RJ.org News and Views of Reform Jews
 
About | Submissions | Contact
topics

  • Torah
  • Defining Reform
  • Jewish History
  • Jewish Living
  • Community
  • Social Action
  • Israel/World
  • Holidays
  • Shabbat
  • Lifecycle
  • Youth & Family
  • College Life
  • Books
  • Ask The Rabbi

    Get Jewish World News in your inbox

    BOOKS & MUSIC

    Inside Intermarriage
    Inside Intermarriage:
    A Christian Partner's Perspective on Raising a Jewish Family

    by Jim Keen
    (URJ Press)

    The Torah
    The Torah: A Women's Commentary
    (URJ Press)

    Union for Reform Judaism

    Strengthening Reform 13: Mordechai Kaplan and Reform
    September 14, 2008
    Defining Reform | Jewish Living (12 comments)

    By William Berkson
    In the last post in this series, I looked at the ideas of one important thinker who has had an important influence on Reform Judaism: Martin Buber. Here I will look at another big influence on Reform in the 20th century, Mordechai Kaplan. Here are three key views of Kaplan.

    1. Kaplan's religious naturalism.

    Classical Reform had been highly theistic, making a traditionally personal God and ethics almost the whole of Judaism. By contrast, Kaplan made God a personal sum of processes in Man that make for salvation, where 'salvation' means a better life both personally and socially--and 'better' means ethically and emotionally.


    The problem with Kaplan's conception of God is, as Reform theologian Rabbi Eugene Borowitz has pointed out, that it lacks the unity expressed in the Shema. The feeling of unity with other people, with nature, and with God, is at the core of religious experience. Kaplan recognized that we need the emotional experience of the Presence of God to inspire us to be specifically religious, which is more than being devoted to high ideals. However, Kaplan's fragmented concept of God just does not promote or inspire that feeling of Presence. I think Reform was right not to follow his naturalism.

    2. Judaism as a civilization.

    Kaplan's overarching idea was that Judaism shouldn't be considered just as a religion, but as a whole civilization, of which religion is but one dimension. There is some truth in this, of course. Judaism is not only a religion, but also the customs of an ethic group that has also traditions outside religious ones, such as in Jewish humor. And traditionally Jews had a sense of belonging to a common nation, and now there is a Jewish state. Classical Reform wanted to reject this idea of common nationality, and Kaplan wanted to re-assert it. And so, for example, he was pro-Zionist at a time when most Reform were anti-Zionist.

    However, there is a serious problem with viewing Judaism as a civilization, which is that it's not. Judaism has never been a civilization on its own, but from Abraham on interacted with Western civilization as a whole. Judaism is a sub-culture or tradition within Western civilization, and has been strongly influenced by the larger Western civilization (and influenced it in return) throughout its history.

    This is unfortunately not just an academic point, but a very consequential one. The reason is that Kaplan's approach emphasizes 'Jewish identity' as the foundation of Jewish religion, which is a profound mistake. His student Emanuel Gamoran set up Reform Jewish education after WWI, and decided to teach what was ethnically 'distinctive' in his view. So he designed the curriculum on teaching the customs of the holidays, some Hebrew for the prayers, a bit about the land of Israel. (I don't know if Kaplan himself approved of this.) While the curriculum did contain Tzedakah and social action, cut out were any teaching of Jewish views of God and Jewish ethics. This was a largely hollow curriculum, which taught a fragment of the external customs of Judaism, and largely left out the soul. Only in the past twenty five years has this disastrous mistake begun to be corrected, and it has a long way to go.

    Religion is the most distinctive and unifying feature of Jews as a people, and to treat it as secondary to 'folk customs' or incidental to a larger 'Jewish civilization' is a huge mistake--a mistake that Reform unfortunately followed.

    3. Judaism as a group process.

    Kaplan was strongly influenced by sociologist Emil Durkheim, and by American philosopher John Dewey. From sociology, Kaplan viewed Judaism as a group phenomenon. The difference of the group orientation is summarized by a statement of sociologist Erving Goffman: "Not men and their moments, but moments and their men."

