists,andthatGodcreatedourbrainsthebettertoknow“Him.”22

ThenexttimeIexperienceasenseofonenesswiththeuniverseafterchant-ingordrumming,willIknowinmyheartthatabundleofneuronsinthesuperiorparietal lobe toward the top


andbackofmybrainhasgonedark,and that that is the reason I am notprocessing information about spaceandtimeasusual?Whatwillthatdototheexperience?CanIstillusethatex-periencetofindlifemoreworthwhile?Newbergwouldbe thefirst toadmitthatnoneofhisresearchspeakstothequestionof theological truth,despitewhatthosewithopposingagendaswanttomakeofit.23

InourRRCcourse,weponderedthemeaningof amorebiologicalunder-standing of transcendent experience,alongwith the importof the variousotherfieldsweexploredattheintersec-tionofscienceandreligion.WetriedtounderstandwhatguidanceKaplan’swritingsmightgiveusinsortingitallout.

Kaplan’s Two Voices

ItseemedtomethatKaplanspokein two somewhat different voices. Icall these “the metaphysician despitehimself ”24 and“the spiritualpragma-tist.”25Theformervoiceistheonethatmade claims about theworld, claimsaboutthe“transnatural”realityKaplancalleda“power”ora“process”orlessfrequently, a “force” or an “energy.”InKaplan’sgrandermoments,hesawthispowerasnotonlypersuasivebutultimatelyincontrol.

ConsiderKaplan’sclaimthat“lifeisnotaimlessandfutile,notamereplayof blind and meaningless forces, butthemanifestationofspiritualpurpose,theunfoldingofaplanforhumanco-operationandbrotherhood.”26Itisthiskind of assertion that appeared most

vulnerabletothechallengeofscience,particularlythecutting-edgelifesciencewe studied. Perhaps, these scientistssuggest,thereisnocosmicpurposeorplan,letaloneaspiritorasoul.

Oneoptionwouldbetotakemeta-physics seriously, and try to redoKaplan’s efforts using more sophisti-catedversionsofprocesstheologythathavebeendevelopedinbetterdialoguewithemergingscience.27Untilrecentlythat option has not attracted peopleworkingundertheauspicesoftheRe-constructionistmovement,forreasonsthatIexploreelsewhere.28

Kaplan as Pragmatist

AdifferentpathistohighlightKa-plan’sothervoice,thatofthe“spiritualpragmatist.”JeffreyStoutdefinedphil-osophicalpragmatismas“neverhavingtosayyouarecertain.”29WilliamJames(1842-1910), a great psychologistturnedphilosopher,wasoneofseveralimportantinfluencesonKaplan.30Us-ingWilliamJames,wecanacknowledgesomeofKaplan’smetaphysicalclaimsassignificant“overbeliefs,”whileatthesametimediscoveringawaytospeakplausiblyandpowerfullyaboutfaith.

James explained the differencebetween the metaphysician and thepragmatistthisway.

[Tothemetaphysician]theuniverse[appears]...asakindofenigma,ofwhichthekeymustbesoughtintheshapeofsomeilluminatingorpower-bringingwordorname.That word names the universe’sprinciple,andtopossessitaftera


fashion is to possess the universeitself.“God,”“Matter,”“Reason,”“the Absolute,” “Energy” are somanysolvingnames.Youcanrestwhenyouhavethem.Youareattheendofyourmetaphysicalquest.

Ifyouareapragmatist,however,

youcannotlookonanysuchwordas closing your quest. You mustbringoutofeachworditspracticalcash-value,setitatworkwithinthestream of your experience. It ap-pearslessasasolution,then,thanasaprogramformorework,andmoreparticularlyasanindicationofthewaysinwhichexistingrealitiesmaybechanged.31

ReadingKaplanthroughthelensofJames, we can focus more clearly onthemomentsinKaplan’sworkwhereheabandonedhisclaimtotellustruthsabout a “transnatural” reality andadopted amore consistentpragmatictone.Pragmatismteachesthatthedeci-sionabouttheultimatenatureofthingsleavesonepoisedontheedgeofaknife.Faithisachoice.NoresearchwillproveordisproveGod.AsJamesputit,

IfyouhaveaGodalreadywhomyoubelievein,theseargumentswillconfirmyou.Ifyouareanatheist,theywillfailtosetyouright.32

Kaplan and Religious Experience

Kaplanultimatelybasedhisideasofsoul(andofmoralsandhope)notonassertionsbutonexperience,experience

thathechosetointerpretinacertainway and toward a particular goal. InKaplan’s diary, he described a visitfrom four of his rabbinical studentswhocametoairtheirinnerconflicts.TheycouldnotacceptthetraditionalideaofGod,nordidtheyfindKaplan’salternativeconvincing:

Theyadmittheexistenceofawilltosalvation,buttheyseenoneedfor positing a transcendent cor-relativeofthatwill.OfcoursemycontentionisnotthatIintellectu-allypositit,butthatIexperienceitwiththesameimmediacyasIdomyownself.33

In each of his three major books,Kaplanclearly stated thathedidnotreally expect his metaphysical claimstobeacceptedasclaimsaboutthewaythingsare:

TheGodideaisnotthereasonedallocationofchaos,cruelty,painand death in some neat logicalscheme.Itisthepassionaterefusalofeveryatominthehumanbeingtobeterrifiedbytheseogres.34

God,ifnotassumed,isthemostimpossibleofconclusions.35Men must acquire a religiousfaith, not by being reasoned toabout God, but by experienc-ing God’s power in making lifeworthwhile.36

Where to Look for God

Kaplanwasnot,infact,interestedindissolvingtheideaofGodintohigh-


soundingethicsandspiritualvalues.Inadiaryentryhewrote:

GodasthePowerthatmakesforsalvation isnot intended tobe a“rational”explanationofwhatwemeanby“God.”Itismeanttobea rational method of indicatingwheretolookforthat...incom-prehensible mystery we nameGod.37

Kaplan revalued traditional God-language in an effort to assistpeoplein recognizing the experiences intheirownlivesthatwouldpointthemtowards what their ancestors calledGod.

Itispreciselyherewherethefieldof“neurotheology” is weakest. Most oftheresearchisbeingdonewithaverynarrowviewof“religiousexperience.”The scientists focus on the mysticalexperienceofunity,orlossofasenseofboundaries.Yetthatisonlyoneofmanyexperiencesinlifethatwemightwant tocall “religious.”Weallknowtimes when we have moved beyondthe surface of life and felt access tothe “more” or “plus” of existence.Suchtimesmaybethosethatinvolveconnectionswithpeople;momentsofprofoundsolitude;momentsofbirth,orofdeath;momentsofcommunionwithnature,ormomentsofexperienc-ingart.Theymayinvolvethe“meltingfeeling”ofasummerafternoonor,inJames’memorable oneworddescrip-tion,“Help!”38Theseexperiencesleaveusshaken,moved,drawntoamysterybeyondourselves.

Perhapsreligiousexperiencesprovidenonewinformationabouttheuniverse.

Rather,theygiveustheemotionalim-petustotellcertainkindsofstories.Wemayindeedbenothingbutapackofneuronsandourreligiousexperiencesmaybeneurologicalphenomena;nev-ertheless, the storieswe tell ourselvesaboutthoseexperiencescomefromourhighercognitive functions.Whenwechoosetolinkourselvestoareligiouscivilization,weoptforanarrativetradi-tionthatwillshaperawexperienceinparticularways.

The Value of aReligious Civilization

If there is nothing but matter, allthemoredoweneedstoriestomakemeaning! If there is actually no coreself,allthemoredoweneedtraditiontotellusstoriesaboutwhoweareormightbe!HereiswhereKaplanwouldpointoutthevalueofbeingpartofare-ligiouscivilization—theethicallyrichtreasurehouseofstoriesthatconstitutesourlegacyasJews.Bynamingcertainexperiences“God,”incontinuitywithourancestors,wealsoshapethoseex-periencesusingtheextensivebaggageofJewishtradition.

Kaplan suggested that the sacredstoryoftheJewishpeoplebeseenasamodeofsalvation:

A people does not offer itself toan individual as an instrumentofsalvation inthesamewayasasystemofphilosophyusuallydoes,by appealing tohis reason to ac-cept certain general principles orabstracttruths.Italwayscomestohimwithastoryaboutitselfwhich


he is made to feel is in a deeperandtruersensehis storythantheexperienceswhichareconfinedtohisperson.39

What we do with our experiencesdepends upon the language our cul-tureprovidestoshapethem.Thedeepmetaphorsof the languageof sciencearecoldanduninspired.Attheendofalmostfivehundredpages ofwritingabouttheinfluencethestudyofbiol-ogyoughttohaveonsocialscience,theanthropologistMelvinKonnercametoasurprisingconclusion:

Wemustonceagainexperiencethehuman soul as soul, andnot justasabuzzofbioelectricity;thehu-manwillaswill,notjustasurgeofhormones...Weneednotbelievein them as metaphysical entities—theyareasrealasthefleshandblood they are made of. But wemustbelieveinthem...(they)aremaderealbyourcontemplationofthem,bythewordsweusetotalkaboutthem...Wemuststandinaweof themasunassailable,eventhough they are dissected beforeoureyes.40

WhileKonnertellsuswemustre-imagine a soul, psychologist JeromeBrunnersuggeststhateventheselfmustbeconstructed:

There is no such thing as an in-tuitivelyobviousandessentialselftoknow...Rather,weconstantlyconstruct and reconstruct ourselves to meet the needs of thesituationsweencounter. . .Self-

makingisanarrativeart...guidedby unspoken, implicit culturalmodels of what selfhood shouldbe,mightbe.41

Conservation of Spiritual Energy

Returning to tradition offers ussomethingnottobefoundelsewhere:the accumulated momentum of thespiritualquestofthepast.Kaplancalledthis“theconservationofspiritualen-ergy.”42AndweneednotrelyonlyonourownexperiencestoaccomplishthewillfulcreatingofsoulthatBrunerandKonnertellusissoessential.Evenifwedonothavethoseexperiencesourselves(ordonothavethematagivenstageof life) we may look for God in theexperiencesofothers,inthestoriesofthosewhocamebeforeus.

Furthermore,weneedatraditionofethical discernment to help us judgeourexperiences,fornoteverythingthatfeelsspiritualismorallyhelpful.ItisinrelatingexperiencetothetraditionsofwhatisrightandgoodthatKaplandis-coveredthecriterionforreligiouslife.

Ifanyexperience...ofourinnerlifeisthought[tobe]theDivinePresence. . . itmustlead. . . totheexerciseofjusticeandlove.Ifitfailstodothat,wemerelydeludeourselvesinbelievingthatitisGodweareawareof.43

Concluding Thoughts

Inaspiritualandpragmaticview,re-ligiousbeliefisnotsomekindofcheap


intellectualshortcut.Notwithstandingthe most recent scientific challenges,religious faith remains a compellingoption for intelligent post-moderns.Thepractices of Jewish life canofferexperiences thatcanprovide themo-tivationtotellcertainkindsofstories.The stories offer us a sensibility thathelpsustonoticedimensionsofdepthinexperienceswemightotherwisehavemissed,forasJamespointedout,ourexperienceiswhatweagreetoattendto.ConnectionwiththeJewishpeopleoffersyetanotherboon:therichnessofanarrativepasttofillinthegapsinourown lives.Experiencesof Jews in thepastandoftheJewishpeopleasawholecanbecomepartofour“salvation.”

Ashumanbeingsweareembeddedinnature,farmorethanwemighthavethoughtagenerationago.Aswelearnmore,wediscoverhowmuchwesharewiththeanimalworld.Evenspiritualexperiencemaynotbeuniquetohu-mans.44Butwhatsurelyisoursaloneistheideaoftakingthoseexperiencesandelaboratingthemwithstoriesaboutlovingthestranger,pursuingjusticeandkeeping an eye out for the Messiah.Thereisagooddealoffaithinvolvedinoptingforthosestoriesoverothers,butitisfaiththat,asJamesputit“issettowork.”

Kaplan made the distinction thisway.Whenweseekintellectuallysatis-fyinganswerstotheologicalquandarieswe are “philosophers or metaphysi-cians.”Incontrast,hesays,thoseonareligiousquest“havealwaysbeensat-isfiedwiththemodestfareoffaith.”45

Satisfying, or, (as is more often thecase), deeply challenging, that faith

makessensealongsidewhateversciencemay discover. It is faith premised onexperience,butexperienceaugmentedbythetraditionwhosestorieswewillourselvestomakeourown.

1.Private correspondence to author,2004.2.MelScult,Judaism Faces the Twentieth Century: A Biography of Mordecai Kaplan(Detroit:WayneState,1993)79.3. Robert M. Seltzer, “Which Wissen-schaft? Reconstructionism’sTheologicalAppropriationofSociologyandReligiousNaturalism,” in Andreas Gotzmann andChristian Wiese (eds.) Modern Judaism and Historical Consciousness — Identities — Encounters — Perspectives(Leiden/Bos-ton:Brill,2006).4.MordecaiKaplan,Judaism as a Civiliza-tion(NewYork:Macmillan,1934),307.5.ThefieldofJewishreligiousthoughthasremained remarkably untouched by newdevelopmentsinscience,withtheexceptionofphysics.ThechallengingphilosophicalissuesemergingfromthelifesciencesseemtobelargelyignoredinJewishtheologicalwriting.OnecounterexampleisNorbertSamuelson.See,“TheDeathandRevivalofJewishPhilosophy,”Journal of the American Academy of Religion, March, 2002, 117-134,123.6.IamindebtedtoDr.NoahEfron,aphi-losopherofscienceatBar-IlanUniversitywhoguidedmeinmychoiceoftopicsforthecourse.7. Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2002)42.8. Melvin Konner, The Tangled Web: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit (NewYork:Holt,2002),11.


9.http://apu.sfn.org.10.See,forexample,thebestsellerbySte-phenPinker,The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (NewYork:Pen-guin,2002).11. See Peter Berger, A Rumor of Angels (NewYork:Anchor,1970).12. Mordecai Kaplan, The Future of the American Jew (New York: Macmillan,1948),538.13. Ibid.,183.14.Ibid.,247.15.V.S.Ramachandran,Phantoms in the Brain (NewYork: HarperCollins, 1998),186.16.FrancisCrick,The Astonishing Hypoth-esis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (NewYork:Scribners,1994)3-4.17.SandraBlakeslee,“Humanity?MaybeIt’s in theWiring,”TheNew York Times,December9,2003.18.SeePaulBloom,Descartes’ Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains what Makes us Human (NewYork:BasicBooks,2004).19.AndrewNewbergandEugeneD’Aquili,Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief(NewYork:Ballantine,2001).20.Ibid.21.AgoodoverviewbyajournalistisJohnHogan, Rational Mysticism: Spirituality Meets Science in the Search for Enlightenment (NewYork:HoughtonMifflin,2003).22.CarolAlbright and JamesAshbrook,The Humanizing Brain: Where Religion and Neuroscience Meet (Cleveland:Pilgrim,1997).23. Personal conversation with author,June,2004.24. While Kaplan repeatedly eschewedmetaphysics, JacobStaub,HaroldSchul-weis and William Kaufman have allpointedoutthatmanyofhisclaimsareinfactmetaphysicalones.Seetheiressaysin

Goldsmith, Seltzer and Scult (eds.), The American Judaism of Mordecai Kaplan (NewYork:NYU,1991).25.Inusingthephrase“spiritualpragma-tism”Iamsignalinganaffinityforthekindof pragmatism that James championed,onethatheldthedooropenforreligiousbelief. I acknowledge that today’s post-modern pragmatism can be hostile totranscendence.26. Mordecai Kaplan, The Future of the American Jew,538.27. Lubarsky and Griffin (eds.), Jewish Theology and Process Thought (Albany:SUNY,1996).28.NancyFuchs-Kreimer,“70YearsafterJudaism as a Civilization:Kaplan’sTheol-ogyandtheReconstructionistMovement,”Journal of Jewish Social Studies, forthcom-ing.29. Jeffrey Stout, After Babel (Boston:Beacon,1988)297.30. See Mel Scult, “The Sociologist asTheologian:The Fundamental Assump-tions of Mordecai Kaplan’sThought,”Judaism25(Summer,1976)345-352.Scultpointsout thatKaplanheldadiscussiongroup for rabbinical students devoted toJames’work.31.WilliamJames,“WhatisPragmatism?ANewNameforSomeOldWaysofThink-ing.”Thetextofthis1904lecturecanbefoundatwww.marxists.org/reference/ subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm-��k.32.WilliamJames,TheVarieties of Religious Experience,345.33. March 19, 1943 (unpublished diaryentry,courtesyofMelScult).34. Mordecai M, Kaplan, Judaism as a Civilization (NewYork:Macmillan,1934),330.35. Mordecai M, Kaplan, The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion(Detroit:WayneState,1994),27.36.MordecaiM.Kaplan,The Future of the


American Jew,260.37.KaplanDiary,April28,1956(unpub-lisheddiaryentry,courtesyofMelScult).38.WilliamJames,The Varieties of Religious Experience, 159.39.MordecaiKaplan,Judaism as a Civili-zation, 519.40. Melvin Konner, The Tangled Web: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit (NewYork:HenryHolt,2002),488.41. Jerome Bruner, Making Stories (New

York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002),64-65.42.MordecaiKaplan,Judaism as a Civili-zation,388.43. Mel Scult (ed.), Communings of the Spirit: The Journals of Mordecai M. Kaplan, Volume I 1913-193�(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress),65.44.MelKonner,The Tangled Web,485.45. Mordecai Kaplan, The Future of the American Jew, 243.


TheBlessingofUncertainty:Kaplan,GodandProcess

By ToBa spiTzeR

or a religious person, these areperhapsthebestoftimesaswellastheworstoftimes.Spirituality F

is“in”aspeopleseekdeepermeaninginaworldoverwhelmedbymaterial-ismandcrass consumerism.Religionhasre-enteredthepublicspherewithavengeance.Indeed,wearehearingalotaboutGodthesedays,andaboutGod’struth.Unfortunately,muchofwhatwearehearingtendstowardtheintolerant,therepressiveandeventowardviolence.Those who seem most certain aboutGod’s truth seem equally committedtoasocialvisionthatisreactionary.Atatimeinwhichliberal,open-mindedreligiosity seems to be on the wane,whileavarietyoffundamentalismsgainstrength,whatisareligiousprogressivetodo?

How do we foster ways of think-ingandtalkingaboutGodthatbettermatchourvisionofthewaywewouldlikerealitytobe?CanwefindGodlan-guagethatwillhelppeoplethinkandactinwaysthatarewholesome,toler-ant,life-affirmingandnon-oppressive?HowdowearticulateanunderstandingofGodthatnotonlydoesjusticetoourrelationshipwiththeCreativePoweroftheuniverse,butthatalsoaskssome-thingofusandcallsustoservice?

From Experience to Belief

In trying to answer some of thesequestions,IbeginwithRabbiMordecaiKaplanandhisattemptstoarticulatean understanding of God that wasbothcomprehensibleandcompelling.Kaplan based his discussion of Godontwosuppositions:thatourbeliefinGodstemsnotfromlogicalinferenceor divine revelation, but from livedhuman experience; and, that we cancome to some understanding of thetruemeaningofwhatwecall “God”throughanexplorationofhowbeliefinGodismanifestinhumanlife.Inad-dition,hearguedthatourconceptionofGod—thewaywearticulateourunderstandingof thedivine—mustadaptandchangeashumanconscious-nessandawarenessdevelopovertime.

Kaplanbeginswith theexperienceofaforceorPowerintheuniversethatsupportsandpropelswhathetermedthe human drive for “salvation,” de-fined as “the maximum harmoniousfunctioning of a person’s physical,mental, social, moral, and spiritualpowers.”1Kaplanunderstoodthisdrivetowardssalvationasauniversalhumanexperience,which,heargued,

TobaSpitzeristherabbiofCongregationDorsheiTzedekinWestNewton,Mas-sachusetts.


...impliestheexistenceofcondi-tions that are propitious to life.The will to live abundantly andto achieve one’s destiny likewiseimpliestheexistenceofconditionsthat favorabundant life,or salva-tion.The taking for granted thatsuch conditions exist is the basisofthereligiousconceptionofGod...[as]aPowerpredisposingmantohisultimategood,salvation,orself-fulfillment.2

On theonehand, thevery fact (asKaplanunderstoodit)ofahuman“will”to salvation implies the existenceof acosmicforcethatsupportssuchadrive—aforceforgoodthatwecall“God.”Andfunctionally,itisthroughabeliefinsuchaGodthatone“activates”Godlypower inone’sown life:“Thus in theveryprocessofhumanself-fulfillment,intheverystrivingaftertheachievementofsalvation,weidentifyourselveswithGod,andGodfunctionsinus.”3

Kaplanprofessedtobesuspiciousofmetaphysical pronouncements aboutGod’sessence,andhewasuninterestedintheologicalargumentsaboutGod’sexistence,buthedidnotrefrainfrommaking claims about the reality ofGod. He affirmed the existence of aGodlyPowerintheuniversethatwasactive in the lives of human beings(aswell as in thenatural laws of thecosmos).4YetevenashepositedaGodthatwas“acosmicrealityindependentofman,”5KaplanwasambiguousandinconsistentindefiningthenatureofGod.SowhileIbeginwithKaplan,itisnecessarytogobeyondwhathewaswillingorabletosay.

Reconstructing the Meaning of “God”

Based on my understanding ofKaplan’smethodologyandtheologicalassumptions,Isuggestthesecriteriafora“reconstructed”Jewish theology (innoparticularorder):•OurconceptionofGodshouldaccordwithourbestunderstandingsofphysi-cal truthsabout thecosmos.While Iwould not suggest that scientific in-quirymustbeprivilegedoverallotherformsofknowledge,wedoneedtotakeseriouslythepremisesofevolutionintherealmofbiology,andofquantummechanicsandotherfoundationallawsintherealmofphysics.Iftheknownuniverse is a positive expression ofGodlycreativity,andifdivinityistobefoundwithincreation(bothofwhichare fundamental Jewish ideas), thendivinitymustsharethebasicattributesofthecreatedworld.•OurideasaboutGodshouldresonatewith foundational Jewish teachings.AnyJewishtheologywill,ofnecessity,highlightcertaintrendsandteachingsfromthetraditionoverothers.Butitwouldseemessentialforanycontem-porary Jewish theology to be rootedin significant core Jewish teachingsabout God and the human relation-shiptoGod,evenwhileitmaydenyordiminishotheraspectsofthetradition.GiventheBible’sprimacyinJudaismandWesterncivilizationingeneral,aswellasitscontinued(mis)usebyfun-damentalists,ItakeespeciallyseriouslythemythicandmetaphoricdepictionsofGodintheTorahasprimarytextsforaJewishtheology.


•Our conceptionofGodmusthavefunctionalvalue, inthewaythatKa-planconceivedoffunction.Thatis,wemustexaminecarefullytheimplicationsofabeliefinGodandseeifitfulfillsthe moral imperatives that we deemessentialtoameaningfulandeffectiveJudaism.Howdoesaparticularbeliefmotivateorobligatemetoact intheworld?What are its ethical implica-tions?

God as Process

Inhischallengetosupernaturalcon-ceptionsofGod,Kaplanwrote:

DoestheawarenessofGoddependupon our conceiving God as apersonal being, or may God beconceivedinotherwaysandyetbethesubjectofourawareness,ortheobjectofourworship?...Noth-ingwouldbelostifwesubstituted[forthenotionofapersonalbeing]the one of “process,” which, atleastwiththeaidofscience,mostof us find quite understandable.Why, then,notconceiveGodasprocessratherthanassomekindofidentifiableentity?6

WhileKaplandoesnotmakeclearhere which realm of science he isreferring to, his writing about Godtookshapeasanewmodelofphysicalrealitywastakingholdinthescientificcommunity. With Einstein’s insightthatE=mc2,physicalrealitycouldnolongerbethoughtofasstatic.Energycouldbecomematter, andviceversa;themostelementalbuildingblocksoftheuniversecouldactasparticlesoras

waves.Atitsmostbasiclevel,physicalrealityisflux,change,flow.Similarly,KaplanarguedthatthinkingaboutGodasakindofstatic,identifiableSupremePersonorBeingnolongermadesense,and that instead we needed to thinkaboutGodasaProcessoraPower.

Kaplan did not explore the fullramificationsofthisnotionofGodasProcess.Foramorefullyrealizedunder-standingofwhatsuchaGodconceptmight mean, we need to turn to theinsightsofProcessTheology,whichhasgrownoutofthephilosophyofAlfredNorthWhitehead and the theologi-cal teachings of Charles Hartshorne.Withoutattemptinganoverviewofthisentireschoolofthought,Iwouldliketosketchhereafewkeyideasandthechallengesraisedbythem.

God and Change

TheideaofGodasProcessiscountertoadominantstrainofclassicalJewishas well as Christian theism, both ofwhichmaintainthatGod’sperfectionimplies that God is unchanging (be-causeanychangeinGodwouldimplysomepriordeficiency).Inaccordwithour contemporary understanding ofphysicalreality,processtheologyclaimsthat “process is fundamental . . . tobeactualistobeaprocess.Anythingwhichisnotaprocessisanabstractionfromaprocess,notafull-fledgedactu-ality.”7Inthisunderstanding,realityismadeupofasuccessionofdiscreteyetrelated “actualities” or “events,” eachofwhichincorporatesandsynthesizeselementsof thepastwith thatwhichisnovel andnew.The sourceof that


newness,ofcreativity, iswhatwecall“God.” Not only is God not static,Godis infacttheultimateSourceofpotentiality and change in the uni-verse.God’sperfectionisnotfoundinthequalityofbeingunchanging,butratheras“amaximumofpotentiality,of unactualized power to be.”8 GodastheCreativePoweroftheuniverseis intimately involved intheongoingprocessofreality.

A correlative notion in traditionalJudaism is the rabbinic claim thatGodactivelysustainsthecreatedworldand brings it into being anew everymomentandeveryday.Thisbelief iscodifiedinthemorningliturgy,whenweblesshamehadesh b’khol yom tamid maasei bereshit—theOnewhomakesneweveryday theworkofCreation.IncontrasttotheunchangingGodofthe medieval philosophers, this Cre-ator is the cosmicSourceofnewnessintheworld.WhereprocesstheologytakesthisclaimonestepfurtherisintheassertionthatnotonlyisCreationneweachday,butsoisGod.Godastheultimate“actuality”iscontinuallyachievingnewstatesofbeing,isItselfever-creative.

Biblical affirmation of this Godlyquality of potentiality and change isfoundinthethirdchapterofthebookof Exodus, in Moses’ dramatic en-counterwithGodattheburningbush.AddressedbyadivinebeingwhotellshimtogobacktoEgyptandliberatetheIsraelitesfromslavery,Mosesasks:“who should I say sent me?What isyourname?”

Theanswer comes in threewords:ehyeh asher ehyeh:“IwillbethatIwill

be.” I can think of no less static orunchanginganameforGodthanthis.TheGodthatredeemsandliberatestheJewsfromEgyptisallaboutpotentialand the promise of transformation.ThisGodlyappellationisrelatedtotheotherdivinenamerevealedatthebush:YHVH,“animpossibleconstructionoftheverb‘tobe.’”9Thisnameincorpo-ratesthesenseofGodbeinginallmo-ments,past,presentandfuture,whilealsocapturingthesenseofGodasBe-coming,astheultimatecreativepowerthaturgesustowardever-morecomplexand integrated levels of existence, to-wardfreedomand“salvation.”

WhatisthefunctionalimplicationofsuchaconceptionofGod?IfGodchanges,ifGodistheultimatepotenti-alityofallpotentialities,thenchangeisGodly.Perfectiondoesnotlieinsomefantasyversionofthepast.Nordoesit lie in achieving somefinal state ofcompleteness.Infact,wecouldarguethatsuchastateisimpossible.Change,development and evolution are notjustnaturalaspectsofmaterialreality—theyareitsmostGodlyaspects.AsKaplanargued,

creativity,orthecontinuousemer-genceofaspectsoflifenotpreparedfor or determined by the past,constitutesthemostdivinephaseofreality...ForGodistheCreator,and that which seems impossibletoday [God] may bring to birthtomorrow.10

Akeyaspectofreligiousfaithisthebeliefthattheuniverseisconstructedinsuchawayastosupportoureffortstowardschangeandgrowth,andpart

.


ofourGodlytaskhereonearthistobepartnersintheprocessofbecoming.

The “All-Knowing” and “All-Powerful” God

TheclassicalideathatGod’sperfec-tionmeansthatGodisunchangingisgenerallyaccompaniedbytwoassoci-atednotions:thatGodisomniscient,orall-knowing,andsodoesnotlearnanything not already known to God(forsuch learningwould implysomedeficiency in God’s knowledge); andthatGodisomnipotent,orall-power-ful,meaning that (theoretically)GodcandowhateverGodwantsinrelationtothecreateduniverse.IfGoddidnotexert total control, then that wouldimplyadeficiencyinGod’spower.

These conceptions of God’s om-nipotenceandomnisciencearehighlyproblematicinnumerousways.NeitheraccordswithhowGodisdepicted intheTorah.BeginningwiththeearliestchaptersofGenesis,Godappearstobeon a continual learning curve.WhatwillhappenwhenhumanbeingseatofthetreeofknowledgeofgoodandevilintheGardenofEden?IntheGarden,Godlearnsabouthumanfreewill.Godthenlearnsaboutthehumancapacityfor murder when Cain and Abel getintohumanity’sfirstdeadlyfight.Whenhuman violence and wrongdoing gettotallyoutofhand,GodchangesGod’smind,anddecidestobringafloodtowipeoutnearlyallofCreation.IfwetakeseriouslythequestionsGodasksandthechallengesGodfacesinthesestories,itishardnottoconcludethattheGodofGenesisisaBeingorPower

for whom the act of creation bringswithitanongoingprocessoflearning,adaptationandchange.

Whenitcomestotheissueoffreewill,andtherelationofhumanpowertoGod’spower, theTorah takesveryseriouslythenotionthatpowerisnotthemonopolyoftheHolyOne.Fromthe very beginning of the book ofGenesis,Goddoesnot,cannot,controlwhathumanbeingsdo.Humanpowerandhumanchoicearereal.TheTorahbeginswithachoice:AdamandEve’schoicetoeatfromthetreeofknowledgeofgoodandevil.AndtheTorahendswithachoice:Moses’challengetotheIsraelites to choose life and the pathofgood.FortheTorah,choiceisreal,humanfreedomisreal,andthroughoutmostoftheFiveBooksofMosesGodmust deal with the messy reality ofhumans having the power to chooseandtoact.

Coercive vs. Persuasive Power

WhatIhavelearnedfrommyread-ingofprocesstheologyisthatacceptingtherealityofhumanfreedomdoesnotmeanthatweneedtothinkofGodassomehowpowerlessorirrelevantintherealm of human action. Rather, reli-giousthinkershavemadethemistakeof attributing to God only one kindofpower—coercivepower,whichiscompletepoweroversomeoneorsome-thing.Godhasallthepower,andnoth-ingandnooneelse,ineitherthenaturalorhumanrealms,canexertmeaningfulpower,becauseanomnipotentGodcannullifyanyhumanaction.

Butintheviewofprocesstheology,


as inKaplan’swritings,reality is fun-damentally relational. Nothing existsinisolation.God’spowerisinherentlyrelational,inthatitmustreckonwithandrelatetothefreedomandthepowerto act of others. Divine power existsalongwith the realpower exertedbycreatedbeingswhosefreedomisreal.

TheTorah’smostdirectcritiqueofcoercivetyrannicalpoweristhestoryoftheconfrontationbetweenYHVHandPharaohinEgypt.Pharaohisthearchetype of the kind of power thatadmitsofnomistakeandthatrefusestochange,togrowandtoadapttonewcircumstances.EachtimethatPharaohtemporarily relents and agrees to letthe Israelites go, his stubborn naturereasserts itself, his “heart hardens,”andheandhispeople sufferunderanewplague.Opposedtothistyranni-calpoweristhevastlysuperiorpowerof ehyeh asher ehyeh.And thatpowercannotactalone;itneedsMoses,anditneedstheIsraelites,totakesomeroleinenactingtheirownfreedom.

YHVHdoesnotmiraculouslyairlifttheIsraelitesoutofEgypt;YHVHdoesnotallowMoses towiggleoutofhisresponsibilitytodohispartinbring-ingthepeopleout.AsHartshorneputsit, “Supreme creativity permits anddemandsadivisionofcreativepower...Theidealformofpowerdoesnotmonopolizepower,butallotstoalltheirduemeasureofcreativeopportunity.”11Indeed,everytimethatGodthinksitpossibletodestroytheinsolentIsraelitesandstartover,MosesremindsGodthatGodwouldnotbetheUltimatePowerwithoutthispartnership,withoutbe-ing inmutualrelationwithahuman

communitythatmustultimatelyhavetheabilitytoactforitself.

Persuasion and Salvation

Intheterminologyofprocesstheol-ogy, God’s power is indeed ultimate,butitisprimarilypersuasive,notcoer-cive.ThisnotionofpersuasivepowerisrelatedtoKaplan’sideaofsalvation,here extended beyond the humanrealm.Everycreatedbeinghasanaimor ideal towardwhich it tends, seek-ingitsownultimatefulfillment.Godis theCreativePower that establishesthisaim,andthensustainsandurgesbeings towards that fulfillment. ButGod doesnot control the particularsoftheprocess,andintheunfoldingofcreationthereisroomforchanceandforchoice—andfortheattendantriskandsufferingthattheymaybring.12

Attheburningbush,Moses learnstwo things about God: God is ehyeh asher ehyeh,thetransformativeprocessofBecoming;andYHVHisapowerthatrespondstosufferingandcallsforhumanaction.InresponsetothecriesoftheIsraelites,YHVHurgesMosestobecomeGod’spartnerinthetaskofre-deemingthisslavepeople.MosesresistsmightilyGod’sdemands,butintheendhereturnstoEgyptandbeginsthelongprocessofliberatingtheIsraelites.

ThisTorahstoryisametaphorforGodexercisingpersuasive,notcoercive,power.Inthisunderstanding,Godof-fers an ideal towardwhichwe strive,andGodisthePowerthaturgesustorespondtosuffering,toseekourownfulfillmentandtohelpotherstowardtheirfulfillment.Thismanifestationof


Godlypowerencouragesustodothegood,andoffersdirectionifwelearnhowtofollowit.Itcannotmakeusactforthegood;asweknowalltoowell,people can always choose to do evil.But our tradition teaches that therewill be consequences for defying theGodlypath, andblessings reaped forfollowingit.

Reconstructing Mitzva

It is in the context of this under-standing of Godly persuasive powerthatIwouldsuggestaReconstruction-ist understanding of the traditionalnotionofmitzva, of holy obligation.WithaprocessunderstandingofGod,wedonothave to choosebetween afundamentalistunderstandingofGodlycommands on the one hand, and amoralrelativismontheother.Buthowcanwepreserveasenseofobligation,ofsomethingbeingdemandedofusasJews,ashumanbeings,oncewerejecttheideaoftheall-powerfulandcom-mandingGod?

The traditional understanding ofmitzvaflowsfromatraditionalunder-standingofrevelation:Torah,withitsmultipleinstructionsanddemands,wasrevealedbyGodatSinai.InKaplan’sformulation, God does not revealGodselftous,ratherwediscoverGod.WediscoverhowGodworksandwhatGodwantsofusinourexplorationofthe laws of thenatural universe, andinthedevelopmentofourmoralandspiritualsensibility.

Furthermore,accordingtoKaplan,belief in God entails “the faith thatreality,thecosmos...issoconstituted

thatitbothurgesusonandhelpsustoachieveoursalvation,provided,ofcourse,we learntoknowandunder-standenoughaboutthatrealitytobeabletoconformtoitsdemands.”13Wearenothandedoursalvationonaplate.Rather, our spiritual and ethical goalis “toknowandunderstand enough”about the reality of the cosmos “tobe able to conform to its demands.”Theprocessofdiscoverycorrelatestothetraditionalnotionofrevelationasan experienced awareness not just ofGod’sexistence,butofa relationshipwiththedivine,andofaresponsetothedemandsofdivinity.

Finding Deeper Truth

Therewillalwaysbedebateastothenature of the reality of “the cosmos”andwhatitdemandsofus.Iscompleterandomnessandchancetheunderpin-ningofreality?Doesanarrowlydefined“survivalofthefittest”exemplifynatu-ral law?Whichisthedeepertruthofourhumanexistence:theadamantki tov (“declaredgood”)oftheCreationstory,or the tenaciousyetzerra (urgeto evil) thatGod accepts as inherentinhumanityaftertheFlood?

Withoutpresumingtoanswerdefin-itivelyanyofthosequestions,Ibelieveitispossibletomakesomeaffirmationsaboutthenatureofhumanityandofthecosmostohelpus inthisprocessof discovery. Evolutionary processesleadingtoincreasinglycomplexformsof lifeand levelsofconsciousnessareonefundamentalaspectofreality.

Another important aspect is dis-cussedbyKaplaninhisarticle,“When


Is a Religion Authentic?” Here, hearguesforthecentralityofaprocesshecalls“ontologicalpolarity.”

Thisistheprocesswhichunderliesallothercosmicpolarities,presentinnatureandidentifiedinphysics,chemistry, biology, psychology,andsociology.Thatistheprocesswherebyeverythingintheuniversepossesses an individuality of itsownandatthesametimeinteractswithwhateverisinitsfield.14

Kaplan’s claim here is akin to theprocesstheologians’claimthatphysicalreality—fromtheleveloftheatomtothelevelofhumanbeings—isinher-entlyrelational,andthatGod’snaturereflects this reality.15 Kaplan suggeststhatabasicfeatureofcreatedrealityistheunfoldingofeachindividual’ssalva-tioninthecontextofitsrelationshipsto other individuals, and that this isthe foundation of moral responsibil-ity: “When this cosmic synthesis ofindividuation and interaction func-tionsintheindividual,orinsociety,asindependence and interdependence,itisexperiencedasasenseofrespon-sibility,orasconscience.”Thegoalofreligious belief and practice, then, isthefosteringofmoralresponsibilityinhuman beings, which is “the humanmanifestation of the overall creativeprocessinnature.”16

The Covenantal ProjectThetraditionalJewishcorrelativeof

thisnotionistheTorah’sradicalclaimthathumanbeingscan—indeed,mustenter into mutual relationship with

theSourceofCreation,arelationshipwhichnecessitatessharingaholywayoflifetogetherasacommunity.Thisistheessential meaning of brit (covenant),anditisthefoundationforourentiresystemofritualandethicalobligationand practice.Within the conceptualframework of brit, the teachings ofprocesstheologytakeaparticularshape.TheCreativePowerofthecosmoscallsto an oppressed people to enter intorelationship with Itself and with oneanother.Thefreedominherentinthisrelationship, the herut inscribed onthetabletsofthecovenant,isthereal-ityofhumanchoiceframedbyGod’spersuasivepower.IntheTorah’swords,toenter intocovenant is tobecalledto“chooselife.”Thispersuasivepowerisnotjustademandbutanaspectofreality—itisthatwhichgivesshapetooursalvationandwhichurgesusontowardsit.

Because theworld anduniverse inwhichweliveshareabasicqualityofinterrelatednessandinterdependence,thecovenantalprojectisrelationalandsocialinnature.TheTorahframesitsblessingsandcursesintermsofcom-munalandenvironmentalsalvationanddestruction: the entirepeoplewillbedispersedandsuffer,theearthitselfwillbeaffected, ifGod’shesed and tzedekaretrampled.

SalvationintheTorah’sconceptionis based on an ecology of good andbad,inwhichindividualactionshaveeffectsbeyondtheindividual.Mitzvais the obligation of the individual toaspiritualandethicalpaththatmakespossiblethesalvationnot justofthatindividual, but of the community as

.

.


whole. Tzedek and hesed— distribu-tivejusticeandcovenantallovingcareand support — are the duty of thecommunitytoeachmember.Holinessisachievedwhenbothpartiestothere-lationship,humanbeingsandGod,areabletofulfilltheircommitmentstooneanother,andinsodoingtocomeintothefullnessofthe“cosmicsynthesisofindividuationandinteraction.”

Some Next Steps

A reconstructed understanding ofGod,informedbytheinsightsofpro-cesstheology,hasseriousimplicationsforsocio-politicaldiscourseaswellasforourlivesasindividuals.IfweacceptthenotionofGodasaPowerthatem-bodieschangeandtransformation,thenitiswrong,perhapsevenblasphemous,foranyreligiouscommunitytoclaimtoknow“God’sword,”ortoclaimthat“God’s word” is set and unchangingforalltime.ThishumanarroganceofpresumingtoknowabsolutetruthisthekindofcertaintythatmotivatesthosewhooppressinthenameofGod.Anditisnocoincidencethatthosewhoaremostcertain—whethertheyareJewishorChristianorMuslim—alsotendtobethemostauthoritarian,thosemostliabletoimposeacoercivepowerthattheyassociatewiththeirunderstandingofGod.

The process critique of coercivepower and of unchanging perfectionasanythingbutGodlyisanimportantcorrective to the tendency to see arefusaltoadmitmistakesandarrogantover-reachingassignsofstrongleader-ship.Thereareclearpoliticalimplica-

. tions foraffirmingthe ideaof sharedcreativepowerasthemostGodlyformofpower.Inaddition,theaffirmationoftheinherentlycreative,changingnatureofrealityandofthedivineisasignifi-cantrejectionofthereligiousidolatryofapatriarchal,oppressivepast.

Onthelevelofourdailylives,ifwecometoanunderstandingofGodasthe Power that embodies and exem-plifies creativity, changeandongoingtransformation,thenwecanembraceasGodlytherealityofuncertainty,riskandchanceinourownspiritualjour-neys.WecantakeseriouslythedeepestteachingofthestoryoftheExodus:thatrealfreedomislikeajourneyintothewilderness,ajourneythatpromisesen-counterwiththedivineandnewteach-ingsabouthowtoliveafullhumanlife—butonethatalsobringsaninherentriskofconflictandofsuffering.

Weoftendoourutmosttoexertcon-trol.Buttherealityisthatourdesireforcontrolmoreoftenincreasesoursuffer-ing,becausewefindourselvesfightingtherealityofourlives.Webecomeun-abletolivewithinthatreality,whenwereallydonothaveanyotherchoice.Onsomelevel,ourdesireforcontrolistherootofidolatry,becausewhatareidols,ifnothumanlymadeartifactsthatcanbe manipulated by their creators?ToallowforglimpsesofGodlinessinourlives,toopenourselvestoanongoingawareness of God’s presence in thisworld,weneedtolearntolivewiththeblessingofuncertainty.

Toblessuncertaintyistounderstandandacceptthelimitsofourownhu-manpowerinthefaceoftheawesomemysteriesofCreation.Itistoacceptthe


fragilityandtemporarynatureofourownlivesasapartofGod’screation.Itistoaccepttheveryrealrisksofourhu-manfreedom,andtoacknowledgetherealityofsuffering,ourownandthatofothers.Outofthatexperiencecomescompassion,andanunderstandingofGod’snatureasEl hanun v’rahum,thegraciousandcompassionateOne.

Toblessuncertaintyis,intheproph-et Micah’s words, to “walk modestlywith God,” as we seek to do justiceandtolovegoodness.Wemayfeelverydeeply our commitments to creatingholy community, to building a justsociety—buthowdoweactonthosecommitments with the right mix ofconvictionandhumility?Howdowemaintain an attitude of willingnessto learn, an openness to an ongoingunfoldingof truth,whenwe are try-ing to act ondeeplyheld values andideals?To“walkmodestlywithGod”meansthatwearealwayslearninghowtobringjusticeandloveintoourlives,into our communities and into oursocieties.Toembraceuncertaintydoesnotmeantomakealltruthrelative,tothrowmoralityoutthewindow,tosaythatanythinggoes.Itis,rather,tobringaverytraditionalsortofhumilitytotheprojectofdiscoveringwhatisaskedofusbytheuniverse.

Whenwefinishasimplemeal,itistraditionaltoreciteabrakha ahrona,a“finalblessing.”Thisblessingcontainsthese wise words: “Blessed are you,Adonai,whocreatesmanyandvariouslivingbeingswiththeirhisronot,theirdeficiencies.”Inthisprojectofunder-standingwhatGod isandwhatGoddemandsofus,letusacknowledgeand

.

blessourhisronot,thoseplaceswherewearestillinprocess,thoseemptyspacesthatarenotyetfilled.Letusblessouruncertainties.

1.MordecaiM.Kaplan“WhenIsaReli-gionAuthentic?” The Reconstructionist Vol.30No.11,15.2.MordecaiM.Kaplan,The Future of the American Jew (NewYork:TheReconstruc-tionistPress,1981),172.3.MordecaiM.Kaplan,The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion(NewYork:TheReconstructionistPress,1962),26.4.“Ifhumanbeingsarefrustrated,itisnotbecausethereisnoGod,butbecausetheydonotdealwithrealityasitisactuallyandpotentiallyconstituted.”Kaplan,Meaning of God op.cit. 26-275. William E. Kaufman, “Kaplan’s Ap-proachtoMetaphysics,”inThe American Judaism of Mordecai M. Kaplan, eds.Emanuel S. Goldsmith, Mel Scult, andRobertM.Seltzer (NewYork:NewYorkUniversity Press, 1990), 277. KaufmanarguesthatKaplandidindeedmakemeta-physicalclaims,butthat“themetaphysicalstatusofGodinKaplan’sthoughtremainsproblematic”(278).6.Kaplan,The Future of the American Jew, op. cit. 182-83.7.JohnB.Cobb,Jr.andDavidRayGriffin,Process Theology: An Introductory Exposi-tion(Philadelphia:TheWestminsterPress1976),14.8.CharlesHartshorne, cited inSantiagoSia, God in Process Thought (Dordrecht:MartinusNijhoffPublishers,1985),39.9.ArthurGreen,Seek My Face, Speak My Name: A Contemporary Jewish Theology (NorthvaleNJ:J.Aronson,1992),19.10. Kaplan, Meaning of God, op.cit. 62,67.

. .


11. Sia, God in Process Thought, op.cit. 78,80.12.There are parallels between the roleof chance and freedom in process theol-ogyandthe“space”describedinLurianicKabbalahasbeingcreatedthroughGod’sactof tzimtzum (“contraction”).It is this“space” in which contingency arises, realchangeaswellashumanchoice,andthusis the place where evil and suffering canarise.ItisnotunrelatedtoGodyetisnotentirelycontrolledbyGod.InthewordsofWilliamE.Kaufman,Creationrepresents“theonecoercivedivineact,atragicactinwhichGodnecessarilyandinherentlyrelin-quishesHisabsolutepowerforthechanceandriskandendlessvarietyofnaturalandhuman becoming.” The Evolving God in

Jewish Process Theology (Jewish Studies,Vol. 17; NewYork: Edwin Mellen Press1997)176-177.13.Kaplan,The Future of the American Jew, op.cit.182(emphasisadded).14.Kaplan,“WhenisaReligionAuthen-tic?”op.cit. 1515.CobbandGriffinexploretheideaofinterrelatedness inWhitehead’s thoughtinProcess Theology, 18-24.Kaufmandis-cussesbothHartshorne’sandWhitehead’sapproaches to God’s engagement with(includingbeingaffectedby)theworldandhumanbeingsinThe Evolving God in Jewish Process Theology,41-46,60-71.16.Kaplan,“WhenIsaReligionAuthen-tic?”op.cit. 15


TowardaRedefinitionofReconstructionism

By daniel GoldMan cedaRBauM

“. . . at seventy to ripeold age, ateightytoremarkablestrength...”

—Pirke Avot5:21

maryvehicleforthedisseminationofReconstructionismseemsanappropri-atemoment to reflecton the currentstateandthefutureofourmovement.On an institutional level, the centralorganizationsofthemovement—theJewish Reconstructionist Federation,the Reconstructionist Rabbinical As-sociation and the ReconstructionistRabbinicalCollege—areallstrongerthan at any time in their respectivehistories.Preciselybecauseof this in-stitutional stability,wenowhave theluxury of looking seriously at whatReconstructionism,asaphilosophicalapproachtoJudaism,shouldmeanaswebeginournext70years.

Retaining Our Roots

AlldiscussionsofReconstructionismshouldstillbeginwithitsfounder,Mor-decaiM.Kaplanandhis1934magnum opus,Judaism as a Civilization: Toward A Reconstruction of American-Jewish Life.

he celebration of the 70thbirthday of this great journalthatsolongservedasthepri- T

DanielGoldmanCedarbaumisPresidentoftheJewishReconstructionistFederationandamemberoftheJewishReconstructionistCongregationinEvanston,Illinois.

Kaplan’s program for a radically newapproach to American Jewish life, asrefined(andtosomeextentmodified)inThe Future of The American Jew(1948)and subsequent works over his longcareer,mustremainthefoundationofanyedificethatcanproperlybecalledReconstructionism.ButthediscussionscertainlyshouldnotendwithKaplan.

Speaking as a “classical KaplanianReconstructionist,”Irejectthechargeleveledbysomecriticsinthemovementthatpeoplelikemea)insistontreatingallofKaplan’sideasassacrosanct,andb)refusetoallowforevolutionarychangewithintheveryschoolofthoughtthatbelievesallhealthyreligiousmovementsare marked by evolutionary change.Reconstructionism has evolved overthepastseventyyears,bothwithinandbeyondKaplan’swritings,anditshouldcontinuetoevolve.ButinthiscontextIliketokeepinmindRabbiEmanuelGoldsmith’scaveatthatnotallchangeis evolutionary; indeed, some changeis devolutionary. Evolution impliesprogress, however unfashionable andindefinitetheconceptcurrentlymaybe.Excludingwomenwhendeterminingthepresenceofaminyan, tociteoneprovocative hypothetical, would be achange,butitwouldcertainlynotbe


evolutionary.Moreover, “change for change’s

sake,”whichseemstobethebattlecryof many contemporary Reconstruc-tionists,strikesmeasapoorbasisonwhich to make ideological decisions.ThosewhoregardmakingchangestoKaplanian precepts as self-evidentlybeneficialremindmeofthewell-knowntalmudic story inwhichthemajorityoftherabbispresentadheretoapar-ticularhalakhicconclusionevenaftertheylearnthatGodwouldhavemadethe opposite decision. Some of ourcontemporary“change fanatics” seemtobe recastingKaplan in the role ofGod,andattributingtohimwhattheTalmudpurportstobeGod’sfamousobservation: “My children have de-featedme,Mychildrenhavedefeatedme.”That Kaplan may, through hisownprinciples,haveconferredonsub-sequentgenerationstherighttochangeReconstructionism tells us nothingaboutwhethermakinganyparticularchangeisawisethingtodo.