    Goffman was speaking of the interaction of a group of people in a room, and his point was that everybody was reacting and acting on the group, and that their was not a rigid 'self', but an interaction between the self and the group, which changed both. The whole, in this case the group, is more than the sum of the parts, the individual selves.

    From Dewey, Kaplan got the idea of a democratic process in which ideas and decisions evolve from the group process. Kaplan saw the power of this idea, and advocated the future development of Judaism as a democratic group process. This idea has, I think, been wrongly neglected by Reform Judaism, which has been too obsessed with ideal of personal autonomy. 

    I'll consider Reform's problems with autonomy next post.
       

     

    print Print     email Email     comment Comment    

     

    Comments

    David A.M. Wilensky said:

    All well said as always, William. It's always good to point out that the differences between Reform and Reconstructionism is more than liturgical. That is not to say anything negative about them. I'm glad that the Recon movement exists. It's just not for me.

    BZ said:

    This idea has, I think, been wrongly neglected by Reform Judaism, which has been too obsessed with ideal of personal autonomy.

    I'll consider Reform's problems with autonomy next post.

    I look forward to this next post. But can you point to a place in the Reform movement where this ideal of informed autonomy has actually been implemented? Before we knock it, we should try it.

    David A.M. Wilensky said:

    I don't if William has anything in mind, but I think that there are some, by no means a majority, who try it. I do it, and still consider myself fully integrated in capital-R Reform. I think that there are tens of high school students at Kutz every summer who give it a shot, at least while they're there.

    William Berkson said:

    In preparation for my next post on autonomy, I am reading a good essay 'Mitzvah and Autonomy' by Rabbi Herbert Bronstein, from the book Duties of the Soul.

    Bronstein also makes the point that David makes: theoretically, Reform Jewish should be more well informed about Jewish tradition than Orthodox or Conservative, so they can make rational choices about what of Jewish tradition to observe. But in fact, few Reform Jews have had such a depth of learning about Jewish tradition. .

    This idea of informed choice is, then, an idea only paid lip service. This weakness is one sign of what is a lot of confusion about the subject of autonomy, and of confusion in contemporary Reform thinking generally.

    I'll try to remove of the confusion in upcoming posts.

    M. B. said:

    William:

    You apparently want to shift the burden of proof to each Reform Jew to reject the practices of other religious groups like the Hassids, the Orthodox Jews, Kaballaists and perhaps the Conservative Jews. That is not our responsibility. It is the duty of those who espouse the traditional practices of other faiths to present a clear and convincing case to each of us as to why it is, first of all, even worth our while to spend our precious time reviewing their beliefs and practices, and secondly, to prove why we should adopt their beliefs and practices as our own.

    Should each of us reinvent the wheel? Do we each have to refight the theological battles which were won by our champions almost two centuries ago? Should we also have to study, analyze, evaluate and debate each doctrine and practice of the Roman Catholic Church, of Islam, of the Baptists and the Episcopalians and why they should be adopted by us? That is a diversion of time and resources which we cannot afford.

    Our freedom of choice is based on the knowledge that no Pope or head rabbi or synod is infallible or has the right to force their interpretation of the Bible upon others. Each of us is entitled to reason through the Bible and theological questions and reach their own conclusions. If anyone choses to reexamine Reform Judaism, they are free to do so, but not obligated to sit there while beliefs contrary to Reform is laid out ad nauseum.

    An important advantage of Reform Judaism over Orthodoxy is that it leave more time in each persons life for family, recreation, charitable work, personal development and all the other things that one may want to do. Orthodoxy in its strict form sucks all of the oxygen out of the room, leaving little time in each persons life for living. It crowds out so much that most of the Reform Jews don't want to go there. If they did, they wouldn't be Reform Jews.

    William Berkson said:

    MB, I really don't know what you are talking about with 'burden of proof'. I am critically assessing the current state of Reform Judaism, and trying to get a grip on where it is going right, and where it has gone wrong. Looking at influences, like Buber and Kaplan, is helpful in this.