Salvation as Central

HowthenshouldwedecidewhichpartsofKaplan’sReconstructionismtopreserve,andwhichtochange?Kaplanhimselfgivesusapowerfulanswer:Weshouldpreservethoseaspectsofclassi-cal Reconstructionism that functioneffectively in promoting “salvation,”inKaplan’ssenseoftheterm:fortheindividual, fulfillment through thediscoveryofultimatemeaninginlife;forthecommunity,fulfillmentthroughtherealizationofitshighestideals.If,after careful consideration, aspects of

classicalReconstructionismarefoundnolongertosupport“salvation,”theyshouldbediscarded.

ThusfarmydiscussionofevolutionwithinReconstructionismhasbeenab-stract.Turningnowtoaconsiderationof paradoxes pertaining to Kaplan’sworkandthoughtwillprovideausefulframeworkwithinwhichtomakemyargumentsconcreteandspecific.

The Paradox of Kaplan’s Influence

In his essay, “Kaplan’s Judaism AtSixty: A Reappraisal,” Arnold EisenprovidesthefollowingpithysummaryofKaplan’simpact:

Kaplan’s successes were notable.DefinitionofJudaismasa“civiliza-tion”ratherthana“religion”quicklybecameroutine.Synagoguesbythehundredsturnedintocommunitycenters.EducatorscarriedKaplan’smethod and his message to Jew-ish schools across America. Andmost important of all, perhaps,thousandsofJewswhopreviouslyhadnouseforGodorsynagoguescould now feel themselves goodJews,takepartinthelifeoftheirpeople and attach themselves toJewishtradition,thankstoKaplan’sredefining Judaism in away thatincludedthem.

InotherrespectsKaplan’scrusadefailed dramatically to persuade.Closesttohome,theConservativeleadershipattheSeminaryrefusedtogoalongwithhisreductionofGodtoanimpersonalforceandof


halakha(Jewishlaw)to“folkways.”In the sixties, Kaplan’s followersfinally got the master’s blessingfor secession from Conservatismandfoundedafourthmovement,Reconstructionism.It,too,failedto convert the vast majority ofAmerican Jews to Kaplan’s ban-ner. Increasingly, it seems, thosediscontentedwithexistingJewishpatterns have simply abandonedthecommunityanditsinstitutionsaltogether,whiletheaffiliatedhavefound satisfaction inside exist-ingmovements,evenwhentheirownpersonalbeliefsandbehaviorresembleKaplan’s.The paradox is striking. Recon-structionismneverwonmasssup-portandtodayattractsonlyaboutone percent of American Jewry—yetKaplan’sachievementoverthepast fifty years has been im-mense.Toaremarkableextent,theanalysisandtheprogramsetforthinJudaism as a Civilization guidedandevendominatedthewholeofAmericanJewishdebatefortherestofitsauthor’slongandactivelife.1

AnotherwaytoframeEisen’spara-doxistonotethattodayasignificantnumberofNorthAmericanJewsout-sideoftheReconstructionistmovementidentifythemselvesas“Kaplanians”butnotas“Reconstructionists.”(Thisgroupconsists disproportionately of Jewishcommunalleaders,particularlyConser-vativeandReformrabbis.)Moreover,asignificantnumberofNorthAmericanJewswithintheReconstructionistmove-

menttodayclaimthattheyare“Recon-structionists”butnot“Kaplanians.”(Thisgroup seems to consistdisproportion-atelyofJewsundertheageof55.)Theseparadoxescanberesolvedifwecancometounderstandingsof the terms “Kap-lanian” and “Reconstructionist” thatturn the expressions “non-KaplanianReconstructionist” and “non-Recon-structionistKaplanian”intooxymorons.DoingsoisimportantforthehealthoftheReconstructionistmovement.

In approaching these definitionalproblems,weshouldalwaysbeaskingthequestion:What justifies our exis-tence as a separate movement, whenKaplan’scommitmenttoklal Yisraelsug-gestedthebreakingdownofboundariesbetween Jewish groups? Ifwe cannotidentifyuniqueandimportantcontribu-tionsthattheReconstructionistmove-mentismakingorcanmaketoJewishlife,ifallweareorweretobecomeisasmallerversionof theConservativeortheReformmovement, then Iwouldwanttobeginmergerdiscussionswithoneofthosemovements.Putbluntly,ifReconstructionismdoesnotandcannotbemadetohaveauniquefunctioninpromoting the salvationof the Jewishpeople,thenitshouldceasetoexistasaseparatemovement.

What is Unique to Reconstructionism?

Returning to foundational prin-ciples,wecouldclaimthatallRecon-structionists,andallKaplanians,defineJudaismastheevolvingreligiousciviliza-tionoftheJewishpeople.Thisistrue,butitdoesnothelpusinidentifyingthe


distinctive featuresofReconstruction-ism.Theproblem,asEisenpointsout,is thatKaplan’s definitionof Judaismhas been so pervasive, reaching eveninto the realmofmodernorthodoxy,thatwhatwasonceviewedasadaringand evenheretical innovation is nowespousedbyalmostallJewswhothinkaboutsuchmatters.

Wecouldtryagainbyclaimingthatall Reconstructionists, and all Kap-lanians,viewthecreationandnurtur-ingof“caring,participatory, inclusive,egalitarianreligiouscommunitiescom-mitted to exploring Jewish life withdedication, warmth and enthusiasm”asfundamentallyimportanttasks.Theproblemagainisnotwiththevalidityofthepropositionbutwiththefactthatalmost all non-orthodox Jewsoutsideof the Reconstructionist movementembraceitaswell.

Reaffirming the Importance of Reason

IstheReconstructionistmovement,then, leftwith anybasic attributesorprinciplesthataretrulydistinctive?Ab-solutely.First,weshouldproudlypointtoourpassionforreason.Thismayatfirstsoundalmosttrivial,butitisvitallyimportant,particularlyatthismomentwhentheforcesofreligiousirrationalitybothinsideandoutsideoftheUnitedStatesareaseriousandgrowingthreattomanyofthevaluesthatwecherish.PerhapsnoteachingofKaplan’sismoreimportantatthismomentthanhisin-sistencethatwenotleaveourmindsatthedoorwhenweenterthesynagogue.Kaplan’slegacyofanunbendingcom-

mitmenttointellectualhonesty,arefusaltobringdifferentstandardsofintellec-tualintegritytomattersofreligionthantoothermattersofhumanconcern,isarguablythesinglefundamentaldefin-ingattributeofReconstructionism.

I recognize, of course, the centralplacethatvariousformsofrationalismhavehadinJewishintellectualhistoryover the past two millenia. I do notmeantosuggestthatanawarenessoftheimportanceofreasonisabsentintheReform,ConservativeandmodernOrthodoxmovements.But,attheriskofsoundingchauvinistic,Ihavebeeninmanynon-Reconstructionist syna-gogueswhere,ifmindswerenotexactlycheckedatthedoor,neitherweretheyinvited in to analyzewhatwasbeingstudied and prayed in the sanctuary.When rabbis innon-Reconstruction-ist synagogues do encourage criticalanalysis of central tenets of Judaism,theyoftenencounterstrongresistance.Notlongago,tociteonewell-publicizedexample, a prominent ConservativerabbishockedandangeredmuchofhiscongregationbyquestioninginasermonthehistoricityoftheExodusstory.

Intellectual Scrutiny

Atourbest,Reconstructionistsde-mandthatallreligiousissues,extend-ingeventothecorecategoriesofGod,TorahandIsrael,besubjectedtorigor-ousrationalscrutiny; the intensityofourrationalismisauniquecharacter-istic of our movement.We refuse toexemptanyreligiouspracticefromthetestofpragmatism,inthephilosophicalsenseoftheterm:ifthepracticedoes


notandcannotbereinterpretedsoastofunctioneffectively,thenitshouldceaseto be a communal norm (althoughwisely,aheavyburdenofproofshouldbeplacedonthosechallengingalong-establishedpractice).

Ourprofoundcommitmenttoratio-nalanalysisshouldentailasharpdistasteforirrationalpractices(asdistinguishedfrom non-rational practices). For ex-ample,althoughnothingisinherentlyobjectionable about services for thehealingofthesickthathavebecomesopopularinliberalJewishcircles,someReconstructionistsareconcernedaboutclaims that such prayers have actualtheurgic power, claims made in thefaceofmultiplescientificstudiestothecontrary.(Therepeatedchantingofaversefromapsalm,ontheotherhand,may produce a powerful emotionaleffect that, although non-rational, isentirelypositive.)

Democratic Decision Making

Anotherpowerfullydistinctivechar-acteristic of Kaplanians and Recon-structionistsisadevotiontodemocraticdecision making, even in matters ofritualpractice.Thisbroadlyparticipa-tory approach to congregational andmovement-widegovernance,explicitlyadaptedfromtheAmericansystemofgovernment, rests on a uniquely Re-constructionist understanding of therelationshipbetween rabbis and con-gregants as a partnership. Althoughtheconceptionofthatpartnershiphasevolved in recent years away from astrictly egalitarian model toward oneof the rabbi as “managing partner,”

the Reconstructionist model remainsstrikinglydifferentfromthe“governor/governed”conceptionoftherabbi/con-gregant relationship that prevails inothermovements.

The most striking example of thispartnershipwas theReconstructionistprayerbookcommissionthatwascom-posedalmostequallyofrabbisandlaypeople,thefirsttimeinmodernJewishhistorythatlaypeoplehaveplayedsucharole.Iarguedinthisjournalseveralyearsagothatacommitmenttocom-munity in a strong sense of the termrequiresacommitmenttointerpersonalobligation(mitzva)inastrongsenseofthe term.2 By applying a democraticdecision-makingprocesstothecreationofasocialcontractthatwouldserveasthefoundationforareconstructionofJewishlaw,theReconstructionistmove-ment could make another importantcontributiontotheevolutionofJewishcivilization.Icontinuetohopethatthemovementwillmoveinthatdirection.

Twoother fundamentalprinciples,onetheologicalandtheotherliturgical,should unite Kaplanians and Recon-structionistsandinsodoinghelpbettertodefineourmovementanditsuniqueroleinJewishlife.Thosetwoprinciples,Ibelieve,followfromtheresolutionoftwootherKaplanianparadoxes.

The Paradox of Kaplan’s Theology

Kaplanwasnotagoodtheologian,buthewasabrillianttheologian.Ka-plan couldnot accept the traditionalsupernaturalconceptionofGodasanexternalbeingoutsideof,andradically


separatefrom,thenaturalworld.Initsplace,Kaplanofferedwhathecametocalla“transnatural”conceptionofGod.ForKaplan,Godisaforce,asopposedtoabeing,andaforcethatisneitherpurelynatural(inthesensethatgravita-tionandmagnetismarenaturalforces)norabovethenaturalworld.

For many Reconstructionists, Ka-plan’scentraltheologicalformulathat“Godisthe[transnatural]Powerthatmakesforsalvation”hasbecomebotha mantra and a cliché. But Kaplan’spurporteddistinctionbetweenthesu-pernaturalandthetransnaturalcannotsurviveclosephilosophicalscrutiny,asEliezer Berkovits argued in his 1959essay.“ReconstructionistTheology:ACriticalEvaluation.”3

Furthermore,asnotedbyRabbiAlanW.Miller,Kaplan’svacillationbetween“pure naturalism” and “transnatural-ism”leftReconstructionismwithacon-sensusonwhatitrejectedbutnotonwhatitproposedinitsplace.4ThemoreoneanalyzesKaplan’s“thepowerthat...”formula,thelessmeaningfulandthelesscompellingitappearstobe.

Kaplan as Anti-Theologian

IwanttosuggestthatKaplanmightbetterbeviewedasananti-theologianthanasa theologian.One readingofKaplan is that early in his adult life,in the midst of a personal crisis offaith, he developed a theology thatallowedhimtorationalizehispassion-atecommitmenttoJudaism.Hethenproceededtogetonwithhislife,bothprofessional and personal, withouthavingtodealmuchwiththeology,at

leastonapersonallevel.Kaplan“saved”manyofusbyteachingthatwecoulddothesame,regardlessofwhetherwecontinuetofindhisversionoftheologycompelling.

Based on the foregoing, I wouldcertainly not argue that the Recon-structionistmovementshouldattempttomakeadherencetoaKaplanianthe-ologyarequirementformembership.Indeed,Kaplanhimselfneverproposedsucharequirement.ButRabbiRichardHirshhascorrectlyobservedthat,forsome significant number of Jews, atraditional conception of God is nottheentrypointinto,buttheexitpointoutofJudaism.AndIamcontinuallysurprisedbytheamountoftraditionalGod-talkthatIhearcomingfromthepulpits of otherwise very progressiveReformandConservativepulpits.

What I am advocating is that wecontinue to be the movement thatprovidesauniquelycomfortablehomeforthosethinkingJewswhocannotes-pouseanysortoftraditionalGod-beliefand who are repelled by theologicalhypocrisy.Thatalonemightjustifyourbeingaseparatemovement.

The Paradox of Kaplan’s Approach to Liturgy

The third paradox of Kaplan’sthought deals with liturgy. A knowl-edgeableConservativeJewoncechidedmeinawaythathastroubledmeeversince. “You Reconstructionists,” hesaid,“believethatyoucandistinguishadenominationonthebasisofliturgi-calchangeslikesubstitutingmevi ge’ula (bringing redemption) for mevi go’el


(bringingaredeemer/Messiah).Doyoureallythinkthatmorethanahandfulofpeopleevennoticethesechanges,muchlessthinkthattheyareimportant?”Al-lowingrhetoricallicenseforhyperbole(asIhavebeenarguing,ourclaimstodenominationaldistinctivenessgo farbeyondtheseliturgicalchanges),hewasmakinganimportantpoint.

Kaplan believed that his commit-ment to intellectualhonesty requiredthereconstructionofJewishliturgy,in-cludingHebrewliturgy.Hewasfamousat the JewishTheological Seminaryfor tellinghis students, “If youdon’tbelieveit,don’tsayit.”ForKaplan,thiscertainlymeantrejectingtheconceptofthe“chosenness”oftheJewishpeople,onbothlogicalandethicalgrounds:IfGodisanon-supernaturalforce,thenGodcanhardlyhavechosenIsraelfromamongthenationsasapeoplewithauniquestatusandmission;forthatmat-ter,suchaGodisnotinthebusinessofanysortof“choosing”atall.AndevenifonebelievesinaGodwhocouldhavechosenIsrael,thechauvinismentailedisethicallyindefensible.

IntellectualhonestyforKaplanalsomeant not affirming, among otherthings,theconceptofapersonalMes-siah,thenotionofphysicalresurrectionofthedeadorthedesirabilityofrestor-ingthesacrificialserviceintheTemple.AlloftheseredactionsweremadeunderKaplan’saegisinthefirstseriesofRe-constructionistprayerbooks,publishedin the 1940s and 1950s, and almostallofthemwereincorporatedintothecurrentKol Haneshamahseriesaswell.(Togivecreditwhereitisdue,manyofthechangesmadebyKaplanweread-

optedoradaptedfromtheearlierworkofliturgistsoftheReformmovement.)Butalmostfromthebeginning,averydifferentapproachtoliturgyhasplayedanimportantpartinReconstructionistthinking.

Prayer, Action and Values

Seventyyears ago, in theveryfirstvolume of this journal, an editorialappeared called “Praying for Peace.”SignedontoifnotwrittenbyKaplan,thateditorialcontainedthefollowingprovocativeobservationinresponsetoacalltoprayer“issuedbythePopeandtaken up by other religious denomi-nations” in response to the Germangovernment’sdeclarationthatitwouldnolongerbeboundbythearmamentsclauseoftheTreatyofVersailles:

Weshouldlike...tosubmitthatthisemphasislaiduponprayerisan unfortunate one. Prayer, byitself, may do more harm thangood, for the one who prays foraworthwhileidealsomehowgetsthe impression that he has donesomethingpositivetoachievethatideal.The psychological effect isa curious one; praying becomesa substitute for action. Religiousleaderswhohavebeeninterestedinthewholeproblemofprayerhavealways maintained that peopleare reluctant topraybecause thetraditional prayers are couchedin archaic language and expressirrelevant aspirations. Modernizeprayers,theysaid,makethemrel-evant,andpeoplewillonceagain


taketopraying.Thefactisthatthemorerelevanttheprayer,themorelikelyistheworshippertofeelhehasworked for the realizationofthosevalueswhichheaffirms.5

Quotation, Not Affirmation

Thislanguageprefigureswhatwouldbecome a familiar Reconstructionistaphorism about prayer, that most orall of our praying (or davenning), atleastofHebrew liturgy, is (or shouldbe)“quotationratherthanaffirmation.”Thisaphorismapparentlyfirstappearedin Rabbi Alan W. Miller’s excellentbook,God of Daniel S.: In Search Of The American Jew.ThereMillerwritesasfollows:

A prime element in the act ofworshipisdavenning,ortheroterepetition of traditional prayersfromthepast.Whenthese tradi-tional prayers were first writtentheyweremeaningfulaffirmationsfortheirauthors.Theauthorofthetwenty-thirdPsalm,forexample,ifnotashepherdhimself,livedinaculturewhereshepherdsandsheepwere as common a sight as cabsonFifthAvenueareinNewYorktoday. In a prevailing idiom andmetaphorculledfromeverydaylife,heexpressedhisfaithinGodandthecosmos, inGodconceivedofasaSupremeFather.“Herestorethmysoul.”

WhenthemodernJewrecitesthetwenty-thirdPsalm, or anyotherPsalm or combination of verses

fromthePsalmsorfromtheBible,hedoesnotaffirmatfirsthand,butrather quotes at secondhand. AlltheHebrewdavenned,orprayed,inthemodernsynagogue,saveinthoserareinstanceswheremodernHebrew prayers have been intro-duced into the act of worship, isquotation, not affirmation.ThetraditionalHebrewsectionsofthesynagogueserviceareallinquota-tion marks, whether the prayingJewisawareofthisornot.

Davenning is a basic element inJewish worship because only byidentifying with his past can theJewgainstrengthinthepresenttostrivetowardthefuture.Anaware-nessthatcountlessgenerationsex-pressedabasicfaithinthecosmos,andstrovetoovercomethedefectsinthemselvesandintheirsocietythrough an ongoing relationshipwiththeirethnicgroup,isasourceofstrengthinpresenttrouble.ThetraditionalprayerbookreflectsthethreestagesthroughwhichJewishcivilizationhasalreadypassed,thebiblical, the ecclesiastical and therabbinic.Strengthinanageofradi-calandoftendisturbingtransitionis gained from an awareness thatthe Jewish people has undergonemetamorphosisinthepastbutstillmaintained its identity in changebyreconstructingitssancta.Daven-ningisaprimesanctumofJewishlife.6

What seems to have gone largelyunnoticedintheReconstructionistap-


proachtoliturgyisthetensionbetween“don’tsayitifyoudon’tbelieveit”and“quotationratherthanaffirmation.”Ifweare(orshouldbe)silentlyprefacingeach traditional Hebrew prayer withwords like “Our ancestors prayed asfollows” and then placing quotationmarksaroundtheprayertext,thenforusthetruth,validityorbelievabilityofthewordsofthatprayertextbecomeessentiallyirrelevant.

Hebrew Literacy Lacking

Twogenerationalchangeshavemadegrapplingwiththistensionmorepress-ing,andbothchangesseriouslyweakentheargumentsofthe“don’tsayitifyoudon’tbelieveit”school.

First, almost all of Kaplan’s teach-ings, including those about liturgy,grewoutofhis experiencewith, andwereoriginallydirectedto,immigrantand immediate post-immigrant gen-erationsofAmerican JewsofEasternEuropean origin. Almost all of themwere, ifnotHebraically literate inanacademicsense,extremelyfamiliarwithtraditionalHebrewliturgy.

ThoseforwhomthechangesreflectedinReconstructionistliturgywerevitallyimportantcouldstillenteratraditionalsynagogueandparticipateeasily(ifnotalwaysemotionallycomfortably)intheprayerservice.Today,neitherchildhoodimmersionnoradultstudyhasprovidedthegreatmajorityofReconstructionistswiththeknowledgeoftraditionalliturgythat the previous generations of Re-constructionistspossessed.ThelevelofHebrewliteracyamongnon-OrthodoxJewsisprobablyatanall-timelow.

Comfortable with Myth

The second generational changethathasbeennotedanddiscussedfarmorethanthefirstconcernsourlevelofcomfortwithcertainkindsofmythsand metaphors. For Kaplan and hiscontemporaries,theterm“myth”wasessentially equivalent to “falsehood,”withaconnotationasnegativeas“su-perstition”or“lie.”Aswehavemovedfromthemodernintothepost-modernage,ourunderstandingofthemeaningof“truth”hasbecomedifferentfrom,andfranklymoresubtlethan,thatofourReconstructionistforebears.

For contemporaryReconstruction-ists,particularlythebesteducatedandmostknowledgeable,myths–particu-larlythefoundationalmythsofapeople–operateonanentirelydifferentlevelthando,forexample,thepropositionsofnaturalscience.Thisopensupthepossibility of finding a myth to be“truthful”inapowerful,ifnon-literal,sense. For example, the story of theExodusfromEgyptcanbe judgedtobemythically“true”preciselybecauseithasforthousandsofyearsfunctionedeffectively in providing the Jewishpeoplewithitssenseofidentity,regard-lessofthestory’shistoricalveracity.7Ashas beenobservedbymany scholars,mythsareneithertruenorfalse;mythsareeithereffectiveorineffective.

Moreover,Reconstructioniststodaycan(orshouldbeableto)appreciatethemetaphoricalpowerofsympatheticin-vocationsintheliturgyofsuchnationalarchetypes as the Davidic monarchyortheTemplecult,despitetheseriousproblems posed by those institutions


ashistoricalrealities,andhavingnoth-ingtodowithanactualdesirefortherestoration of those institutions. AReconstructionist who is convincedthattheTorahwaswrittenandeditedbyhumanbeingsseveralcenturiesaf-terMoses lived (if in factMoses is ahistoricalfigure),todaycan(orshouldbe able to) recite, “This is theTorahthatMosesplacedbeforetheIsraelites,accordingtothecommandofAdonai,throughtheagencyofMoses,”withoutfeelinghypocriticaloruncomfortable:The words are being quoted ratherthanaffirmed.To theextent that thecontentofthequotationisstillofcon-cern, thosewords canbeunderstoodasmythic imagery rather thanas theassertionofhistoricalfacts.8

Inshort,aferventcommitmenttointellectual honesty demands far lessofustodaywithregardtoliturgythanit didofKaplan.To say thatKaplanhadaninsufficientappreciationofthepowerofmythandmetaphor,however,would be unfair. Although many ofhisideaswereremarkablyaheadofhistime,Kaplan’sfundamentalintellectualframework could not transcend thesocio-historicalcontextofhisformativeyears,whichinhiscasemightbestbecharacterizedasVictorian.

Why Reconstruct Liturgy ?

Taken together, these two genera-tionalchangesgiverisetoafundamen-talparadoxofHebrewliturgyfortheReconstructionist movement today.MostReconstructionistsdonotknowthe differences between the Recon-structionistandtraditionalversionsof

almostanyofthemodifiedprayertexts.ThoseReconstructionistswhodoun-derstandwhatchangeshavebeenmadetothetraditionalliturgyandwhyareoftenpreciselytheoneswhoaremostcomfortablepreservingthetraditionalversions for their poetic and mythicresonanceasoutlinedabove.Forwhomandforwhatpurposethenistheliturgybeingreconstructed?

IamnotadvocatingforawholesaleundoingofReconstructionistliturgicalemendations. A compelling case canbe made for continuing our practiceofremovingfromtheliturgythemostblatantpublicdeclarationsofthecho-sennessoftheJewishpeople—inthefirstparagraphofAleynu,inthebless-ing before theTorah reading and inthekiddushforShabbatandholidays.Iwouldnotwanttorestorethetradi-tionallanguageintheseinstances.IamcomfortablemaintainingidiosyncraticReconstructionist language in thesethreeprayertextsbecausewecanandshouldexpectallReconstructioniststobefamiliarwithinthetraditionalver-sionsofthoseprayersaswell.

Additionally,mostoftheargumentsforreversingpreviousdeletionsorre-arrangements of traditional liturgicallanguagehavelittleornoapplicabilityinthecaseofadditionstotraditionalprayer texts.Themost importantaretheinclusionofthebiblicalmatriarchsinplaceswhereonlythebiblicalpatri-archsweretraditionallymentioned,andtheinclusionof“kol yoshvei tevel (alloftheinhabitantsoftheearth),”togetherwiththeJewishpeoplespecifically,asthedesiredbeneficiariesofprayersforpeace.


IfIamcorrectthatforthereasonssuggestedabovewecannotexpectRe-constructionists today to be familiaror comfortable with more than oneform of Hebrew liturgy, that is an-other reason tomake as few changestotraditionalprayertextsasreasonablypossible.Preservingthesenseofunityof the Jewish people to the greatestextent possible is a central value ofReconstructionism.Havingacommonliturgicallanguageisapowerfulunify-ingforceforJewsacrossbothdenomi-national and national boundaries, aswellasthroughouttime.

Anyonewhohashad theupliftingexperienceofgoingtosynagogueinaforeigncountryandbeingabletopar-ticipateactivelyandcomfortablyintheserviceunderstandstheimportanceofsharedprayertextsinmakingonefeelapartofklal Yisrael. Anyonewhohashadthedepressingexperienceofbeinginsuchasynagoguewithachildwhoisbewilderedbytheservicebecauses/heis only familiarwithReconstruction-istliturgyhaslearnedthesamelessonaboutsharedlanguage.(Theseexperi-ences,bothpositiveandnegative,can,of course, take place much closer tohome,suchasatafriend’snon-Recon-structionistbatorbar mitzvaservice.)

Emendations Not Enough

With regard to liturgy I have animportantally:MypositionissimilartotheoneadvancedtowardtheendofhislifebynolessafigurethanRabbiIraEisenstein,z”l,thefounderoftheinstitutional Reconstructionist move-ment. Rarely does one encounter a

statementasstartlingandaspowerfulasthisobservationbyEricCaplan:

Itisinterestingtonotethatinlaterlife, Ira Eisenstein no longer en-dorsedtheconceptofchangingthetraditionalHebrewtextofprayersto reflectmodernbelief. [CaplanquotesEisensteinassaying:]“I’vebecome...lessconcernedwiththeactuallanguageofprayer...Forexample, instead of saying ‘Whohaschosenusfromamongallofthenations,’yousay‘Whohasdrawnusnear...’Butinthemeantimeyousay‘BlessedareYou,’andyouaskyourselfwhoisthe‘You’?

Well, it’sreallyametaphor.Well,if one’s a metaphor, the other isametaphor.Leave it alone . . . Iwouldtreatthetraditionalprayer-bookasanexerciseinreminiscence.We come together and for a fewminutesweputourselvesintotheworldofourancestors,theworldofourfathers,andseehowitfeels,howitsounds,that’sall.Andnowif you want to pray — there’s adifferencebetweendavenningandpraying, I make that distinction—prayfromourowninside,howwefeel,whatwe’dliketosay.Ifwecanusesometraditionallanguage,fine,otherwisemakeupyourownprayers and they can be gender-free,andnotsupernaturalandalltherestofit.Butyoucan’tmakeoveratextlikethat.Itwasanaw-fuldecisionthatIcametoafteralltheseyears.”9

TheReconstructionisttreatmentof


traditional liturgy is a good exampleofafeatureofReconstructionismthat,althoughcertainlydistinctive,maynolonger serve the best interests of Re-constructionists. Eisenstein and I arebotharguingthatKaplanianHebrewliturgymay, to a greateror lesser ex-tent, fail the fundamental Kaplaniantest for determining whether a ritualpracticeshouldbemaintained;thatis,it may no longer function effectivelyincreatingameaningfulJewishlifefortheindividualReconstructionistorinhelpingtheReconstructionistcommu-nitytorealizeitshighestideals.Ifsuchadeterminationweremade(andIamintentionallyslidingoverthequestionsofwhogetstodecidethatandhow),thenthenextseriesofReconstruction-ist prayer books not only could, butshould,lookverydifferentfromeitherofitspredecessors.

Bedrock Principles

The Reconstructionist movementshouldcontinuetoexistifandonlyifithasusefulfeaturesthatclearlydistin-guishitfromalloftheotherstreamsofJudaism.A conservative emphasis onrestoring the core Reconstructionistvaluesof thepastcan infactunleashremarkableprogressiveenergyforthefuture. What I have tried to showthroughoutthisessay is thatareturnto the strict application of Kaplan’sbedrock principles, far from leadingto the creationof a fossilizedversionof Reconstructionism, will in factpromote evolutionary change withinReconstructionismandhelptoensureitsfuturevitality.Thosebedrockprinci-

ples:eschewingsupernaturalGod-talk;rejectingthosereligiouspracticesthatmakenosensewithoutasupernaturaltheology;anunbendingcommitmenttoshiningthelightofreasononreli-giousquestions;andaboldwillingnesstosetasidethosereligiouspracticesthatdo not pass Kaplan’s pragmatic test,should never change. Almost everyotheraspectofReconstructionismwillevolveovertime.

This article is dedicated, with muchlove, to the author’s first teachers,his parents,BernardCedarbaumandMiriamGoldmanCedarbaum.

1.ArnoldEisen,“Kaplan’sJudaism atSixty:AReappraisal,” inMordecaiM.Kaplan,Judaism as a Civilization (Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1994),xiii.2.DanielGoldmanCedarbaum,“TheRoleofHalakhainReconstructionistDecisionMaking,” The Reconstructionist, 65:2,Spring2001.3.“ReconstructionistTheology:ACriticalEvaluation,” in Eliezer Berkovits, Major Themes in Modern Philosophies of Judaism(NewYork:KTAVPublishingHouse,1974;reprintedfromTradition,Fall1959).4.AlanW.Miller,“ReconstructionismandtheReconstructionistRabbi,”The Recon-structionist, September1977.5.The Reconstructionist, 1:9,5.6.AlanW.Miller,The God Of Daniel S.: In Search of The American Jew(London:Collier-MacmillanLtd.1969),120-121.7.SeeRichardHirsh,“FourQuestionstoAskBeforetheSederStarts,”inJ.Levittand M. Strassfeld, editors, A Night of Questions(ElkinsPark,Pennsylvania:TheReconstructionistPress,2002),21-23.


8.RabbiDavidTeutschmakesthispointinhis“Commentary”onthisversefoundonpage406ofKol Haneshamah: Shabbat Vehagim,buthedoesnotacknowledgeitsapplicabilitytootherliturgicalformulas.9.June25,1993interviewofIraEisenstein,quoted inEricCaplan,From Ideology To

Liturgy: Reconstructionist Worship And American Liberal Judaism (Cincinnati,Ohio:The Hebrew Union College Press2002),120-121.Eisensteinmade similarcommentsintheWinter,1994/95issueofReconstructionism Today,9-10.

.


ManagingDualities:AViewofReconstructionism

fromtheRadicalCenter

herearemanypotentialmark-ers of the beginning of theReconstructionist movement. T

Dr.CarlA.SheingoldistheExecutiveVice-PresidentoftheJewishReconstruction-istFederation.

By caRl a. sheinGold

The publication of the first issue ofThe Reconstructionist seventyyearsagooccurredwhenReconstructionismwasaschoolofthoughtwithinklal Yisrael andintentionallynotadenominationalmovement. If Mordecai Kaplan sawthecreationofamovementasagoal,it could easily have occurred in the1920s.

Wheneveronemarksthebeginning,wecanstillask:whatisatthecoreofthismovement?Whatistheheartofitside-ologyandpurpose?Whatarethemark-ersofchangethatcouldbeviewedeitheraschallengestothemovement’sintegrityorassignsofitshealth(dependingonone’sviewofthechangeandofthecoreprinciplesofthemovement)?Suchques-tions are particularly important for amovementwhoseintellectualscaffoldingisbuiltonunderstandingJudaismasan“evolvingreligiouscivilization.”

Identifying Core Principles

It is tempting to begin a discus-sionofcoreprincipleswiththeclassic

formulationstypicallyassociatedwithReconstructionism. But insofar asevolution is a key internal principle,suchafocuscaneasilyleadtoadiscus-sioninwhichkeyquestionsarebeggedpreciselybecausethemeaningsoftheclassic formulations are historicallybounded.

For example, consider one of themost commonly cited principles ofKaplan’s thought: the rejectionof su-pernaturalism,combinedwithanefforttoarticulateaconceptionofGodthatcanprovidesustainablemeaninginthemodernAmerican context.The rejec-tionofsupernaturalismiseasytoexpress.Buttheproposedalternativesarehardertoarticulate.Evenmorechallengingisbringingthetwotogetherintoacompre-hensiveandcoherentstatement.

More importantly, therearediffer-encesthatareinpartgenerational,andthatcreatethepotentialforanyformu-lation to be misunderstood. Kaplanandthefirstgenerationofhisfollowersemphasized that theydidnotbelieveinasupernaturalGodbecauseatthattimeitwouldhavebeenassumedthattheydid.WhatforclassicalReconstruc-tionistsmayappeartobeadangerous


flirtingwithsupernaturalismmay,forthosesoengaged,beanefforttoputinpositivetermswhatfortheirpredeces-sorsneededtobeexpressednegatively.Itmayalsobeseenasreflectinganac-knowledgementofthelimitsofscience,and an openness to the non-rational(sometimes the non-verbal) aspectsof thought and spiritual experience.Unafraidofbeingviewedasirrationalorchildish,thisopennessreflectsadif-ferentgeneration’sexperience.

This isnot todeny that there is aboundarysurroundingReconstruction-ismonissuesofsupernaturalism.Butitiseasyfordiscussionsordebatesaboutkeyconceptstobegthequestion;suchdiscussionscanestablishandillustratethefactofchangeanddiversitywithinthemovementwithoutresolvingtheirimplicationsforitsidentityandbound-aries.

Ipreferheretoanchormydiscussioninmoreabstractcategoriesofreligiousthoughtandexperience.Iwillexpressthis in terms that are relevant to myrelationship to religion and to mypersonalconnectiontoReconstruction-ism.Hopefully,while personal, theseperspectivesarenotidiosyncratic.

Singular and Dualistic Perspectives

MythinkingaboutreligionisshapedbyadistinctionbetweenwhatIwillcall“singular”and“dualistic”perspectives.Iamnotusingtheterm“dualistic”inthesenseofsometheologicaltraditionsofcontrastinggoodandevil,butratherpreciselyasaperspectivethatseekstoencompass multiple goods, some of

whichareintensionwitheachother.Fromasingularperspective,religionisthesourceofanswers—deepandoftenbindinganswers—tocorequestionsofliferelatingtomeaning,tomorality,toethicsandtoproperbehavior,amongothers.Itassumes,inotherwords,thatin relationship to a series of singularquestions thereareclearandsingularanswers.

A dualistic perspective seeks inreligion a way of understanding andrelating to thecomplex,multilayeredaspectsoflife,togenerictensionsanddilemmas.Itseekssomesenseoftran-scendenceofsuchtensions,sometimesintellectually and sometimes in theemotionalrealm(e.g., inthespiritualpowerofmusic).

Idonotseeeitherapproachasintrin-sicallysuperior.Itcouldbesaidthatinmostsituations,someaspectsofbothapproachesareneededandtheyoftendependoneachother,intellectuallyandpersonally.Singularapproachesruntheriskofoversimplifyingcomplexissuesbyignoringvalues,goalsorrealitiesintension with the singular focus.Thiscan lead to behavior that may seemrightintheshortrun,butbecauseofin-directeffectsorlongtermconsequenceswillnotstandupovertime.Itcanleadtoreductionistapproachesthatarerigidand,inthepoliticalrealm,evenmur-derous.Butitcanalsoprovideclaritythatcanbeupliftingandanswersthatenableonetofunctionwith integrityinlife.Singularperspectivestendtobeorientedtothepresent.Theyrespondtoquestionsseekinganswersatthemo-ment,toproblemsseekingimmediatesolutions.


Adualisticperspectivecandogreaterjusticetocomplexityand,inthelongrun, contains the promise of prog-ress on complex issues, personal andcommunal.Itcanalsobeasourceofparalysis,confusionandinappropriaterationalizing.Singularperspectiveshaveapresenttensequality,whiledualisticperspectivestendtobehistorical,andtoencouragethinkingabouthowten-sionsandissuesplayoutovertime.

Views of Religion

I view religion as the source ofintellectual and ritual tools that con-nectus,inspaceandintime,tothatwhichislargerthanourselvesandourcommunity.Imeanherethatwhichislarger thanthediscrete, isolatedone-sidedunderstandingsweoftenhaveofthatwhich is complex.Theseare theterms that reflectmy ideaof strivingtogetbeyondwhatispartial,andmyunwillingnesstoaccepttheinevitablyofexperiencethatisdivided,inwhichmanyofthethingswevalueseemir-reconcilable.Indeed,myexperiencesofholinessawellasofwholenesstypicallyinvolvetranscendingtensions,andfeel-ingthatthewholeissomehowgreaterthanthesumofitsparts.

Tobesure,thereareaspectsoflifethataresingularandundividedor,atany rate, adequately and sometimespreferablyunderstoodandexperiencedassuch.Religioustraditionsareoftenasourceofinsightaboutsuchthings.My religious tradition has been suchasourceforme.Butmyongoing,dy-namic relationship to religion—therelationshipofreligiontowhatIhave

to figure out as compared to what IknoworwhatIknowtodo—isnotaboutthesingular.

Ithinkofthisasanalogoustodecid-ingwhatlegalissuesshouldgototheSupreme Court (as compared to thelowercourts)orwhat issuesgotoanexecutiveoraboard(ascomparedtoother levelsofanorganization.)Thatwhich is complicated, that to whichwecannotrespondbasedonasingularvalueorgoal,orthatwhichspecificallyinvolvestensionsbetweendesirableval-uesandgoalsismostoftenthatwhichbenefitsfromadualisticperspective.

A Generic View ofReconstructionism

For me, the appeal and power ofJudaism is in the dualistic quality ofitsstyleofreasoningandinitsvalues,combined with its sense of realismand pragmatism. Judaism seeks totranscend contradictions.But it doesso in the concrete living of life incommunity,notinpuretheory,orinclever verbal formulations that maskcomplex practical realities, or in aself-deceiving messianism. Judaism isintrinsically historical, understandingitselfovertimeandinrelationshiptotime. How does ReconstructionismrelatetothesecoreaspectsofJudaism,andhowcanansweringthatquestionlead to identifying core elements, aswell as toproviding someguidepoststoitsnecessaryevolution?

Reconstructionists view Judaismasan“evolvingreligiouscivilization.”Thatsuggestsnotjusttherelevanceoftime,but its centrality. It alsomeans


thathistoryiscentral.Wegivetradition“avote,butnotaveto.”ThisconveysthattheReconstructionistviewofthepresent is rooted in a historical per-spective:thepresentisalinkbothtothepastandtothefuture.“Evolving”suggests why process — the way wereach decisions, as distinct from thedecisions themselves — is so centralinReconstructionism.That isnot toundervaluetheimportanceofmakingdecisionsortheirsubjects,buttosug-gestthatdecisionsarealsounderstoodasbeinghistoricallybounded.

If“evolving”isacluetotheRecon-structionistsenseoftime,“civilization”is the clue to our expansive sense ofwhat ispotentially relevant to Jewishlifeatanyparticularmoment.Itpro-videsthesensethatwhateverparticularJewish activity I amengagedwithorcareabout—ritual,cultureorpolitics,asexamples—ispartofalargerwhole.Kaplan’s emphasis on Jewish people-hoodanddevotiontoZionismprovidea parallel, expansive sense of Jewishspace.WhatevergrouporcommunityIamengagedwith,itisalsopartofalargerwhole.Thisobviouslyprovidesasenseofrichness,but,iftakenseriously,also of complexity in regard to howindividual pieces relate to eachotherandfitinwiththelargerwhole.

Letusthinkofthesecoreideasnotonly as conveying elements of a par-ticularideologyor“schoolofthought,”butascapturingsomethingabouttheReconstructioniststanceonsomeofthegenericaspectsofreligion.Theypro-videabaselinefordiscussionofwhatisatthecoreofReconstructionism.

Openings from Kaplan

These core ideas obviously derivefrom Kaplan. But how do we relateKaplantothesingular/dualisticdistinc-tion? InmanyobviouswaysKaplanwasaradical.Hetookthingstotheirlogicalconclusion,advocatinginsomecasesforthingstobegivenup,andinothers for new things to be created.Muchofwhatheproposedwas,atthetime,radicalbyanydefinition.

InotherwaysKaplanwasacentrist.Surelya significant factor inKaplan’srefusal to make ReconstructionismintoamovementwashiscommitmenttothebroadcenterofJewishpeople-hood, and an aversion to dividingfurtheranalreadydividedcommunity.A thoroughgoing radical would nothave resisted for so long the formingofanewmovement.Athoroughgoingradical who wished to abandon theconceptofasupernaturalGodwouldnothavestruggledtoholdontotheideaofGodliness.

A Radical Centrist

IregardKaplanasaradicalcentrist,onewhoalsosoughtcreativelytotran-scendthetensionshewasdeterminedtoconfrontheadon.Hewasacentrist,but not a compromiser. Kaplan wasclearlyadualisticratherthanasingularthinker,andhiswritingsarefilledwithintellectualrichnessandcomplexity.

ButtherewasasidetoKaplan’sper-sonalityandtohisintellectualstancesthatwasmoresingular.Thisisparticu-larlyseeninhisfaithinscientifictruth.Asimilarqualitypertainstosomeofhis


viewsonethicsandmorality:hewasaratherrigidman,withclearnotionsofrightandwrong.Kaplan’sachievementsareinconceivablewithoutthesequali-ties,whichcouldalsobelabeledasre-flectingintensedetermination.Itiseasytolosesightofhowradical,decisiveandcourageousathinkerKaplanwas.

Thissuggeststomesomedirections,notforleavingKaplanbehind,butforevolving from and building on whathe began. Is it possible for us to ap-proachdualisticrealitiesfromamoredialectical stance than Kaplan couldmanage,withoutfallingintothetrapofrelativism?Isthereawaytomaintainamoredialecticalstancetowardwhatwecanknow,andtowardwhatstandardstoapplytothepresent,withoutlosingthecentralityofethicsortheidealofprogress?

Using Time

To me, the key lies in an aspectof the singular/dualistic distinctionmentioned above: the respective ap-proachestotimeandhistory.Singularapproaches are oriented toward thepresent, but they are also associatedwithalinearsenseofprogressinhistory.Ifthereisastraightlinebetweenaques-tionandananswer,thenitisnaturaltoviewprogressovertimeaspossibleandpotentially,oratleastideally,aslinear—asmovingonastraightpath.Andwhereprogressisnotbeingmade,itisnaturaltothinkinlinearterms,seeingthe absenceofprogress as regression,astraightlineofreturntoaprior,lessadvancedstate.

Incontrast,totalkintermsofdual-

isticrealtiesandtothinkindialecticaltermsalsosuggeststwoverydifferentimages of historical processes.Thenegative version is captured by thephrase“goingincircles.”Ifthissuggeststhe experience of continually revisit-ingcertaincoreissuesorthemes,itisanaccurate reflectionof thedualisticperspectiveonhistory.Mostdeepdi-lemmasorpolaritiesarenotsubjecttodefinitiveresolution.

In healthy evolving systems, how-ever, the rotation of values does notnecessarily mean going in circles inthe sense of never making progress.Imagineagraphinwhichthelinegoesup and down, but over time spiralsupward.Orimagineafootballmovingthroughspace,goingincirclesbutinaspiralmovingforward.Thisisanotherwayofunderstandinghowtherotationof values does not necessarily implyregression.

Between Freedom and Equality

Touseapoliticalexample,Americanhistorycanbeunderstoodinrelation-shiptothetensionbetweenthevalueofindividualfreedom(andtherelatedval-ueplacedonthemarketplace)andthevalueofequality(withacorrespondingemphasis on governmental interven-tions). During different periods, oneortheothermaybemorestressed,butthetensionbetweenthesevalues—orperhaps,moreaccurately,betweenthepoliciesadoptedordefendedontheirbehalf—isneverfullyresolved.Andeachsideoftheequationwill,indeed,always be revisited in ways that may


suggestgoingincircles.IfAmericanpoliticswillneverfully

solvethetensionbetweenfreedomandequality, we have made progress onbothfrontsovertime.Eachgenerationcanbeseenasdevelopingaparadigmthatofteninvolvesstressingavaluethatwaspreviouslysubordinated.Aperiodfollowsinwhichthenewparadigmisimplemented,butthenatsomepointitsusefulnessisexhausted,oftenwhenthesubordinatedvalueresurfaces.

Another example comes from pat-ternsofleadershipsuccession.Success-fulorganizationalexecutivesoftenrunintodifficultypreciselywhenthestyle,talentsorinsightstheybroughttothejobhaveaccomplishedwhatwasneed-ed;thecreatingofanewvisionneedsto be followed by a focus on imple-mentation.Gettingintouchwiththegrassrootsorthemarketmayrequireconsolidating what has been learnedthroughstrategicleadership.Suchtran-sitionsarenotsignsoffailure.Areturntoaspectsoftheearlierparadigmthatarebeingsupplanted(e.g.arefocusingonvisionaftertheimplementationofapriorvisionhasbeeneffected)isnotaformof“goingincircles.”Long-termprogressdependsonsuchtransitions.Stayingtoolongwithoneapproach,orresistingareengagementwithsuccessfulpriorpoliciesorpractices,ispreciselywhatcanleadtofailure.

Correcting Balances

Note:thisviewisnottosuggestan-swerstoparticularquestionsorthetotalabandonmentofanyvalues.Itisabouttransitions in the balance between

valuesandthemaintenanceofrespectfor multiple values. Organizationsthat shift so thoroughly from visionto implementation that they ignorevision and goals will not succeed. Agoodsocietycannotabandontheroleofgovernmentorsomeoftheenduringaccomplishmentsofgovernment,evenasitgivesnewprioritytomarketsolu-tionsandrecognizessomeofthelimitsof what government can accomplishand some of the long-term, negativesideeffectsofsomegovernmentsolu-tions.Thesameistrueinreverse.

Whetherinsocieties,organizations,communitiesorothergroups,nogen-eration“solves”theproblemsandchal-lengesthatarisefromdualistictensions.Buteachgenerationcanplayaneededroleincorrectingbalancesintheshortrun,thenactingonanewparadigmandplayingitsroleinmovingthespiralinthe long run.This is theway I envi-sionadialecticalprocessthatinvolvesprogressbutavoidsthetemptationofakindoftemporalmessianism.Itisawaytoavoidthepitfallsofdialecticalparalysisor relativismwithout fallingintothetemptationofoversimplifica-tionandself-delusion.

Healthy Openness to the Spiritual

This is also the way I would ap-proachthecoretensionsthatstandattheheartofReconstructionistthinking.Howdoesoursearchforgodlinessandspiritualityavoidfallingintothetrapoftheirrationalorofsupernaturalism?Howdowemanagethebalancingactofgivingthetraditionavotebutnota


veto?Howdowemanagethebalancingactoflivingintwocivilizations?

Iamfarfromseekingtoofferdefini-tiveanswers.Indeed,Iamsuggestingthatseekingdefinitiveanswersistomissthepoint.Iamalsosuggestingthatpartofmanagingsuchtensionsispreciselytopayattentiontoissuesofbalanceandrebalancingwithinahistoricalperspec-tive—toseecurrenteffortsasbuildingonthepast,insomewaysreturningtothepast,butinanewandrejuvenatedway, while preparing the ground forfuture transitions. And that involvesresistingthetemptationtoseeeffortstorebalanceassignsofregression.

For example, it is a sign of healththattherehasbeenopennesswithinthemovementinrecentyearstospiritualmeaning and experience, with moreof an emotional than an intellectualemphasis. Some experiments in thisdirection are appropriately subject tocritique. But to put this in personalterms,IknowthatpartofmyJewishquesthasbeentoreclaimsomeoftheemotional connection to and suste-nancefromJudaismthatmygrandpar-entshad,withoutimaginingthatIwantto(orcouldifIwantedto)returntotheirformofJewishexperience.Ihavereclaimedsomeaspectsthatmyparentsrejected, but I know that I have notregressed.TheremaybemomentswhenIwishedIcouldhavearelationshiptoJudaismthatwaslargelydevoidofbothJewishlearningandself-consciousness,butthatisnotanoption.IknowthatIampartoftheevolutionofJudaismasacivilizationinAmerica.

Toputthis inmoregeneralterms,dualitiessuchaswehavebeendiscuss-

ingdonotgetsolved.Thereisnomagicformulaformakingtensionsdisappear,buttheycanbemanagedifviewedasapartofanhistoricalprocess.Theinsightof “vote/veto” is not just pointing tothe wisdom to be found in the past.Sucharespectforthepastisalsothekeytomakingprogress.Themeaningofaradicalcentriststanceispreciselya willingness to defend an existingparadigmbeforeithasbeenexhausted,andatthesametimetohavetheabilityto recognize when the paradigm hasexhausted itself and that somethingprofoundlydifferentisneeded.

Thisisnottheplacetogointoallofthedetailsofhowthisperspectivecantranslateintothecontemporary,practi-calworkofmovementandcommunitybuilding.Afewillustrativethemeswillsuffice.

Diversity and Inclusion

AnylistofcontemporaryReconstruc-tionist valueswould includediversityandinclusion.Therehavebeenimpor-tantmanifestationsofthisvalueinthepoliciesofthemovement inregardtogaymen, lesbians andnon-Jews.Thethemesofthisessaysuggesttheimpor-tanceofanotheraspectofthisissue:theextenttowhichwenotonlyvaluediver-sityandpromoteinclusivenessinasocialandritualsense,butinrelationshiptodiversepointsofviewandmaintainingintellectualinclusivenessregardingmi-noritypointsofview.

Itisalsocentraltothechallengeofbuilding real communities, as com-pared to finding ways to symbolizeadherencetocommunityvalues.There


isanaturaltensionbetweentheidealofcommunityasagroupoflike-mindedpeople, or of community as a trulydiverse group in which the whole isgreaterandevenwiserthanthesumofitsparts.Thereisadifferencebetweenwelcomingindividualswhoarediffer-entinsomeway,andengagingintruedialogueinregardtothewaysinwhichthedifferencesgoesdeep.

A testing ground for the above ispolitics.Areourcommunitiesdiverseand inclusive in regard to politicalpointsofview—orareourcommuni-tiesplacesinwhichsingularapproachestopoliticsaretheexpectation?Recon-structionistsvalueintellectualhonesty,andReconstructionistcommunitiesasplaces where those holding minorityviewsinthesocietyasawholedonothavetohidethoseviewpoints.DothosewithminoritypointsofviewwithintheReconstructionistcommunityfeelfreetobeintellectuallyhonest?

Thisisanissuewithobviousimplica-tionsinregardtothevaluesofdiversityandinclusiveness.ButitalsoraisesthequestionofwhetherpoliticaldiscoursewithinReconstructionistcommunitiesdoesjusticetothecomplexityofmostpolitical issues and therefore has thepotentialtomakeagenuinecontribu-tiontopoliticaldiscourseinthemanycivilizations of which we are a part.Areourpoliticalstatementsmeanttoidentifywithaparticularpointofviewinasymbolicsense—whichinevitabil-ityhasasingularquality—oraretheyattempts to make a contribution towhatisalwaysthedialectical-historicalworking out of complex political is-sues,issuesthatarecomplexprecisely

becauseoftheirdualisticnature?

A Cross-Cultural Relationship to Israel

TheReconstructionistmovementisinthebeginningstagesofreengagingitsrelationshipwithIsrael.Onekeythemeemergesfromtheperspectiveadvancedhere:Willitbearealorsymbolicre-lationship?Will we connect to Israelasa symbol (negativeorpositive),ortoIsraelasaJewishsocietysimilartowhile also profoundly different fromourown?Willitbeapartnershipoftwokeypartsof the largerJewishpeople,unitedinthatsense,butalsodifferentfromeachotherinwaysthatcanbethebasisofimportantcreativity?Canwebenefitfromtheinsightstobegainedfromseeingourselvesthroughtheeyesofotherswhoaresimilaranddifferent?Thisrelationshiphasthepotentialtobeakeytoourgeneration’screativecontri-butiontotheJewishfuture,particularlyassomanysecularIsraelisarecurrentlyengagedinacreativereconnectingtoJewishtextandtradition.

ThiswouldbeindramaticcontrasttowhatcharacterizedpriorAmericanJewish relationships to Israel, seeingIsrael inmythic terms or as a sourceof vicarious Jewish identification. Itwould also be in dramatic contrastto North American Jews primarilyfocusingonthedegreetowhichIsrael—itsgovernment,itssociety,culture— conform to our values. In a realrelationshipwewillnotabandonthosevaluesnorbeindifferenttothewaysinwhichIsrael’spoliciesaffectourlives.Butwewillalsounderstandthatsome


tensions, as well as opportunities forcreativity, reflect theprofounddiffer-encesbetweenasovereignstatewhosecitizens are primarily first or secondgenerationandavoluntarycommunitymost ofwhosemembers are third orfourthgeneration.

A Contemporary Challengeto Denominations

Much attention is being paid to-daytoatrendinJewishlifevariouslyreferred to as non-, post- or trans-denominationalism. Such labels refertomanydifferentgroupsand trends.Amongthemare:1) individualswhoareJewishlyindifferent;2)individualswhoresistwhattheyperceivetobetherigidityofideologicallabeling,whoseJewishidentityishighlyfluidandsub-jective; 3) young, intensely involvedJewsinsearchofparticipatoryexperi-ence who are forming independenthavurotandminyanim;4)individualswhovaluepluralismandseedenomi-nationalmovements as closed to realdiversity; and 5) individuals who seetheirJewishpreoccupationsasuniversalandpresumablycross-denominational.Change“individuals”to“groups”andsomeofthesetrendsapplytonon-af-filiatedsynagogues.

These trends have different impli-cations for different denominationalmovements and the timing of theestablishment of Reconstructionismasadistinctmovementhasimportantimplications. The creation of theReconstructionist Rabbinical Collegemarked the unambiguous shift to adenomination.Thiswasafterthehis-

toricmovementofAmerican Jews tothe suburbs in the1950sand1960s.In other words, Reconstructionismwasnotinthegamewhenmanynewcongregationswerebeingformedandseekingaffiliation.

Thiswasalsointhemidstofwhatisreferredtoas“the60s”—adistinctiveperiodinallrespectsthatbeganinthelate1960sandpeakedintheearly1970s.Thehavuramovement—particularlytheemergenceofindependenthavurotandtheeclecticJewishcultureassoci-ated with the Jewish Catalogs — is aprimeandrelatedexample. It canbeseenasamongthefirstmanifestationsofthetrendsdescribedearlier.

Combine this with Kaplan’s ownformofnon-denominationalism,anditisnoaccidentthatmanyaspectsofReconstructionism are similar to, oratleasthighlycompatiblewith,thesetrends — most obviously the desireforopenness,theresistancetorigidity,decentralized,non-authoritariannormsandthevalueplacedondiversity.Itisnoaccidentthatthefirstgroupsduringthe 1960s to call themselves havurotwereReconstructionist,andthatwhatis today the JewishReconstructionistFederation was then called the Fed-erationofReconstructionistCongrega-tionsandHavurot.

AnareaofseeminglyprofoundandalsoironicaldifferenceconnectstoJew-ishpeoplehood.Kaplan’scommitmenttopeoplehood andhis loyalty to theJewishTheologicalSeminarywerekeysourcesofhisreticenceaboutcreatinganotherdenomination.Kaplansawthecreationofanewmovementasdivisive.I do not wish to make a caricature


of post-denominationalism as beingsimply about selfish Jewish concerns.Nor am I suggesting that Kaplanwas indifferent to individualism. Hisemphasisonthe importanceof intel-lectualhonestymadethatclear.Butthedifferencebetweencontemporarypost-denominationalismandKaplan’searlierstancereflectsaverydifferentbalanceinreconcilingthetensionbetweenthein-dividualandthecommunal,includingtheweightingofthecommunalvalueofJewishpeoplehood.Thatdifferencereflectshistoricalandgenerationalex-periences far beyond any individual’spersonalityorthought.

What Is a Movement?

Ofcourseallofthesetrends,charac-teristicsorideologicallabelsaresubjecttomanyqualifiersifusedtocharacter-izeanydiversegroup.Eventhecriteriafor what defines a denominationalmovementandhowitsdistinctiveroleis identified have changed. If in thelate1960sthecreatingofaseminarymarkedtheemergenceofamovement,whatisthemeaningtodayoftherecentestablishment of a trans-denomina-tionalseminary?Non-denominationalnational organizations now provideservices to synagogues, affiliated andnotaffiliated.ThedifferencebetweenReconstructionism andpost-denomi-nationalism is that a movement af-filiatescongregations.Toimaginethedemise of a movement is to imaginetheendofsuchaffiliations.

Thisunderstandingmayseemself-evident and insignificant,but it con-tainsaprofoundlyimportantimplica-

tion.IfwethinkofJewishpeoplehoodasexpressingafactofconnection,notjustapointofvieworvalue,thentobe an affiliated congregation is to beconnected to other congregations.In this highly individualistic age andparticularlyinamovementthatempha-sizesdemocracyanddecentralizationofauthority, this collectionof groups islikelytobediverse.

Putdifferently,tobepartofamove-mentistobeinvolvedinamicrocosmoftheJewishpeople,howeverlimitedorpartial.Tobeamemberofevenamod-eratelysizedcongregationistobepartofarelativelydiversegroup,certainlyincontrasttothetypicalindependenthavura or minyan.To pay your duestoamovementistocontributetotheJewishlivesofotherswhoarenotpartof you family or your congregation.In contrast, a primary motivation ofmanyforbeinginasmall,independentminyanispreciselytobeinagroupoflike-mindedpeopleand,insomecases,tobepartofanelitegroup(intermsofJewishknowledge,skillsandmotiva-tion)ratherthanonetowhichthewordamkhacouldbeapplied.

Inthissense,denominationalmove-mentsare,bytheirnature,aspectsofJewishpeoplehood—toolsforexperi-encingpeoplehoodandcontributing,in some form, to the Jewish people.This is ironic given the peoplehoodbasisforKaplan’sresistancetocreatinga movement. But of course in thosedays being part of the Jewish peoplewashardlyachoicemostJewshadtomake consciouslyor that institutionshadtofoster.


An Opportunity

These markers of and roles formovements today are not unique toReconstructionism. What may beunique is the opportunity facing theReconstructionistmovementwhich,asnotedabove,wasformallybirthedinaneramarkedbyculturaltrendsthathavegivenrisetopost-denominationalism.Itneeds tobe emphasized that thosetrendsarepartofalarger,deepertrendof American/modern individualismanditsproblematicrelationshiptothedeeply Jewish value of community.Thisstoryisaboutmorethanthefateof movements or of any particularmovement.

Reconstructionismhastheopportu-nitytoseeitselfasalaboratoryfortheJewishpeople.Suchalaboratoryneedstobemorethana“schoolofthought.”Itneedstobeaplacewherethingsarelearned,not just aplacewhere asser-tionsaremade.Suchalaboratoryneedstobe a setting inwhich experimentsareundertakennotjusttobeoriginalandnew,butinordertolearnandsys-tematizeknowledge.Suchalaboratoryneedstobeaplacewherewefacethesoberinglessonslearnedbothfromtheexperienceofactingonourvaluesandof reconciling conflicting values, notjustadmiringthetheirattractiveness.

TosaythatwecanbealaboratoryfortheJewishpeopleisnottosayweshould cease to be a denominationalmovement.Ourpotentialtocontrib-ute to Jewish life is based preciselyonthefactthatweareacollectionofcommunities seeking to act on ideasandtofacetheconsequencesofthose

actionsinthelivesofindividualsandcommunities.Our communities seektolivethetensionbetweenindividualandcommunityand,itishoped,livethe genuine challenge of acting andbenefitingfromadeepcommitmenttodiversity.Reconstructionistcommuni-tiesseethemselvesaspartofanevolvingreligiouscivilizationand,inthatsense,aspartofanaturalexperimentinJewishliving,notasparticipantsinanopinionorbehavioralsurvey.

A Learning Movement

Inthefieldoforganizationaldevelop-ment,the“learningorganization”hasbecomean important ideaand ideal.TheinternallogicoftheReconstruc-tionistmovementisthatitissupposedtocontributetotheevolutionofJewishcivilization,notjustexperienceit.Thiscallsforustobecomea“learningmove-ment.”Weshouldseektolearnaboutthe most important challenges, butsurelythemostimportantchallengesinJewishlifetodayarenotdistinctivetoonemovementoronecontinent.Justas surely, those challenges cannot beunderstoodinasingularway.

Inthis sense,Iconcludewithare-phrasingandexpansionofthetitleofthisessay.CanweintheReconstruc-tionist movement learn to approachandmanagepolaritiesbypositioningourselvesasradicalJewishcentrists?Ifwecan,andifwecanlearnfromdoingso,thenthereisacontributionwecanmaketoJewishlifethatwillbeworthyofKaplanand,ironically,transcendthetensionsthatpromptedhimtobetheambivalentparentofourmovement.


ReconstructionistJudaism,Past,PresentandFuture:

ASymposiumn the occasion of the 70thanniversaryofThe Reconstruc-tionist,weinvitedanumberof O

leadersinthemovementtoreflectonthepast,presentandfutureofRecon-structionistJudaism.Eachwasofferedfivequestions:1.WhatdistinguishesReconstruction-istJudaismfromotherapproachestoJewishlifetoday?2.WhatarethekeycontributionsRe-constructionist Judaism has made toNorthAmericanJewishlife?3. What remains relevant from thelegacyofMordecaiKaplan?4.What in the Kaplanian legacy nolonger seems relevant, necessary orhelpful?5.WhatarethekeyquestionsofJew-ish life now, and what does Recon-structionist Judaism have to offer inresponse?

Some of the participants chose toaddressthequestionsinorder;otherschosetorespondtosomebutnotall.Otherparticipantschosetorespondtothequestionsinasinglestatement.

We welcome the thoughts of ourreaders on any or all of these ques-tions.

David Teutsch

1.Reconstructionistthoughtregard-

ingcivilizationandcommunityhashadabroadimpactuponNorthAmericanJewry.Ourcommitmenttofacingethi-cal issues squarely and to intellectualconsistencyandhonestyhasmadeanevenlargercontribution.Largestofall,perhaps,areourpathbreakingcontri-butions to North American Jewishlife, illustratedby, amongothers: thecreation of the first havurot (1962);female-initiated gittin (divorce cer-emonies) (1979); the recognition ofambilineal descent (incorrectly calledpatrilineal descent) (1968); and thepolicyof equal admissionofgayandlesbian students to rabbinical studiesatRRC(1984).

The liturgical innovations of theoriginalReconstructionistprayerbooksandoftheKol Haneshamah seriesarewidelyemulated.TheencouragementofpersonalspiritualengagementinKol HaneshamahhashelpedtochangethecultureofReconstructionistcongrega-tionsbysupportingthegrowingspiri-tualinterestsofcontemporaryJews.

We remain the only movementdedicated to democratic communi-tarianism.Thisprovidesachallengetothosewhostrugglewiththerigiditiesofhalakha(Jewishlaw).Butitisalsoa challenge to those who have beeninfluencedby theAmerican ideologyof individual autonomy to such an


extentthattheyhavelosttrackofthelegitimatedemandsandtherewardsofcommunity.

Thecommitmentto includingthebroadest possible spectrumof peopleinourcommunitiesgrowsoutofourcommunitarianapproach.

2. Kaplan’s foundational insightsremain indispensable, including hiscommitment to Jewish peoplehoodandtobuildingcommunity,toathis-worldly and functional approach toreligion, to ethical nationhood, andtoaZionismthatinvolvesadynamicrelationshipbetweentheStateofIsraelandworldJewry.Hisconcernthatthe-ologynotcontradictreason,andleadustolivesofintegrityandcommitment,remaincriteriabywhichwecanjudgeour thinking.The acceptance of theevolutionofJudaismchallengesustoreshapeJudaismforourtime.

KaplanwascommittedtopreservingJewish traditionwherever itdoesnotconflict with our best understandingofethics.ThisappreciationforJewishtradition and the need to explore itcontinuestobecriticaltothecapacityoftheReconstructionistmovementtorenewitself.

3. Kaplan’s thought was formedmorethanthreegenerationsago.Thechanges inJewish lifesincethattimehave been profound. For example,Kaplan’s writing about intermarriagecouldnothaveanticipatedthecurrentsituation. In his time, intermarryingofteninvolvedaconsciousandinten-tional break with the Jewish people;today, that is rarely a motivation forintermarriage.

CentraltoKaplan’sthinkingwasthe

beliefthatrightideaswillbeacceptedsimply because they are right, andthatrightthinkingwilltransformtheworld.Aquickglanceatthepoliticalsituationintheworlddemonstratestheinadequacyofthatbelief.Kaplan’sfaithinthepowerofideasledhimtobelievethat the whole Jewish communitywould eventually be “reconstructed.”As a result, Kaplan was never fullycommittedtobuildinganindependentmovementbasedonhisideas.

WhileembracingKaplan’scommit-menttobuildingJewishpeoplehood,Reconstructionistshavediscoveredthata movement can help us accomplishtogetherwhatnoneofus couldhaveaccomplished individually.Today, anewgenerationoftentalksaboutpost-denominationalism.Thismaygiveriseto yet another new movement. Butfor the most part, the self-identifiedpost-denominationalists draw heavilyontheresourcesandideologiesoftheexistingmovements.ThereligiousandintellectualvitalityofAmericanJewryis primarily sustained by movement-trainedandidentifiedleaders.

4. At its best, Reconstruction-ist Judaism recognizes that Jewishpeoplehoodiscentral,thatpeoplehoodrequirescommunity,andthatcommu-nityisnotjustabout“warmfuzzies”butaboutcovenantalcommitment.Com-munitycitizenshiphastransformativepowerinaworldthattoooftenempha-sizesthematerialisticandignoreswhatgiveslifeenduringvalue.Thevoluntary,egalitarian,inclusivecommunitiesthatReconstructionism envisions are ef-fectivebasesforpersonalspiritualandmoral development, for social justice


work,forstrugglingwiththeissuesofourtime,forbuildingrelationshipsandforfindingpersonalsupport.

Reconstructionist ideology iscom-mittedtogivingthepast“avotebutnota veto,” which means seeking JewishknowledgeandtakingonJewishprac-ticeexceptwheretherearecompellingmoralreasonstochangeit—andthatoften means creating a new practice.Thisisanimplicitcritiqueofhalakhicmethodsononesideandofunbridledindividualism on the other. Roots inJewish tradition shouldhelpus resistfads,whileacommitmenttoopennessanddialogueshouldsupportourcon-tinualevolution.

5.Themarket-drivenWesterncul-tures inculcateaworldviewthat is inmany ways inimical to Jewish living.Judaismplaces ahighvalueoncom-munity, andWestern culture empha-sizes autonomy. Judaism advocatestheimportanceofinternalgoodslikevirtues, spirituality and interpersonalrelationships.Westerncultureprimarilyemphasizesconsumptionandexternalgoods. One consequence of this dif-ferenceisthattheJewishemphasisonsocialjusticeandrepairoftheworldisatoddswiththeincreasinggapbetweenrichandpoorinboththeUnitedStatesandinIsrael.Itisdifficulttomaintainthekindofdynamic,liberal,commit-ted, pluralistic and democratic com-munitythatReconstructionistsbelieveinwithinalargerculturalcontextthatis premised on the individual.Thecurrentpursuitofmeaningreflectedinthewideinterestin“spirituality”mustbeunderstoodintermsofthestrugglefor integrity, spiritual depth and im-

provementofourworld,lestitreducethepursuitofmeaningtoyetanotherinterestinghobby.

Dr.DavidA.TeutschistheDirectoroftheCenter forJewishEthicsandMyraandLouisWienerProfessorofContem-poraryJewishCivilizationattheRecon-structionistRabbinicalCollege.

Jane Susswein

What remains relevant from thelegacy of Mordecai Kaplan?The in-tellectual integrity and demand forhonesty that shines through Kaplan’swritings,andisoneofthereasonsIamsoattractedtoReconstructionism.Tobeabletoengageinsynagoguelifeandin religious discussions without feel-ingforcedtoacceptthingsthatIdon’tbelievetobetruemeanseverythingtome.Theideathatthewisdomofboththe physical and social sciences canenrichourunderstandingofourselvesasJews,ratherthanthreatenit,isveryempowering.

The Reconstructionist mandate tobeeducatedparticipantsintheevolu-tionofJudaismhasenabledustousethetouchstoneofmodernmoralsensi-bilitiestotakeradicalstands:grantingwomenequalritualrights,includingtherighttodivorceinareligioussetting;acceptingchildrenofJewishfathersandnon-JewishmothersasJews(iftheyareraised as Jews); and fully welcomingmembersoftheGLBTcommunityasrabbis and congregants. Less radical,maybe, but equally empowering, hasbeen the creation of liturgy to mark


eventshithertounrecognizedinJewishlife—thenamingofababygirl,theweaningofachild,orsendingachildtocollege,tocitethreeexamples.

What of the Kaplanian legacy nolonger seems relevant, necessary orhelpful?I’mnotsurethatthe“PowerthatmakesforSalvation”hasasmuchresonance as it may have had whenKaplan was making a radical breakfromthesupernaturalGod-conceptoforthodoxy.ModernsciencehasenabledustoreframetheconceptofGodinaway that ismore integratedwithourunderstandingofbiology.Works likeEdwardWilson’sSociobiologyandmov-ieslikeMarch of the Penguins makeclearthatbehaviorswemightcall“moral,”like altruism and loving care for anoffspring,evenanegg,arenotthesoleprovinceofhumanbeings.

InaSeptember29,2005interviewon National Public Radio, SherwinNuland,authorofWisdom of the Body, talkedaboutspiritasan“evolutionaryaccomplishmentofthehumancortex,”somethingmuchmorethanconscious-ness.Hepositedthatthehumanbrainispredisposedtochoosehealthywaysofbeing—physicallyandemotionally.Hesaid,“Themoralsenseprovidespeoplewithmorepleasurethananything...the senseofoneselfasagoodpersonwhoselifeisn’tsacrificedforothersbutisbasedaroundcommunityand lovegivesonethegreatestpleasurethatany-bodycanhave.”Whethertheuniverseisperfectiblemaybedebatable,butthatthere is somethinghard-wired inourconstitution that causesus tobehaveasifitweremaybelessso.

WhatarethekeyquestionsofJewish

lifenow,andwhatdoesReconstruction-istJudaismhavetoofferinresponse?Lackof identificationwithIsraelandtheproblematicsenseof klal YisraelaretwoissuesfacingJews,theformerforDiasporaJews,andthelatterforJewsinIsraelandthoseoutside.ForthosewhodidnotlivethroughthecreationoftheStateofIsrael,thegutfeelingthatIsraelmustbesupportedatallcostsisnotagiven.LiberalJews,whotendtosidewiththepoorandtheoppressed,canseeIsraelastheoppressor,apower-fulcountryunjustinthetreatmentofitsArabcitizens,andprovocativeinitsencroaching settlements. While notalone in the Jewish community, theReconstructionistpositionadvocatedinthereportoftheJRFIsraelTaskForce,whichurgedthesharingofJerusalemandthewithdrawalfromtheoutlyingsettlements,isonewhichdoesnotforceus to take positions contrary to ourinclinations.

More challenging than Israel maybe repairing the schism among ourown people. Adoption of patrilinealdescent by the Reconstructionists in1968(followedbytheReformmove-ment15yearslater)hasenabledmanyfamilies to become involved in ourcongregations who might not havedoneso.Buttheresultisa“WhoisaJew?”questionthatseemsunbridgeableatthispointintime,notonlywiththeOrthodox,butwiththeConservativemovementaswell.IntheUnitedStates,with separation of church and state,thestance ismore“liveand let live.”InIsrael,however,theimplicationsformarriageanddivorceamongallnon-Orthodoxormixed-married Jews are


morechallenging.There is the additional irony that

many self-declared “secular” Israelis,althoughJewishinmanyofthewayswewoulddefine—speakingHebrew,liv-ingbytheJewishcalendar,etc.—wantnothingtodowithJudaism,thinkinganything religious is, by definition,Orthodox. Reconstructionism is theperfectanswerforthosewhowanttoreclaimtheir tradition,but inanon-Orthodoxframe.

As a member of a United JewishCommunities committee that fundsprogramspromoting religiousplural-isminIsrael,Isensetheneedexpressedby many to reconnect with Judaism,butinanon-synagogue-relatedform.Iseemanyprogramswhoseapproachtotraditionandlearningcouldwellbecalled Reconstructionist. Our clear-eyed, undogmatic approach to theclassicaltextscanbearealcontributionto enabling more Israelis to becomeJewish.

JaneSussweinisamemberofBnaiKeshetinMontclair,NewJersey.Sheisapast-presidentoftheJewishReconstructionistFederation.

Amy Klein

In recent years, religiously and/orpolitically progressive Jews in andoutsideofIsraelhavebeenthreatenedwith being held responsible for theimminent tearingapartof theJewishpeople.The threat ismadewhenevertheissueoflegitimatingnon-orthodoxconversionsisraisedinIsrael.Itwasalso

raised during the months leading uptotheIsraelidisengagementfromtheGazaStrip.Bothtimesthetacticnearlyworked to disrupt processes that theprogressive community hoped wouldleadtoamorejustIsraelisocietyandhealthyJewishpeople.

When accused of creating divi-sions, progressive Jews are too easilycowed into abdicating the values ofdemocracy,equality,humanrightsanddiversitythataretheveryfoundationsofourJewishnessandofourhumanity.Iwould rather live in aworldwhereboundaries are obscured than in aworld without fundamental, demo-cratic values.The overarching legacyofMordecaiKaplanandcontributionofReconstructionismtoJewishlifeistheadherencetointellectualandmoralintegrity.Today, more than ever, wemustholdfasttothatlegacy.

ReconstructionistJudaismisdistin-guishedfromotherapproachestoJew-ishlifebyanideologythatdissolvesthecontradictionbetweentherightandleftsidesofourbrain.Itaffirmsatheologythatistransnaturalratherthansuper-natural,atthesametimeencouraginguseofthepowerandrichnessofourtra-ditionalmythstoopenupspiritualandemotionalinsights.Today,thisideologyisstillnotobvious.WhenIexplainittopeople,particularlytoIsraelisstrug-gling with traditional conceptions ofGod,andwiththeseemingcontradic-tionbetweenprogressivetheologiesandreligiousobservance,theyareattractedbythepossibilities.

The Reconstructionist approachtoJudaismisalsodistinguishedbyitsinsistenceondemocraticdecisionmak-


ingandtheuseofnon-halakhicprocesstobuildcommunitiesofcommitment.TheuniquenessoftheReconstruction-istapproachisthatithasfoundawaytoachievealevelofcommunalpracticeandcaringasvaluedbyourtraditionwithout resorting to non-democraticandnon-egalitarianleadershipmecha-nisms.

Forthoselessfamiliarwiththepro-cess,theReconstructionistmovementand its communities often employthe technique of values-based deci-sion making, promulgated by DavidTeutsch, to reachethical,meaningfuloutcomesfordilemmasofJewishlife.Communitiesthatengageinaseriousprocess to implement a social justiceprogram, create guidelines for com-munity support of families fightingseriousillnessorgoingthroughdivorce,or to determine the level of Shabbatobservance, become communitieswithclearnormsthatraisethelevelofJewishlearning,mutualcommitmentandethicalactionofitsmembers.Asaprocesslocatedintimeandplace,thepotentialalwaysexiststhatcommuni-ties will decide differently and thatoutcomes will change. Both resultsmust remain acceptable if Judaism istobe relevant for future generations.Ourelevationofprocessoverproductmakesusunique,andwemustworkhard not to give in to requests foreasy,clearanswers.Democracy is thedifficult path; there are always thosewilling to abdicate responsibility andthose willing to increase their powerandauthority.

WhilekeycontributionsofRecon-structionistJudaismtoNorthAmerican

Jewishlifeincludebuildingcommuni-tieswithaparticipatoryandinclusiveculture,andthecreationofritualandliturgy that responds to the spiritualneedsofJewstoday,weareindangerofover-emphasizingtikkun atzmi (self-re-alization)attheexpenseoftikkun olam.Kaplan wrote: “The type of religionwhichweJewsasapeople,andwhichmankindasawhole,urgentlyneedsasameanstosurvivalhastoconsist,ortaketheform,ofmoralresponsibilityinaction.”(M.Kaplan,The Purpose and Meaning of Jewish Existence,294.)Therearemanyamongusworkingforsocialchangebutnotenough.

Finally, in Israel, there are peopleleadingtheir lives inaccordancewiththe Reconstructionist values, includ-ing democratic process, promotingjusticeandtakingresponsibilityforthecreationofdynamicJewishritualandculturalpracticesthatremaingroundedinthetradition—onlytheydosowith-outdefiningthemselvesasReconstruc-tionists.ThisisatestimonytoKaplan’sforesight, that for Judaism to surviveitwouldneed tobe reconstructed inorganicallycreatedcommunities.

These individuals and groups arepotentially our partners. However,Reconstructionists,whocoinedthelan-guageofpeoplehood,havedonelittletobuildconnectionswithJewishcom-munitiesinIsrael,intheformerSovietUnion, inEurope, inSouthAmericaand elsewhere. Maintaining a Jewishpeoplehoodwithacommonlanguageand identity depends upon bridgingworld Jewish communities and sup-portingthosecommunitiesstrugglingintheirquestforJewishrevitalization.


RabbiAmyKleinisdirectoroftheIsraelprogramof theReconstructionistRab-binicalCollege.

Brant Rosen

Reconstructionist Judaism’s mostimportant legacy is its vision of reli-gion without triumphalism. AmongKaplan’s many courageous assertionswashisinsistencethatnoonereligiousfaithhasamonopolyondivinetruth:

Theclaimofanyreligion...tobetheexclusivecustodianoftheop-portunitiesofhumansalvation,todenyvaliditytotheclaimsofotherreligionstotheexperienceoftherealityofGod,ortoassumethatonlythroughitsdoctrinesandritescanmenexperiencethatreality,isviciousandisasinagainsttheidealofequality(M.Kaplan,The Future of the American Jew,326).

RatherthanidentifyGodwithonespecificreligion,Reconstructionismaf-firmsthatGodisgreaterthanreligionitself. Kaplan famously taught thatreligions represent culturally condi-tionedsystemsdevelopedbyreligiouscivilizations in their ongoing searchforthedivine.ReconstructioniststhusunderstandJewishtraditionnotastheexclusivemanifestationofGod’sword,butratherasthemeansbywhichweexpressoursacredsenseofbelongingtoJewishcivilization.Again,inKaplan’sownwords:

. . . religious differences do notimplyreligiousinequality,andthe

assumptionthatourownreligionissuperiortoallothersisnomorelegitimatethattopretendthatweourselvesas individualsaresupe-riortootherindividuals,orhaveasuperiorclaimtoGod’sgrace(M.Kaplan,The Future of the American Jew,151).

ThoughKaplanwrotethesewordsintheearly20thcentury,theyarear-guablyevenmorecriticalforustoday.Tragically,atthedawnofthe21stcen-tury,religionhasbecometheprimarylightningrodforconflict,divisionandhatred. In our own country, we findfaith cynically invoked in a deeplypolarized “culture war.” Around theworld,terror,violenceandbloodshedare increasingly perpetrated in God’sname.Perhapsitwaseverthus.Butinourincreasinglycomplexpost-modernworld,itmaywellbethatthestakesarenowhigherthaneverbefore.

Astheoverwhelmingmajorityofthecitizensofournationandoftheworldstillconsider themselves tobepeopleof faith, religion still has the abilityto influence our collective destiny inpowerful ways. If this is so, then allwhoclaimtoactinthenameofreligionmustaskthemselves:whichvisiondoIstandfor,thereligionofinclusionorexclusion?Intheend,therecanbenomiddlegroundonthisquestion.

Thus,themostimportantcontribu-tiontheReconstructionistmovementcanofferinaneraofreligiousfearandmistrust is a deeper recommitmentto Kaplan’s religious vision of toler-ance,equalityandprogress.Wemustadvocateunabashedlyforthesevalues


inourcongregationsandcommunitiesaswellasinthegreatermarketplaceofreligiousideas.Moreover,wemustalsobewillingtocondemnthoseintheJew-ish community who preach religioushatred,andwemustbereadytoreachoutandcreatelastingrelationshipswiththose from other religious traditionswhoshareourvision.

Ironically,Kaplan’sfaithinreligionas a force foruniversal salvation rep-resents Reconstructionist Judaism’smost important andmost unfulfilledaspiration.Evertherationalist,Kaplandidnotfullyforeseethetenacityofre-ligiousfundamentalism.Andevertheoptimist,hecouldneverhavefathomedthegrowthofmurderousreligiousex-tremismthathasbecomesotragicallycommonplacetoday.ItnowfallstoanewgenerationofReconstructioniststopromotehisreligiousvisionoftoleranceandinclusioninaworldthatneedsitmore than ever. Among the myriadof needs to which ReconstructionistJudaismmightrespond,noneismorecrucialtoourcollectivefuture.

RabbiBrantRosenisthePresidentoftheReconstructionistRabbinicalAssociationandrabbioftheJewishReconstructionistCongregationinEvanston,Illinois.

Isaac Saposnik

“YournameshallnolongerbeJacob,but Israel, for you have striven withbeings divine and human, and haveprevailed”(Genesis32:29).

We are a movement of strugglers

— individuals and communities (or,perhapsmoreappropriately,individu-alsincommunities)whostrugglewitheachotherandwithGodtoreceiveandexplore the blessings of our heritage.Wedo this self-consciouslyandpub-licly,realizingthatwearebeyt Ya’akov, b’nai Yisrael (thehouseholdof Jacob,thedescendentsofIsrael)notbecausewehaveacommonancestry,butratherbecausewehaveacommonwillingnesstograpplewiththosebeings,divineandhuman, whom we encounter on oureverydayjourneysthroughlife.

Attimes,thiswillingnessundoubt-edlyseemsoverzealous.Ourconstantstrivingfornewquestions,newanswersandnewunderstandingsmustappeartotheoutsideworldasthoughwearelooking for trouble. And perhaps weare.(Didn’tJacobdothesamething?)Wearemoversandchangers—trying,asdidourancestors,toconstructaJu-daismthatisrelevantandmeaningful,personalandcommunal.OthersbeginthisprocessbyplacingthecornerstonesuponwhichtheywillbuildthefutureofJudaism.Webeginbyexploringwheth-ersuchfixedcornerstoneswillindeedbethebestsupportforourfuture.

For generation upon generation,the key questions of Jewish life wereanswered only by the most learnedmembersofthecommunity.Forus,itisnotaboutthemostlearnedbutratherthemostlearning.Wefocusnotontheanswerbutontheprocess.Weanswerquestionswithquestions andprocesswithprocess.Bydoingso,wehavebe-guntochangethemethodofdiscoursein(atleast)theliberalJewishcommu-nity.Othersaskuswhatitmeanstobe


Reconstructionist and we, in return,encourage them to continue askingquestions.Wethusopenourselvesandothers to explore similarities whereseeminglyinsurmountabledistinctionsoncelaybetweenmovements.

Aswepushotherstoquestion,andasweattempttoclosethegapsbetweenthemovements(processesKaplanwouldnodoubthavesupported),letusbewillingtoheedourownadvice. Atthesametimeaswestrugglewiththosearoundus,wemustalsolooktoourinnerstruggles.Inamovementthatpridesitselfonitsability to advocate for change in theworld,wemust bewilling to changeourselvesaswell.WemustbewillingtoreconstructReconstructionism.

Thosevaluesweholdmostdear—egalitarianism,inclusivecommunities,opendoorsformixedmarriedfamilies—wereunthinkableacenturyago.Aswemovethroughthiscentury,itseemsevidentthatsuchimportantvalueshiftswillcontinuetooccur.Itseemsequallyevidentthattheseshiftswillnotalwaysmeldwithourpersonalandcommunalsensibilitiesandnorms.Thechallengeforuswill lieinwhetherwearewill-ingandabletostrugglehonestlywiththe issues that shake the foundationswehavebuilt.Willwecontinuetobewilling to make the changes that arehardesttofathom?

Thisisnotanewquestion.Anditisnot,ofcourse,onlyourquestion.ThefutureoftheJewishpeoplehasalwaysdepended on the ability to change,andnowisnodifferent.JustasKaplandid more than seventy years ago, wecontinuetosearchformeaningfulwaysto live as Jews in themodernworld.

Kaplan’ssuggestionthatthisisanongo-ingprocess—movingfrombelongingtobehavingtobelieving—stillholdstrue.The Jewish community’s focusonengagementandempowerment,oncommunitybuildingandsocialaction,and on civic involvement and adulteducationatteststothewaysinwhichthisthree-tieredconceptionhasbecomepartofmainstreamJudaism.

To be true disciples of Kaplan,however,would require at least someunderstandingthatsimplecompliancewithsuchasetsystemcanbedanger-ous.Onlyifweallowourselvestolookatthecornerstonesofcommunitysetforthaftermuchdeliberationandareable—aftermuchfurtherdeliberation—tomovethemtomeetnewneedsand values (no matter how difficult)will we truly live up to the name of“Reconstructionists.”

Perhaps we can begin this processby adding a fourth stage to Kaplan’salliterativeviewofJudaism—thatofbecoming.Aswecontinuetoworktoreconstructwhoweare,howwebehaveandwhatwebelieve, letuschallengeourselves also to reconstruct who wewanttobecome.Firmlyrootedinourconnection to the past and whollywilling to accept the struggles of thepresent,letusaimtoenteraconstantstateofbecomingourbestselves—in-dividually andcommunally—aswereachtothefutureandstrivetowrestlewiththedivine.

IsaacSaposnikisstudyingfortherabbin-ateat theReconstructionistRabbinicalCollegeandistheAssistantDirectorofCampJRF.


Dan Ehrenkrantz

Religionusedtoprovideacoherentsystem of meaning and value for in-dividualadherents.Today,withmanycompetingvisionsofwhatisvaluableand meaningful, such as the cultureof materialism that promises happi-ness through consumption, religionstrugglestoplaythisimportantrole.

Religion has also been a primarymotivator—bothinthepastandinthepresent—forviolence,byassertingclaimsofsuperioritysupportedbythefalselogicofracismandbigotry.Today,the violence that religion motivatesbecomesanevengreaterdangerduetotheincreasingabilityofsmallgroupsofpeople,orevenasingleperson,togainaccesstohighlydestructiveweapons.

The task of Reconstructionist Ju-daism is to show the way towards avalue-driven, meaningful Jewish lifethatisdevoidofchauvinism,onethateffectivelycontributestotheimprove-mentoflife.Insteadofdevaluingoth-ers,suchaJudaismwillraisethelevelofrespectandobligationwefeeltowardallpeople.Bysettingthisexample,wewillprovidethosewhocomeintocontactwithusapathtowardsrighteousliving,andwewillencourageothers,Jewsandnon-Jews,tofollowourlead.

Wearewellsituatedtoplaythisrole.WearetheonlybranchofJudaismthathasfullyacceptedthechallengeofcon-frontingthepartsofourtraditionthatarespirituallychauvinistic.Tobeasso-ciatedwithReconstructionistJudaismmeansthatevenifyoudonotacceptKaplan’ssolutiontothedifficultlegacyoftheJewsas“thechosenpeople,”you

muststillconfrontthechallengeofourhistoricalprejudicestowardnon-Jews.

WearealsotheonlyJewishmove-mentthathasrecognized,basedonastudy of the Jewish past, how muchof what we call Judaism is derivativeof other cultures and peoples.Theconclusionwehavedrawn is thatweshouldcontinuetoallowourselvestobeinspiredandchallengedbythewisdomofothertraditions,carefullyincorpo-ratingnewideas(e.g.democracy)andbehaviors(e.g. socialactionbeyondtheJewish community) when and whereappropriate.

Wealsoarepositionedtorespondtothechallengeposedbysociety’scom-petingvisionsthroughourpioneeringapproachtocommunallifethathasthepotentialtoyieldtherichmeaningthatJudaismoffers.Ownershipofcommu-nalnormsbelongstothemembersofthecommunity.Communitymembersare responsible for creationofnormsandforhowwelltheyarefollowed.Thisyieldsasenseofresponsibilityandmu-tualobligationthatformsthebasisforlivesofmeaning,purposeandvalue.

Key challenges remain because weare part of a shrinking minority. InJewishlife,apopularargumentisthatweneedtostrengthenthecoregroup,andignorethosewhomaybeontheperipheryofJewishlife.Thistendencytoturninwardsmustberesisted.Whenweturninwardweattendonlytocar-ingforthosewhoarelike-mindedandsimilarlycommitted,creatingabreed-inggroundforprejudice.

But we must not ignore the chal-lengesofourshrinkingnumbers.Newapproaches must be brought to bear


to communicate within and beyondour devoted core.The Internet is animportantareafordevelopment.RRC’spioneeringeffortsthroughKolot’s ritu-alwell.org and Hiddur’s sacredseasons.orgaretwogoodexamplesofhowtheInternetcanplayanewandimportantrole inconnectingJewstoJewishlifewhileaddressing issuesofcritical im-portancetotheJewishcommunity.

Synagogueshavebeenaskedtocarrytoo much of the burden for creatingmeaningful Jewish life, and withoutadequatesupport.Wemustcreatenewprofessional positions for rabbis whocan support the work of synagogueswhile reaching out to those who arenot synagogue members. Synagoguescannotbeallthingstoallpeople,andtheireffortstoplaythisrolehavehurttheir effectiveness.We are capable ofpositively transforming Jewish com-munallife,onecommunityatatime,butweneedtodevelopthewilltobringaboutthistransformation.

OursuccesswillyieldastrongJewishcommunity that brings its vitality toits internalcommunal lifeandtotheworld at large.We can help Judaismandotherreligionspurgethemselvesoftheirhistoricbigotriesandbecometheforces forgoodness,peace,wholenessandlovethatwesodesperatelyneed.Our very best efforts arenecessary ifwearetoplaytheimportantrolethatisourstoplay.

RabbiDanEhrenkrantz isPresidentofthe Reconstructionist Rabbinical Col-lege.

Amy Goldsmith

There is something truly awesomeabouthavingprideforareligionthatyou can feel but cannot explain. FormanyReconstructionistteens,childrenandadults,findingaway todescribeMordecai Kaplan’s philosophies onJudaismandhowtheyarepracticedto-dayismind-boggling.Launchingintoa twenty-minute conversation aboutvaluescanbedifficultandconfusing;however,onlyhighlightingkeywordssuchas “community”or “inclusivity”does little justice to such a vibrantbranchofJudaism.

Over these past few years, I havebeenfortunateenoughtofindsuchawarm and welcoming community inNo’ar Hadash, JRF’s youth network.Throughweekendregionalkallotandsummers spent at Camp JRF, I havemarveledatfindingpeopletoconnectwith,withouthavingtoexplainmyself.Comingfromacross-denominationalHebrewHighSchoolprogram,IwasinstantlyrelievedthateveryoneImetjust“got”Reconstructionism.

In the larger Jewish community,Reconstructionismiswidelymisunder-stood.Ihaveoftenbeenaskedquestionssuchas“DoyouguysbelieveinGod?”and“Aren’tyoualljusthippies?”Ihavealwaysexplainedthat,yes,someofusdon’tbelieveinthe“traditional”ideaofGod,andsomeofusdoself-identifyashippies,butwhenaskedtoexplainwhatthemovementbelievesin,Icannotputitintowords.

Aboutamonthago,Iwasfortunateenough tobepart of a delegationofReconstructionist teens thatattended


aPanimleadershipsummit inWash-ington,D.C.ThegoalofthesummitwastoconnectdifferentJewishyouthmovement leaders, for them to shareideas,andtogainabetterunderstand-ingofdifferentJewishlifestyles.Incon-trast to real-life demographics, No’arHadashboastedthelargestdelegationof all the movements attending theconference. Despite our majority, wewereallstillnervousaboutfullyrepre-senting our movement. Five minutesbefore the summit began, we held aquickmeetingonhowtogoaboutan-sweringtheinevitablequestionsaboutReconstructionism.WeturnedtoKap-lanforasentence-longdefinitionthatwewouldbeabletorattleoffevenifwedidn’tfullyunderstanditourselves:“Reconstructionismviews JudaismastheevolvingreligiouscivilizationoftheJewishpeople.”Wequicklylearnedthatitdidlittletoansweranyquestions.

The first day at the summit wasemotionallydraining. I foundmyselfsearchingfordifferentwaystodescribeNo’arHadashandReconstructionism.Mostofmy explanationsbeganwithMordecaiKaplanandendedwithcom-munity but the middles were alwaysa littledifferentdependingonwhichwordscametome.IsupposethatevenmyapproachtomyexplanationswasReconstructionist.IdevotedenergytomakingsurethatthewordsIchosewereappropriatefor,andengagedeach,ofmylisteners—justasReconstruction-ismaims tobringmeaningful Jewishlifetoalargerspectrumofpeople.EvenifIcouldn’texplainitrightthenandthere,IwaslivingReconstructionism.

Thebiggest “aha”momentof that

weekend happened while we were attheJeffersonmemorial.Wewanderedaround, taking in the beauty of themonumentandreading thewordsofsuchanimportantfigure.Oneinscrip-tioninparticulardiscussedtheroleofgovernmentinachangingsociety,andnotedthatinstitutionsneedtokeepupwithprogress inorder forthesocietytoadvance:

...lawsandinstitutionsmustgohandinhandwiththeprogressofthehumanmind.Asthatbecomesmoredeveloped,moreenlightened,asnewdiscoveriesaremade,newtruthsdiscoveredandmannersandopinionschange,withthechangeofcircumstances,institutionsmustadvancealsotokeeppacewiththetimes.–ThomasJefferson

Itwaswhilereadingthisquotationthatoneofourdelegatesfinallyunder-stoodReconstructionism.Reconstruc-tionismisaboutkeepingJudaismalive,reachingthelargerJewishsocietyandprogressingwith the timeswhile stillmaintainingtradition.

It was right then and there that Irealized it doesn’t matter whether ornotwecanexplainReconstructionism.Ifwecanunderstandwhatitiswhenweseeitandknowhowtoliveit,thenthatisallweneedtobeabledo.Recon-structionismisnotsomethingyoucansay,butrathersomethingyoucanshowanddo.ItprovidesuswitharoadmapofhowtolivewithJewishvaluessuchastikkun olam,inclusivity,communityand involvement in an ever-chang-ing secularworld.Reconstructionismstrugglesrightalongwithustoprovide


answerstoquestionsaboutmaintainingtraditionandkeepingJudaismalive.Itteachesustoengageouryouth,becausetheyaretheJewishfuture;butalsotolearnfromourpast,becauseitisthetra-ditionthathassustainedusthusfar.

AmyGoldsmithlivesinNewton,Mas-sachusettsandisamemberofCongre-gation DorsheiTzedek. She has beeninvolved with Camp JRF and No’arHadashsince2004andiscurrentlyontheNo’arHadashVa’ad.

Shawn Zevit

WhiletravelingthroughCanadaandtheUnitedStatesoverthepastseveralyearsIhaveparticipatedinnumerousconversations about our mission andgoalsasamovement.Ihaveheardmanyinterpretations of Reconstructionisttheology,philosophyandpractice,fromself-described“classicalKaplanians”to“neo-Hasidic”Reconstructionists.

SomeclassicalvoicesdecrythenewspiritualexplorationsoccurringinsomecornersofthemovementandclaimthatKaplan,werehetoreappear,wouldbe-moanhowfarafieldourindividualisticspiritualjourneyingandexperimenta-tionhavetakenus.

Ontheotherhand,IhaveheardanewergenerationofReconstructionistscriticizewhattheyperceiveasnostalgiaforanintellectualapproachtoJewishlifethatleavesthebodyandspiritatthedoorandignorestheneedsofspiritualseekers.

TherecentlypublishedexcerptsfromKaplan’searlydiaries(Communings of

the Spirit, editedbyMelScult) showa man concerned not only with theclear,accessiblearticulationofhiskeyideas,butwithacommitmenttowhattodayiscalled“God-wrestling,”andtoastrivingforauthenticityandmeaning.Suchasoul,itseemstome,wouldbedisappointedbyastaticreplicationofhis formulae, andwould feel that hehadfailedtotransmithisideasaboutreconstructingJewishlifetosubsequentgenerations.

Our movement has a whole newgeneration of members who are notwell-versed in Kaplanian thought orinReconstructionistprinciples,evenastheyareproudandactiveparticipantsinthemovement.WeneedmorethanjustreplicationsofReconstructionism’spast formulations. As an example:Many newer Reconstructionists areattracted to the idea of “democracy”as applied to Judaism. But using theterm “Reconstructionist” to supportwhatamountstoapersonalpreference,withoutJewishstudy,valuesclarifica-tionandawillingnesstoseetheneedsofthecommunityasonaparwithourindividual needs, is not the type ofdemocracyKaplanhadinmind.

Yetforallofthediversityofpersonal-ityandpracticewithinthemovement,Kaplan’scoreideasofreligiousnatural-ism,egalitarianismanddemocraticde-cision-makinghaveproduceddynamic,creative communities.They share agenerally cohesive and familiar setofnormsandpolicies.Thesecommunitiessharemany importantcharacteristics:gender equality, shared leadership, awelcoming atmosphere, lifelong edu-cationalpractices,liturgicalandritual


creativity, a serious embraceof tradi-tion, a commitment to tikkun olam andtomutualsupport,andaconscioussearchformeaningful,sustainablelivesasJewsandashumanbeings.OurpointhasnotbeentobuildaJudaismwhere“anything goes,” but one in whichmuchispossible.

KaplanspokeofGodastheProcessthatmakesforthefulfillmentofourhu-manpotential.Wehavemovedbeyondthediscussionabouttheismandathe-ismtoadiscussionabouthowtolivemoreGodlyandreligiouslyauthenticlivesinaculturethatchampionsindi-vidualismandpersonalhappinessovercommunal commitment and people-hood.WhenweenterintodiscussionofanimportantissueweareenteringTheProcess — we are on sacred ground.Godlinesscanbemanifestthroughtheapproachandcontentofourdecision-making.ThisProcessmakesfor“salva-tion,” inKaplan’s terms, aswemovetowardsanagreed-uponoutcomethatideallybringseachofusandourcom-munities into greater self-realization.Weare,inshort,strivingforaProcessthatcontainsGodlyvalues,andyieldsan outcome that fulfills the missionof our community and the spiritualgrowthoftheparticipants.

Ofcourse,wecanmisuse the ideaof democratic participatory processto block needed action and consigndecision-making to an endless “pro-cess of processing.”We may overuseJewish values-based decision makingbyapplyingittoeveryissueinsteadofsavingitforkeyissuesofcommunityidentityandpolicy.Wecanalsohidebehindanti-authoritariantendenciesto

underminerabbisandleadersbyinsist-ingthateveryoneneedstoapproveeverydecision,orthatconsensusisrequiredateveryturn.Thedisempoweringofleader-shipsimplyallowsforinfluencetobeex-ertedmoresubtlyandoftenlessvisibly,withoutevaluationanddiscussion.

In the world of 21st century Re-constructionism,“truth”iscertainlyinflux.Forexample,astheneweditionofExploring Judaism: A Reconstructionist Approach suggests,wearemoreques-tioningoftheauthorityofthesciencesthanKaplanwas,evenaswecontendwith staggering new scientific andtechnological advances.We are morequestioningthanwasKaplanofsomeofthevaluesofAmericansociety,andwefeelourselvesbeingshapedbyamul-tiplicityof identities andcivilizationsbeyondtheconceptof“livingintwocivilizations.”InlightoftheHolocaustandthenever-endingeruptionofbrutalwars around the world, we questionmorevigorously thandidKaplanthehuman capability of achieving peaceand“salvation”throughpolitics,educa-tionandtechnology.

As we enter “the second centuryof Mordecai Kaplan,” intellectualrigor,emotionalhonestyandspiritualcreativity will enable us to continueto evolve indeep relationship to ourJewish tradition, to our movement’sfoundationalideasandtoglobalissuesofenvironmental,political,economicandspiritualsustainability.

RabbiShawnZevitisSeniorConsultantandDirectorofOutreachandExternalAffairsfortheJewishReconstructionistFederation.


Values-BasedDecisionMaking:SomeSecondThoughts

By BaRBaRa hiRsh

nhishelpfulandthoughtfularticle“Reinvigorating the Practice ofContemporary JewishEthics: A I

JustificationForValues-BasedDecisionMaking”(Spring2005),DavidTeutschoutlines the assumptions underlyingvalues-baseddecisionmaking.Anopendiscussionofthismuch-usedconceptwithinReconstructionismisoverdue.Teutsch has been nearly a lone voicein articulating the meaning of thisconcept, and we are in his debt forundertakingtheefforttostateclearlywhatismeantwhenReconstructionistsattempttoemployVBDM.

Iwouldliketocontinuethatdiscus-sion by mentioning a few importantbutunder-exploredareasthattouchonsomeofTeutsch’sthemes.

Need for Leadership Training

1.LeadershipDevelopment.Teutschemphasizes theneed for a significantJewish knowledge base and groupmanagementskillsamonglayleadersasprerequisitestoundertakingaVBDMprocess.Ihopehiswordsaretakenasachallengetothemovement.Iflead-ership development is a prerequisiteforVBDM,thenwe,likemostofthe

Jewishcommunity,havealongroadtotravel,accordingtoHalLewis’recentindictment“MakingLeaders:HowtheAmericanJewishCommunityPreparesItsLayLeaders.”1

WhilenotdirectedspecificallytotheReconstructionistmovement(althoughReconstructionism is included in hisresearch),Lewisobservesanoveralllackof consensus in the American Jewishcommunity about what constitutes“leadership”or “training.”Hewrites:“manyJewishgroups...equatelead-ershipwithawillingnesstoserve.”Inmanycases,“training”consistsonlyofadesiretoparticipate.Lewisconcludes,thattheseprograms,whatevertheirin-herentworth,donottoanysignificantdegree constitute leadership traininganddevelopment.

Hedescribesthepredominantmod-els in this area, includingapproachescommon in the Reconstructionistmovement.Heassertsthatneithertheincorporationof“selectedsacredtexts”into decision-making, nor the teach-ingofnarrowskillssuchasmarketingandfund-raising,inandofthemselvesconstitute “leadership training,” irre-spectiveofwhatJewishgroupssuggestor assume.Wemayconclude that in

BarbaraHirsh is theDeanofAcademicAdministration at theReconstructionistRabbinicalCollege.


spite of activity that purports to betrainingleaders,thereisactuallylittlecredibleworkinthisarea.WeshouldbeconcernedabouttheimplicationsofthisvacuumfarbeyondourabilitytoengageinVBDM.

Outcomes Assessment

2. Empirical Research. I was es-pecially interested to noteTeutsch’sreferencetooutcomesinhisarticle.Asamovement,itistimeforustoevalu-ateempiricallytheuseofVBDMandtheoutcomesitgenerates.Asystematicattempttostudytheapplicationofthisprocess within the Reconstructionistmovementwouldhelpusaddress in-consistenciesin,anduntestedassump-tionsabout,itsuse.

I frequentlyhear the termVBDMused,butwithoutconsistency.Teutschreferstohisunderstandingoftheap-propriateuseoftheterm(p.11).ButIamnotsurethatwehaveconsensusonexactlywhenVBDMisanappropri-ateprocess,whodetermineswhenitisfitting,whoisentitledtotakepartinsuchaprocess,andwhoisresponsibleforensuringtheimplementationoftheconclusionsreachedasaresult.

Additionally, it may be helpful toour constituents to know how oftenthisprocess(howeverdefined)isused,by whom, under what circumstancesandwithwhatresults.Itisespeciallyimportant for us to become moreaware of when the process might beunhelpful,andwhenanotherformofdecision-making or moral discoursemightbepreferable.

I confess to some disappointing

experiencesasaparticipantinexercisesidentifiedasVBDMintheReconstruc-tionistmovement.Iamconcernedthatgroups sometimes move through themotionsofsuchprocessonlytoarriveatpredeterminedconclusionsthatareunaffectedbytheprocessitself,muchasTeutschpredicts.IntheseinstancesVBDMfunctionslessasaninterven-tionandmoreasajustificationforpo-sitionsthatcouldhavebeenpredictedinadvance.

Selective Choice of Values

Thephenomenonofgravitatingtovaluesthatwealreadyhold,ordeem-ingsomevaluesasauthenticallyJewishwhileeschewingothers,orofchoosingamongJewishvalues,isaseriousprob-lem for a process through which wewanttoengagefundamentalprincipleshonestly.Forthoseofuswhoarenotsatisfiedsimplytodeclare“thepasthasavotebutnotaveto,”onwhatbasisdowedeterminewhichaspectsofJewishtradition are to be disregarded? Onwhatbasisdoweassertthataparticular“value”(oftenacontemporaryconcept,suchas“inclusivity”)is“Jewish?”Onwhat basis do we discard values thatareinconsistentwithourthinkingbutwhich have a long association withJewishlife?

I refer readers to Judith Plaskow’sinsightful critique into the selectiveembraceofvaluesasanessentialpartof this discussion.2 Plaskow notesthat denominations engaging in val-ues-based decision making invariablyarticulate and affirm positive values,anddemonstratean“unwillingnessto


grapplewith...negativevalueswithinJewishtradition.”3Shearguesthatthisfocusonvaluesavoidsthemoredifficultchallengeofaddressingresultingnormsandcontradictionsthatdonotbecomeobviousuntilweapplythosevaluestolived experience. If we are attentive,we may notice differing implicationsof the same values depending upongender,sexual identityorsocialclass.By directing attention to consensusaroundvalues,wemayunintentionallybe obscuring other aspects of reality.PlaskowplacestheprocesswerefertoasVBDMinthelargercontextofthene-gotiationbetweenJewishtraditionandcontemporary culture and challengesustotakethisengagementtoamoreself-criticalandtransparentlevel.

Basis for Behavior

3. Social science insights.There isanunspokensetofassumptionsinouruseofVBDM:thatbehaviorisdeter-minedbyvalues,andthatanexplora-tionofvaluescanleadtoachangeinbehavior.

Teutschnotesthisprobleminpass-ingwhenreferringtocritiquesofKohl-berg’slinkingofmoralreasoningwithconduct.Asareligiousmovementwitha history of utilizing social scientificinsightindevelopingitscoreconcepts,Reconstructionismshouldexploreandtakeadvantageofcurrentthinkingthatrelatestodecisionmaking.Spacelimitsafulldiscussion,butIwillsimplynotethat,fromasocialscientificviewpoint,onemightmakeacase thatbehaviorprecedes and helps to determine ourvalues,theveryoppositeoftheVBDM

presumption.AreviewoftheliteratureinthisareaasitappliestoVBDMcouldhelp bring Reconstructionist practiceinto alignment with current socialscientificknowledge.

Additionally, a social scientificperspective will properly complicateourworkbypushingustodistinguishbetween values and other relatedconcepts. How do we, for instance,distinguishvaluesfromnorms,mean-ings,practicesorethics?Howaretheseconceptsinterrelated,andareallservedappropriately by our currentVBDMmodel?

Imposition of Religious Values

4.Politicalcontext.ThoseofuswholiveintheUnitedStatesareexperienc-ingatimeinwhich“values”havebe-comepoliticalinstrumentsandvalues-baseddecisionmakinghasafrighteningunderside.Wehavepharmacistsinsist-ingthatitisaviolationoftheirvaluestofillprescriptionsforcontraceptives;4circuit court judges refusing, on thebasisoftheirownvalues,tohearcasesinwhichpregnantteenagersareseekingpermissionforabortions;5andschooldistricts determining whether equaltime should be given to “intelligentdesign”alongsideDarwinianevolutioninscienceclasses.6

The people just referenced wouldlikely agree that their “decision-mak-ing” was “values-based.” In effect,these are instances of VBDM. Buthere,theresultsinclude,forexample,limiting women’s health choices andundermining science education. Iwould encourage more conversation


within our movement as to whetherpromotingVBDMunwittingly lendslegitimacy to parallel processes oc-curringinAmericansocietythathaveseriousnegativeimplications.

We want to influence people andcommunities to live examined livesinformedbythewisdomourtraditionoffers.Teutsch’sarticleisareminderofhowseriouslyourmovementtakesthechallenge of helping Jews know andunderstand Jewish life and heritage.Healsoremindsusoftheimportanceof bringing an awareness of moralvaluesintoourlives,bothforourownedificationandinordertoenhanceandimprovetheworldaroundus.

IhopethatTeutsch’sdiscussion,andthisresponse,helptopromotefurtherserious and sustained discussion thatwill move us closer to the ideal ofthoughtfulandinformedJewsworkingtogethertoexploretheplaceofvaluesinourlives,communitiesanddecisionmaking.

1. Hal M. Lewis, “Making Leaders:How the American Jewish Commu-nityPreparesItsLayLeaders,” Journal of Jewish Communal Service, volume80:2-3,Summer/Fall2004.2. Judith Plaskow, “Speaking of Sex:Authority and the DenominationalDocuments,”inThe Coming of Lilith: Essays on Feminism, Judaism, and Sexual Ethics, 197�-�003(NewYork:BeaconPress,2005),2133.Ibid.,214.4.FlorenceARuderman,“Prescriptionfor Injustice,” The New York Times, September1,2005,A23.5.AdamLiptak,“OnMoralGrounds,Some Judges Are Opting Out ofAbortionCases,”TheNew York Times,September4,2005,A21.6.DanielDennett,“ShowMetheSci-ence,”The New York Times,August28,2005,A11.

AReplytoBarbaraHirshBy david a. TeuTsch

B

Dr.DavidA.TeutschistheDirectoroftheCenterforJewishEthicsandMyraandLouisWienerProfessorofContemporaryJewishCivilizationattheReconstructionistRabbinicalCollege.

arbaraHirshhaswrittenaper-ceptiveresponsetomyarticle;we should all be so fortunate

as to have critics whose observationsenhanceourwork!IamhappytosaythatIagreewithmostofwhatshehastosay.Iwillfocusbelowonsomeaspectsoftheimportantissuessheraises.

Centrality of Knowledge

Among Jews for whom a rabbi isnotthefinalauthorityinJewishmat-ters, having competence as Jewishdecisionmakersiscriticallyimportant.OfcoursethatcompetencerestsupontheirJewisheducationsandexperience.


ThatiswhyadultJewisheducationissoimportant.Itisapainfulfactthatmostliberal,adultJewshaveneitherthelevelofJewisheducationorofJewishexperi-encetomakewell-groundeddecisions.Whatismore,someofthoseJewsareproudtomaketheirdecisionswithoutsuchgrounding.

Asimportantasthatgroundingisforindividuals,itisyetmoreimportantforJewishcommunalleaders.Withoutit,theyeithermustleanheavilyonJewishexperts(whichtheyrarelydowell)ormake decisions that are not Jewishlyanchored.HavingJewishlyknowledge-able leaders is particularly importantforJewishcongregations,whichserveastheJewishcommunitiesandJewishacculturating organizations for theirmembers. For legitimate ideologicalreasons liberal congregations do notgivetheirrabbistheauthoritytouni-laterally decide Jewish congregationalpolicy,sotheirofficers,boardmembersandinsomecasescommitteemembersmusttakeresponsibilityforthosedeci-sionsandtheirgroundinginJudaism

VBDMisnotasubstituteforlead-erswithappropriateJewishknowledgeandmotivation.Itmayhelptoprovideguidance for them so that they usetheir knowledge and experience well.Anditmayprovideabasisforprovid-ingsomeoftheJewisheducationthattheyneed.ButitcannotsubstituteforthoseprerequisitestocompetentJewishleadership.

Leadership Skills

Most Jewish communities do nothaveasufficientsupplyofsuchleaders,

andyoung congregationsmust some-timesstartwithoutanyatall.Giventhatsituation,educatingleadersisamatterofconsiderableurgency.Itshouldbeanimportantaspectofeverycongregation’sprogramming. Someof that training,suchasteachingbasicJewishvocabulary,valuesandpractice,shouldbeopentothe whole congregation, while otherpartsthatdealspecificallywithleader-ship skillsmightbest be restricted tothosewillingtomakeacommitmenttocongregationalleadershiproles.

These leadership skills should in-cludetheobvious,likehowtomanageprojects, do supervision and mentor,createdecision-makingprocesses,anddealwithconflict.Buttheyalsoneedto include learningabout such issuesas how to manage and develop anorganizational culture, the theory ofnot-for-profitorganizations,andmis-sion-drivenplanning.

Ifthetwokindsoftraining—Jewisheducationandleadershipskills—arebothpresentbutarenotintegrated,theleaderswillstillnotbepreparedforthechallengestheyface.Jewishcommunalleadership requires the integration ofleadership skills with Jewish knowl-edgeandattitudes,andthatdoesnothappen naturally. I recently designeda program called “Acharai” [“FollowMe”] for the Baltimore Jewish com-munitythatuniquelyintegratesthetwokindsoflearningoverthecourseofitssixtyhoursofstudy.Whilesixtyhoursrepresentsamajorcommitment—twofulldaysplustwelvefour-hoursessions—itseemstometobebarelyenoughtocoverthebasics,yetmostcongregationshavenoformalleadershiptrainingpro-


gramsbeyondbrieforientationsessions.Absenttraining,weareoverlydependentontheluckofwhoispresentwhenitistimetomakedecisions.

Mixed Results

Values-based decision making re-quirestrainingtodoitwell.Ms.Hirshsuggeststhatweneedtodoempiricalresearchtofindouthowitisactuallyfunctioning.AstheprimaryproponentofVBDM,Icansaybasedonextensiveanecdotalevidencethattheresultsarevery mixed. Not surprisingly, givenwhatIhavesaidabove,thosewhoneedtoleadVBDMoftendonothavesuf-ficienttraining.SeverallayleaderswhohavecalledmeforhelpwerenotevenawarethatVBDMisacarefullydesignedmulti-stepprocess that requires inputotherthantheopinionsofdecisionmak-ers.WithouttrainingthatexploreshowtogetinputfromJewishtraditionandfromsocialscienceasapartofthepro-cess,theresultswillnotbebetterthanvotinginwhatamountstoapopularitycontestamongconflictingviews.

Once we have good basic traininginplace inReconstructionist congre-gations,wewillbereadyforempiricalresearchthatshowshowwearedoing,andpointsthewaytoimprovement.Asyetwearefarfromthatpoint.

Source of Values

Hirshraisestheissueofwhereourvaluescomefrom,andhowwedecidewhichvaluestoaffirm.Thisisacompli-catedquestion,anditdeservescarefulthought.Forthemostpartourvalues

comeoutofJewishtradition,andthatisasitshouldbe.Somevalues,suchasdemocracy, pluralism, inclusion andegalitarianism, have been added toReconstructionist Judaism after care-ful thought.But theconflicts amongvalues,andthegroundsonwhichwede-emphasizecertain inheritedvalueswith which we are not comfortable,deserves careful consideration.Thatshould entail opendiscussion amongmovement-wide leaders, as well aswithinReconstructionistcongregations— and there is far too little of that.VBDMisnotasubstituteforseriousthinking;itismeanttobeavehiclethathelpstopromoteit.

Oneofthedangersisthatwewillma-nipulateVBDMprocessestoreinforceourcurrentbehaviorsandattitudes.Itistrue,asHirshpointsout,thatbeliefandpracticearehighlyinteractive,witheachreinforcingtheother.Ifthatoccursinathoughtlessway,VBDMbecomesasham.ThepointofVBDM,whichisdesignedtopullinfactsandinsightsthathavethecapacitytochangebothbeliefs and practices, is to open theindividual and group to consideringdeeplyhowitoughttoproceed,makingchangeswhereappropriate.Whenthatdeepconsiderationdoesnotoccur,thenVBDMfails.

VBDMisnotappropriateformak-ingdecisionsthatdonothaveasub-stantialmoralcomponent.VBDMwillnothelpinmakingpurelytacticaldeci-sions,anditcannothelpwithpurelyaestheticones.Norisitusefulwithoutsufficienttimeandenergybeinggiventotheprocess.Itwillnotworkinsuchsituations,andcommunalleadersneed


othermethodsforsuchoccasions.ButIremainoptimisticthatwhenitisusedappropriately in matters deserving ofsubstantial and careful exploration,VBDMcanbeahighlyvaluabletool.

The Public Square

One concern that Hirsh raises isabout the public American dialogueregarding values. In truth such adialoguehasgoneonthroughouttheentirehistoryofthiscountry,althoughithasbeencalledbydifferentnamesatdifferenttimes.Religiousgroupshavealways attempted to influence publicpolicy not only in the United States

buteverywherethattheirleadershaveseenareasonandamethodfordoingso.TheadvantageofVBDMisthatitallowsustoexplicatemoreadequatelythenatureofourconflicts.Whenthereareclearchoicesbetweenreligiousori-entations—ratherthan,forexample,one religious group claiming that ithasexclusiveclaimto“familyvalues”—wewillallbebetteroff.Choosingnottoenterthevaluesdebatesimplymeans abandoning the field to thosewithwhomwehaveconflicts.

Hirsh suggests that we need sus-taineddiscussionofall these issues.Iheartilyagree.


“In the 1960s, apartheid wasdrivenoutofAmerica.Legalsegrega-tion—JimCrow—ended....Weendedtheideathatyoucansendamillionsoldierstenthousandmilesaway tofight inawar thatpeopledonotsupport.Weendedtheideathatwomenaresecond-classcitizens....Thebigbattlesthatwerewoninthatperiodofcivilwarandstrifeyoucannotreverse.

“Wewereyoung,wewerereckless,arrogant,silly,headstrong—andwewereright.Iregretnothing.”

GoingforBrokeThe Jewish 1960s, An American Sourcebook

editedbyMichaelE.Staub(BrandeisUniversity,2004),371+xxviiipages

henever I see the posterwith these words on theliving room wall in the W

—AbbieHoffman,April,1989 VanderbiltUniversity

homeofmydear friend,Teddy—amiddle-aged ex-hippie, like most ofmydearfriends—Ifeelbothrichlyaffirmedanddeeplysaddened.Theaf-firmationcomesfromtherallyingspiritofAbbieHoffman’swords:The1960sdidbringenormous,liberatorychangesto America, and I have thanked mymazeleversincethatIcameofageasa

memberofthe“WoodstockNation.”Mysadnesswellsupfromthe fact

ofhissuicidewithindaysofthatVan-derbiltUniversityspeech—bywhichtime,theconservative“counterrevolu-tion”waswellonitswaytoreversing“thebigbattlesthatwerewon”inthesixties.TheU.S.invasionsofGrenada(1983)andPanama(1989)hadbegunto restore the U.S. military’s senseof impunity. Yuppies had replacedYippies as a generational symbol.Fundamentalist Christian ministerswere leading a far-reaching backlashagainst women’s liberation and thelegitimation of non-heterosexualorientation.Whiteflightfrompublicschools— including amajor exodusbyJews—wasresegregatingabarelydesegregatededucationalsystem.TheWaronDrugswas throwingbillionsofdollarsintoineffectualpoliciesandthousandsofpeopleintoprison—andwasfrighteningthebaby-boomgenera-tionintosilenceabouttheirowndrugexperiences.

Thecounterrevolutionofthe1980swas a lot less successful within theAmericanJewishcommunity,however

LawrenceBusheditsReconstructionism Today andJewish Currents.Hisnewestbook,Waiting for God: The Spiritual Memoir of an Atheist, isscheduledforpublicationinWinter,2006.

Reviewed By lawRence Bush


—andremainsso,despitethehot-and-heavy courtship of Jewish voters andintellectuals by the neoconservativemovement.Yes,severalJewishorgani-zationsfellunderthespellofneocon-servatismandoftentreatedaffirmativeactionasanoffenseagainst theJews.Yes, Israel’sdependenceonAmericanmilitary and political support led tosplits or incoherence among JewishorganizationsonsuchissuesasSouthAfricanapartheid,theNicaraguancon-trawar,nuclearpowerandmore.Yes,ittookuntil1985fortheConservativemovementtoordainawomanasarab-bi,anduntilthe1990sfortheReformmovementtoordainopenlygaymenand lesbians.Still,despiteahot-and-heavycourtshipbytheconservativemovement,AmericanJewsandmostoftheirorganizationsremaintenaciouslyleft-of-centeronmanyofthepressingissuesofourday.

Michael E. Staub’s well-stockedanthology,The Jewish 1960s, indicateswhy.

Activism as a Jewish Calling

Staub’sbook reprints seventy-threebrief essays that range across thecivilrightsstruggle,theVietnampeacemovement, the campaign for SovietJewish rights, the feminist explosioninJewishlife,thesexualrevolutionandmore.Whiletheright-wingMeirKah-aneandlatter-dayconservativessuchasLucyDawidowiczandMarieSyrkinareincluded,mostofthevoiceshereareleftorleftish,asbefits“the’60s.”

Consistently,weseehowthewell-entrenched liberalism of the Jewish

communityofthattime—rootedinthepropheticexhortationsofJudaism,thepro-socialisthistoryoftheimmi-grantgeneration,andtheperceptionofAmericanconservatismas“crackpot”(and anti-Semitic) before the Gold-water presidential campaign of 1964—empowereditsyoungactiviststofol-lowthepathofconsciencewithoutfearofbeingostracized.Thiswasespeciallysowhenitcametocivilrightsactivism,whichwasacatalystintheawakeningofJewishidentityandJewishradical-ismfortherestofthedecade.ReformJudaism’sveteransocial-actionleader,AlbertVorspan—representedherebythreeessays—notedina1962piecefromtheJewish Frontier that

the Freedom Rides touched theJewishcommunityinadeepandspecial way . . . By and large,Northern Jews responded withhigh enthusiasm to the FreedomRidesandtoJewishparticipationin them. Some of the congrega-tionslavishedhonorsandtributesupon the rabbis who took theFreedomRides....Someofthecongregationsraisedfundstocoverbailandbond. . . .ManyJewishgroupsinvitedFreedomRiderstoaddressthem;afewFreedomRid-ersspokeinNorthernsynagoguesfromthepulpit(19).

Ina1963articleinThe Reconstruc-tionist, Holocaust theologian RabbiRichard L. Rubeinstein wrote abouta contingent of nineteen rabbis wholeftaRabbinicalAssemblyconventiontomeettheRev.MartinLutherKing,Jr. inBirmingham,Alabamaand felt


entitled to stress “in all our contacts...thatwecameasrepresentativesofalmost 800 Conservative rabbis whoserveover1,500,000congregants”(23).Also writing in The Reconstruction-ist (1962), Betty Altschuler thoughtabout “the women of Israel who leftEgyptandwentintothedesert,trust-ingtheirmen,butstillfearfulforthesafety of their children” as she rideswith her daughter from Chicago toAlbany,Georgiaonacivilrights“prayerpilgrimage”(14).

Leadership Role of Rabbis

Asecondimpedimenttothecoun-terrevolutionthatshinesthroughThe Jewish 1960s is the leadership roleofprogressiverabbis,andrabbis-to-be,instirringJewstoengagewithJewishnessasaninsurgentidentity.SpeakingfortheAmerican JewishCongress at the1963 March onWashington, RabbiJoachim Prinz evoked Judaism andtheJewishexperienceaswellspringsofconscience:

Our ancient history began withslaveryandtheyearningforfree-dom. During the Middle Agesmy people lived for a thousandyears in the ghettos of Europe.Ourmodernhistorybeginswithaproclamationofemancipation.Itisforthesereasonsthatitisnotmerelysympathyandcompassionfor the black people of Americathatmotivatesus.Itis...asenseof complete identification andsolidarity...(90)

RabbiBalfourBricknerrespondedtoPresidentRichardNixon’sattempttoneutralize Jewish opposition to theVietnam War by “subtly suggestingthat [American support for Israel]mighterodeifAmericanJewscontinuevigorouslytoopposethewar.”Bricknerdeclaredthat

theAmericanJewishcommunity...willendupinabind...ifitgivesupitsrighttobeindependent—tobecritical,ifneedbe,ofitsowngovernment,ofIsrael,of it-self.ItwillfinditselfdiscreditedbytheotherAmericancommunitieswithwhichitmustworkandun-heededbyitsgovernment,whichwilllookonitasmerelyagroupofspecialpleaderswhoseloyaltiesif not allegiances are subject toquestion(162-163).

RabbiArthurLelyveld, a bloodiedveteran of the civil rights struggles,wrote in a 1966 Congress Bi-Weeklyarticleof“theimperativesoftheJewishheritage . . . inrelationtoVietnam,”whichhenamedas“fairness,”“truth,”“freedom to dissent,” and “the con-tinuing search forpeace” (146).Andthe ever-independent Rabbi ArthurHertzberg, in a 1964 Jewish Frontier article, argued that “the Jew cannotsettledowninfreedomtobehimself,‘justlikeeverybodyelse.’Wheninhisowninnerconsciousnesshebeginstoapproacharealfeelingofat-homenesswithinthelargersociety,whatremainsofhisJewishidentityistoolittleandtopersonalizedtosustainacommunity”(44).Ina1970Christian Centuryarticle,


Positive Impact of Feminism

The third stumbling block to theconservativecounterrevolutionwasthechange-makingroleofwomenwithinJewishlife,beginninginthe1960s.Inhisintroductiontothechapter,“JewishWomenandFeminism,”StaubnotesthatdespitethehypotheticalargumentsmadeduringthattimeagainstJewishfeminism—thatitmightreducetheJewish fertility rate, drive men awayfrom synagogue involvement andweakentheJewishfamily—the“wide-spreadrevitalizationofJudaismthatdidtakeplaceafterthe1960swasdueinnosmallparttothesuccessof—nottheresistanceto—aJewishwomen’smovement”(318).

Thusthe“BrooklynBridgeCollec-tive,” in a 1971 article in their “un-derground” journal, identified Jewishwomen’soppressionwith theoppres-sionoftheJews:“WhathasgonedownandcontinuestocomedownonJewishmenontheoutsidehasaffectedusontheinside”(326).Afterexcoriatingsex-ismandurgingJewishwomento“letJewish men fall on their own asses,”they promised that Jewish women’sself-definition will positively “changelifeforallJews”(327).Similarly,PaulaHyman,ina1972pieceinConserva-tive Judaism,assuredreadersthat“thechallenge of feminism, if answeredandnotdismissedasthewhiningofafewmisguidedmalcontents,canonlystrengthenJudaism”(336),whileRa-chelAdler,ina1971articleinDavka,expressedconcernthatwhilewomen’soppression“canquicklyberectifiedifone steps outside of Jewish tradition

andHalacha...theproblemishowtoattainsomejusticeandsomegrowingroomfortheJewishwomanifone iscommittedtoremainingwithinHala-cha”(331).

Inmanyofthebook’sessays,werec-ognizetheself-correctingormoderatinginfluenceofJudaismandJewishiden-tityupontheradicalsofthecommunity—aninfluencethatkeptthe“Jewish1960s” from getting out of controlandimplodingthewaythe“American1960s”did.Thehard-to-definetermsofJewishidentity(religion,philosophy,ethnicgroup,civilization?),alongwithitsmanyinternalcontradictions(Zion-istorinternationalist?Hutspedikeradi-calorvulnerableminoritymember?),seemed to protect Jewishly-identifiedJews of the 1960s from some of thesectarianexcessesoftheday.

Nuanced Political Stands

BillNovak,forexample,ina1970articleintheCCAR Journal,describedhowthe“NewLeft,atonepointtheonly hope for a political morality inthis country, sold [Jews] out by itspointlessacceptanceofthe‘good-guy-bad-guy’dualismintheMiddleEast”(283). Brickner, writing in Sh’ma in1970,agreedwith“thoseradicalJewishyouthswhotalkaboutthenecessityofIsrael’s recognizing the Palestinians,”but emphasizes that “they are wrongwhentheyidentifythemilitantPales-tiniansastruerevolutionariesandthusmuch to be admired” (187). In herReconstructionist civil rights memoir,Betty Alschuler admitted to “bring-ingwithmemyownfearofthedark,

.


theunconsciousmelancholy shadowswhichattachthemselvestodarkpeoplewhetherwewillitornot....IgotoaHolyWartofightmysegregatedself ”(12-13).These complex reflectionssuggestnuancedpoliticalstands,whichare less vulnerable than doctrinaireself-righteousnesstobeinglibeledandcaricaturedbythepoliticalright.

The Jewish 1960s nevertheless hasits share of outrage and outrageous-ness.Abrieftranscriptfromthe1969“ChicagoSeven”conspiracyTrialshowsthe amazing irreverence with whichAbbieHoffman,JerryRubinandtheirattorneysandco-conspiratorsdisruptedJudge Julius Hoffman’s courtroom.Aviva Cantor Zuckoff ’s 1971 articlefrom Rat magazine is a rant full ofgeneralizationsaboutJewishoppressionin“Amerika”thatboththrillandchilltheheart.MarthaShelleyinBrooklyn Bridge (1971) says that“the functionofahomosexualistomakeyouuneasy...Wewillnevergostraightuntilyougo gay” (308). She wonders whetherlove is “possible between heterosexu-als;orisitallacaseofwomenposingasnymphs,earthmothers,sex-objects,what have-you; and men writing thepoetry of romantic illusions to thesewalkingstereotypes...”(308).

But where is the rock and rollsoundtrackof the1960s? StaubdoesnotincludeasinglepieceaboutBobbyZimmerman, Simon and Garfunkel,LouReedor influential Jewish song-writerslikeLieberandStollerorCarolKing.Itisalsocuriousthatthepervasivedrugcultureofthe1960sismissing.Ihavesuggestedthatpsychedelicdrugsplayedacatalyticroleinawakeningor

shaping the spirituality of numerousJewswhohaveplayedacreativeroleinshapingcontemporaryAmericanJew-ishreligiousculture.2IwassurprisedbyMichaelStaub’somissionofsuchclassicpiecesasRabbiArthurGreen’spseud-onymousarticleaboutLSDandJewishmysticisminResponse(Winter,1968)orRabbiZalmanSchachter-Shalomi’sAugust,1996meditationonLSDinaCommentary symposiumon the stateofAmericanJewry.

Going for Broke

Among the book’s most paradig-matic representations of the spirit ofthe 1960s are several excerpts fromthefirst Jewish Catalog(1973),includ-ing ArthurWaskow’s “How to BringMashiah.”Waskowsuggesteda seriesofoutlandishyetpracticalactions—allrootedinJewishtexts—tospeedourredemption.TheseincludebringingaminyantoWestPoint,alongwithtenswordsand“asmallforge.”

Put the small forge in themainentrance, start it glowing, andbeat the swords into somethinglikeadiggingtool.Digholesforten trees, and plant the trees intheroadway.Meanwhile,sing“Lo yisah goy...”

Waskowalsoaimsatthereinvigora-tionofJudaism:

. . . Forget about all the thingsyoumustn’tdoonShabbat,andinsteadthinkofallthethingsyouwouldmostliketodoonShab-bat(andforever).Dothem.Read


Torahwithsomefriendsandtalkabout it;walkongrassbarefoot;look very carefully at a flowerwithoutpickingit;givesomebodysomethingpreciousandbeautifulwithout asking him to pay you;givelove.Sinceit’snotenoughtodothisalone.. .pickoutafewJews on the street, tell them it’sShabbat,anddanceahorahwiththem (or the kazatsky, if you’reintoYiddish).

Initsferventandcrudeblendingof1960sflowerpowerandancientJew-ish text,Waskow’s piece captures theessentialfeelingsofthe’60s—atimewhennaïveidealismbecameasourceofinspiredpossibility,andpeoplebecamecrazyandcommittedenough,inAbbie

Hoffman’swords,to“goforbroke”:

1.PosterpublishedbytheAbbieHoffmanFoundation.2.Seemy“DrugsandJewishSpirituality:ThatWasThen,ThisIsNow”inBest Jewish Writing �003 (SanFrancisco: Josey-Bass,2003).3. Abbie Hoffman, Soon To Be a Major Motion Picture (NewYork:G.P.Putnam’sSons,1980).

Jews...havetomakeabigchoiceveryquicklyinlifewhethertogoforthemoneyortogoforbroke.Wiseguyswhogoaround sayingthingslike‘Workersoftheworldunite’or . . . ‘E=mc2’obviouslychoose to go for broke. It’s thegreatestJewishtradition.”3

The Reconstructionist1�0 • Fall �005

TimeforaParadigmShiftinJewishThought

Judaism, Physics and God: Searching for Sacred Metaphors in a Post-Einstein World

byRabbiDavidW.Nelson(Vermont,JewishLightsPublishing,2005),300pages

Reviewed By GeoRGe dRiesen

ive years ago in this journal, IurgedReconstructioniststotakethe lead in integrating science F

into our religious life and thought.1The challenge largely fell on deafears. Although the ReconstructionistRabbinicalCollegeofferedanelectivecourseinthespringof2004entitled,“BetweenReligionandSocialScience,”and Congregation Adat Shalom inBethesda,MarylandhasestablishedanInstituteonScienceandJudaism,Re-constructionistsarenotintheforefrontofthisemergingandimportantfieldofreligiousstudies.

NowcomesReformRabbiDavidW.Nelson,inathoroughlyreadableandimmensely thoughtful book, layingout the field of science and religion,andboldlyconfrontingtheformidablechallenge it presents. Nelson under-takes three seeminglydaunting tasks.First, he provides the reader with abasic introduction to key discoveriesand theories thathave revolutionizedphysicsandcosmology:thebeginningsof the universe, quantum mechan-

GeorgeDriesenisAdjunctRabbiatAdatShalomReconstructionistCongregationinBethesda,MarylandandAdjunctProfessorattheWashingtonTheologicalUnion.

ics,chaostheory,relativityandstringtheory.Second,heintroducesandex-plainshisviewsoftheroleofmetaphorinbothscienceandJudaism.Finally,hesuggests how and why new scientificmetaphors could be integrated intotraditionalJewishlife.

Clear Explanations

Ittakesawriterofconsiderableskillandknowledgetosucceedinanyoneoftheseefforts.Nelson’savoidanceoftechnical jargon,plushisdirect,con-versational tone and remarkable giftforexplainingdifficultconceptsclearly,enablehimtoaccomplishallthreeofthem, all the while interspersing hisnarrativewithaptgemsfromrabbinicliterature.The book is so engagingthatIfoundmyselfreadingitthewayIwouldagoodadventurestory,onlyreluctantlybreakingformeals,soeagerwasItoseewhatNelsonwouldpulloutofhiscreativehatnext.

Nelsonstartswithus,whathecalls“[the]normalpeople,”who“areJuda-


ism,”andinsiststhatwemustbeservedby our religious life — a perspectivethat sounds quite Reconstructionist.Hethenexplainsthatweneedreligioninordertoseethegrandpatternsthatgivemeaningtolife.Andthat,Nelsoninsists,isnotpossiblewithoutintroduc-ingtheexcitingdiscoveriesofcontem-porary science because, truth to tell,mostofusacceptscientificdiscoveriesasthemostreliableguidestorealitythatwehave.Areligiousperspectiveandareligiouslifethatpretendotherwisewillbeneitherconvincingnorcompellingforusorourdescendants.

Weaving Science and Religion

Surelythechallengeofweavingtheworldofscienceintoourreligiouslifeisoneof themostdauntingand im-portantfacingtheJewishpeopletoday.WeJewsheldontotheworldviewandthe theology that we inherited fromtherabbinicandmedievalperiodsfora very long time, partly because wewere insulated by outside oppressionand inner cohesion from the larger,nowglobal,revolutioninthought.ButnowinIsrael,EuropeandtheAmericas,mostJews,includingreligiouslyaffili-atedJews,gladlyacceptthedominantthinkingoftheempiricallybasedsci-ences.Sure,manyofusprayforhealth,butourfirst lineofdefensewhenwearesickorbadlyinjuredisscientificallybasedmedicine.Peopledonotturntorabbisforcure,andnorabbiorotherhealer who is not altogether foolishwouldsuggestthatapatientnottakehermedicine.

Equally important, in most syna-

gogues,theexplicitandimplicitworldview of every prayer in the regularliturgyignoreswhereitdoesnotcontra-dictourunderstandingoftheuniverseandofGod’sroleinit.Asaresult,aswestruggletoteachourcongregants,our youngsters and those seeking toreturntoJudaismthestructure,music,andtextoftheprayerservice,eventhemostgiftedteachersbreatheasighofreliefifnoonechallengesthemaboutitscontent.LearningenoughHebrewandmelodies toparticipate is such aformidableobstacleformanythatthereislittleopportunitytowrestlewiththewords.Ifwedofacethemusic,weoftenend up admitting that our liturgicaltextsarenottobetakenliterally;theyaremetaphors.2But that’snot a verysatisfactory solution. As Shakespeareputit,“wordswithoutthoughtsdonottoheavengo.”Thedissonancebetweenwhatwebelieveandwhatweprayissogreatthatattimesitmakesoureyesroll,andprobablycontributestotheabsenceofsomanyJews(includingsynagoguemembers) when the remnant gatherstopray.TheimageryofGodinJewishliturgyoftenseemsatoddswiththewayweviewtherestoftheworld.

Use of Metaphor

Nelsonsuggeststhattheuseofmeta-phorisamajortoolinreducingthisdis-sonance.HepointsoutthatwecannotcaptureGod’s essence inwordsor inimages(whichisinsomerespectspro-hibitedanyway),sothathoweverwede-scribe,alludeto,orphilosophizeaboutGod,weareforcedtousemetaphorsthatconveyonlyapartofthewhole.

The Reconstructionist1�� • Fall �005

Our ancestors’metaphorsdon’t serveuswellbecausetheyaredrawnfromathoughtworldweno longer inhabit.Nelsonsuggeststhatbyunderstandingancienttextsasreflectingtheintuitionsofourancestorsinthecontextoftheirtime,wemayfindthatmanyoftheirfeltresponsestothecosmosandhumanlifearesimilartoours.

Nelsontakesthemetaphorideaonestepfurtherbyinsistingthat,inevitably,thenon-scientist’sunderstandingoftheuniversethatscientistsencounterisit-selfmetaphorical.He’sright,ofcourse.HarvardastronomerGeorgeFieldusedtoshockhislistenersbyinsistingthathereallycouldnotexplainastronomyandastrophysicsbecausetheaudiencedidnotunderstandmathematics,whichisthelanguageofthosefields.Rather,hewouldtrytoconveyanunderstandingofthecosmosbyproposinganalogies,manyof themgraphic,othersverbal.Theaudiencewouldnotreallyunder-standwhathewastalkingabout,butwouldgetsomeglimmer.

Inmyexperience,thatiswhathap-penswhengoodsciencewriterstrytoexplainscientificdiscoveriesandtheo-riestolaypeople.Often,thesewritersreach a consensus about what imageto use to describe the significance ofa mathematical formula that fits thephenomena.Themostfamiliar istheexpanding balloon with galaxies onitssurfacethatisusedtoconveywhatEinsteinmeantwhenhesaidthatspaceisexpanding,carryingthewholeuni-versewithit,hencetheever-wideningdistancesamonggalaxies.Nelsongoesfurther.Hepositsthateventhemath-ematicaltheoriesthatscientistsdevelop

and that integrate their amazinglyprecise observations are metaphors,becausetheycaptureonlywhatexperi-mentshaveshown,andthatnecessarilyisapart,notthewholeofreality.

Triumph of Science

Metaphors or not, for most well-educatedJews,theimagesandrelation-shipsthatmodernscienceproducesareascloseashumanscancometotruth.Beforethedawnofempiricalscience,people speculated, and their specula-tionswererarelyconnectedtocarefulobservation.Nolonger;wepasteurizemilk,ratherthanattemptingtoexor-cisethedemonsthatproducecowpox;weadministerantibiotics,ratherthanoffering incantations. A religious lifethat is molded in the form of that“otherworld”eitherleadspeopleastray(witnessthestemcellflap)or,thoughquaint, seems irrelevant. Immersingoneself inantiquated ideas isfine forantiquarians, but not for busy, savvypeopletryingtointegratetheirlivesandtheirunderstandingofreality—whichiswhatreligionisallabout.

Nelson’s book is a treasure trove.He has mined key scientific theoriesfor metaphors and the feelings theyevoke,andthenrelatedthemtoclas-sical Jewish sources. For example, helists the characteristics of the “BigBang” (uniqueness, immense powerandtremendouscreativity)andnotesthat theseareamongtheassociationsthat“[his]Jewishmind”makestoGod.The“BigBang”isthus“avaluable,ifincomplete and imperfect metaphorforGod.”


In his final chapter, Nelson con-frontsfranklytheproblemwefaceinunderstandingGodinbiblical terms,because we can no longer believethat theuniverse, includingourowndestinies within it, is manipulatedbyapersonalGodwhoacts in somerespectsaswouldasuper-empoweredhuman.Everythingweobserve—fromquantum weirdness and evolution tothelimbicsystem,therelativityoftimeandthefinitelimitofvelocitiesinouruniverse—pointsinadifferentdirec-tion.NelsonendsuprejectingtheideathatwecanexplainwhatwemeanbyGod,andsayswemustbecontentwithacceptingourcapacitytointuitsomePresence beyond ourselves. He findssupportforhisultimatemusingsinthemysticaltraditionsthatrecentdecadeshaverevived.

Transforming Religion

Finally, Nelson is something of aprophet.Hepredictsthatoverthenextseveral hundred years, we Jews willadoptscientificmetaphorsandthataswedo,JewishreligiouslifewillundergoatransformationasradicalastheonethatfollowedtheinevitabledemiseofanimalsacrificeafterthedestructionofthesecondTemple.Nelsonbelieveswewilldothatbecausewemust,lestwefadeawayintoirrelevance.

All this is heady stuff, and shouldberequiredreading,certainlyforRe-constructionist Jews. Happily, notonlyhasNelsondiscussedscienceandphilosophy in understandable terms,buthehasbroughtawealthofclassi-calJewishlearningintothediscussion.Whathehasnotdone,andthereforewhatisopentous,istoconfrontthenutsandbolts,write theprayersandpoetryandcreatetheritualsthatwilleffecttheintegrationhehasurgedandprophesied.

That’snocriticism;Nelsonhastakenafirstgiantstep.Hehastherebymadeaprofoundcontributiontothefutureof progressive Judaism by graspingthe nettle of the scientific/empiricalrevolutionandbendingitsnumerousrevelationsintoaformthat,thoughitwillreshapeJudaism,willenableittomakeusfeelathomeonceagaininthe“newlyvisionedfirmament.”3

1.GeorgeB.Driesen,“EmbracingScience:AReconstructionistVisionfortheTwenty-FirstCentury,”The Reconstructionist 64:2,67-762.SeeGeorgeB.Driesen,“HowGodGetsintheWayofPraying,”Moment,October,1990.3.MordecaiM.Kaplan,“GodtheLifeofNature,”Sabbath Prayer Book (NewYork:Jewish Reconstructionist Foundation,1945)383-391.

The Reconstructionist1�� • Fall �005

JewishRootsoftheAmericanSoulJews and the American Soul: Human Nature in the Twentieth Century

byAndrewR.Heinze(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2004),438pages

Reviewed By ReBecca T. alpeRT

ndrew Heinze has written athoughtful, provocative andexpansive work about the A

Dr.RebeccaT.Alpert isAssociateProfessorofReligionandWomen’sStudies atTempleUniversity.

Jewish contribution to the Americanunderstanding of human nature inthe 20th century. Heinze, professorof American History and director ofthe Swig Judaic Studies Program atthe University of San Francisco, setsouttomarshalevidencethatJewishaswellasProtestanttraditionsaresourcesofAmericanconceptsofthesoul.BydrawingattentiontothemanyJewishacademicians, psychiatrists, philoso-phersandrabbiswhohavemaderichcontributions to the development ofthe therapeutic culture in America,HeinzeaddsanewdimensiontoourunderstandingofthisaspectofAmeri-canintellectualhistory.

Jews and Jewishness

Heinze achieves his goal by illus-tratingtheroleindividualJewsplayedin theprocess, althoughmanycriticshavenotbeenpersuaded thathehasdemonstrated the “Jewishness” of allthe Jews he focuses on in this study.Manyofhismainprotagonists—in-

cludingSigmundFreud,AlfredAdler,Hugo Munsterberg, Joseph Jastrow,FranzBoas,KurtLewin,ViktorFrankl,ErikErikson,AbrahamMaslow,JoyceBrothersandAnnLanders—wereJew-ishbyheritage,butwerenotwritingonstandardJewishthemes,orfromwhatistraditionallyunderstoodasaJewishperspective.

Others Heinze includes, such asJoshuaLothLiebman,MartinBuber,ElieWiesel,HaroldKushner,MordecaiKaplan,AbrahamJoshuaHeschelandAbrahamTwerski certainlywere.ButHeinzemakesitclearthataJewishper-spective“willbefoundnotonlyamongthosewhoareimmersedinJudaismorYiddishkeit” (3) but also “comes outofaclearlyidentifiableJewishcontext”(4).BybroadeningtheconceptofwhatconstitutesaJewishperspective,Heinzehasgivenustheopportunitytoreflectonhowindividualswhoidentifycul-turallybutnotreligiouslyasJewshavenonethelessmadevitalcontributionstoAmericanJewishlifeandthought.

Influence of Mussar

Heinzeshowshowtheseindividuals,


whilenotidentifiedwithJudaism,weredeveloping themesandconcepts thatwerebasedonJewishroots.HelocatesthesourceoftheJewishcontributionof thesefigures toAmerican thoughtpredominantlyinthetraditionofmus-sarliterature,therational-ethicalwrit-ingsofmedievalandmodernEuropeanJewry, and in the mussar movementthatencouragedpietisticethicalprac-tice and reflectiononhumannature.The role of mussar in Jewish life isoftenoverlooked,butHeinzesuggeststhatitprovidedthephilosophicalbasisformakingconnectionsamongethicalbehavior, understandings of humannature andpsychological insight thatarecentralbothtoAmericanandJewishattitudestowardsthesoul.

Perhapsthemostilluminatingchap-teristheoneinwhichHeinzediscussesalittleknownandearlyconnectionbe-tweenmussarandAmericanthought:atranslationofBenjaminFranklin’sprac-ticalethicsintoYiddishsothatitcouldbecomepartofmussarliterature.Theparticular American strand of ethicalself-reflectionandself-improvementtowhichFranklinwasaleadingcontribu-tormirroredAmericanconcernswith“thepursuitofhappiness,”andwasakey factor inhow Jewishphilosophi-cal ideas couldbe translated into theAmericancontext.

Translating, Adaptingand Popularizing

AlthoughHeinzeneverreferstothemanyJewishthinkershewritesaboutasatranslator,thatwastherolethatmostoftheminfactplayed.Heinzeshows

howthemussar-basedethicalreflectionbecameanimportantpartofthewayinwhichthepsychologicalperspectivesofFreudandAdlercouldbeadaptedandpopularizedforAmericanuse.

OfalltheAmericanJewishthinkersand practitioners who were translat-ingtheseinsights,RabbiJoshuaLothLiebman, author of the best sellingbookPeace of Mind,standsout.HeinzerescuesLiebman’sworkfromthegenreofself-helpliteratureandrestoreshimtohisrightfulplaceasasophisticatedthinker.Liebman’smessageofcomfortinpost-WorldWarIIAmericawasnotbasedon the shallow ideaofpositivethinking,butratheronacombinationofKaplanian theology,Freudianpsy-chologyandthemussar-basednotionthathappinessispredicatedonthehardworkofdeeppsychologicalandethicalreflection.Heinzeachievessimilargoalsin analyzingAbrahamTwerski’swrit-ingsonaddictionandHaroldKushner’swritingsontheodicy,showinghoweachalso translated sophisticated conceptsandideas intoaccessibleandpopularformats.

Absence of Women

The only group to whom Heinzefails to do justice is the women. Heincludes one chapter about JoyceBrothers, Gertrude Berg, Ayn Randand Betty Friedan.While they werecontemporariesinthe1950s,itmakesnosensetogroupthemtogether,astheyhave little in common intellectually.AndwiththeexceptionofBerg(whoisagreatexampleofpopularizingJewishinsightsabouthumanbehavior)none

The Reconstructionist1�6 • Fall �005

ofthemfit intotheoverallargumentHeinze ismaking.RandandFriedanarewritingaboutothersubjects.WhileBrothersfitsintothegenre,herideason marriage and adultery, as Heinzepointsout, aredecidedly“unJewish,”even according to his broad workingdefinition.Iwouldhavelikedtohaveseen other women religious thinkersincluded,suchasTehillaLichtenstein

and Judith Plaskow, and not onlyin a separate chapter on women butthroughoutthebook.

Despitethatobjection,Heinzehasmade an important contribution tobroadening our perspective on whatcounts as Jewish thought, and hashelped to clarify the significant rolethatJewsandJewishideashaveplayedinAmericanintellectualhistory.


PleaseentermysubscriptiontoThe Reconstructionist forfour(4)issuesbeginningwith___________.Ihaveenclosedacheckfor$50($45formembersofJRFaffiliates).Backissuesareavailablefor$12.50/issue.

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

E-MAIL

Subscribeto

The Reconstructionist

Four Issues for $50

PleasemakecheckpayabletoThe Reconstructionistandmailto:The Reconstructionist

1299ChurchRoadWyncote,PA19095-1898