    You view that the battles are fought two centuries ago, and everything settled correctly in Reform Judaism is something I definitely don't agree with. For example, the anti-Zionism of Classical Reform reform was a serious mistake, and Reform religious education from 1920 to 1980+ was a disaster, in my view.

    If our movement really had the strength I would like to see, one measure of success would be many more intermarrying couples would affiliate and it would be attracting double the number of offspring of mixed marriages than it now does.

    M. B. said:

    William:

    Buber and Kaplan were not Reform, far from it. Their ideas seem peripheral to where we are.

    Reform stated a comprehensive and appealing summary of our theology in the Pittsburgh Platform, which has been difficult to improve on. It was the foundation of our remarkable growth in America and it still captures the essence of progressive Judaism.

    The Reform position of being mostly non-Zionist or anti-Zionist was a logical outgrowth of the belief in Judaism being a universal religion and insisting that the God given rights of Jews, Protestants, Catholics and others be respected in all nations. Reform Jews wanted Russians, Poles and Romanians to have the opportunity to be part of the American nation, of Western Europe, or to be allowed to flourish where they were. That had been the Jewish dream and great progress had been made toward realizing that dream before the forces of appeasement and pacifism enabled Hitler to create his vicious killing machine and reek havoc. Reform Jews like Louis Marshall worked successfully for decades to keep the gates open for millions of immigrants to the United States and to assimilate the newcomers so that refugees from oppression and discrimination could be allowed to become part of the American people. Zionism was viewed by most of Reform as a surrender to those who stubbornly resisted giving full rights and protection to Jews in their own countries, wanting to drive them out. In addition to supporting open immigration to the U.S., the U.K. and France, Anti-Zionist Reform Jews worked actively to allow the free immigration of Jews to Palestine and to support the development of a strong Jewish community there under a democratic government. Anti-Zionists and non-Zionists like Reform Rabbi Judah Magnes created the Hebrew University and other cultural institutions in Palestine and around the world. But Reform Jews were mindful of the fact that there were already hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arab families whose homes were in Palestine, who farmed virtually all the good farm land there for generations, who had no intention to abandon their homes, and whose civil and religious rights could not be ignored. Various solutions for Eastern and Central European antisemitism were considered including the purchase of Baja California from Mexico. Wouldn't it have been nice of have millions of Jews move a few miles south of San Diego? The Zionists considered setting up a Jewish state in Africa with the support of the British or moving millions to settle in Argentina, but wound up with a Palestine or bust policy. It was only when immigration had been cut off and the Holocaust had devastated Jews in Europe, that most Jews came to see the establishment of a homeland in Palestine as desirable and perhaps necessary as a refuge of last resort.

    William Berkson said:

    MB, you are entitled to your preference for Pittsburgh platform Judaism, but what is happening now in Reform is the not same. You yourself have complained about the trend to neo-traditionalism.

    I am trying to understand what is going on now, and looking for a way to improve on it--and Classical Reform.

    M. B. said:

    William:

    I agree that Reform Judaism can be improved. Unfortunately, many of the efforts to improve Reform in recent years were 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

    We have great numbers of Jews who do not find Orthodox, Hassidic, Conservative, or even some Reform Judaism to be an organized religious program they can accept. The potential members of Reform congregations include the spouses children, and step children of Jews who cannot connect with religious customs and practices taken from the Old World in pre-Modern times. For us to reach both the disaffected Jews and the potential Jews within easy reach (many of whom would like to belong), we need to have a truly American style of Judaism - American in language, in clothing, in music, and in its open, universalist, democratic, integrated attitude. Jews already have more Orthodox choices. Only a very small number of those Jews in America who join a religious congregation chose Orthodoxy. The percentage following Conservative Judaism is decreasing. We have already lost a large number who were not given a progressive choice, and that is true around the world. We must build up a modern, progressive Reform if we genuinely care about the Reform and the non-affiliated being Jewish. Without that progressive option, they have clearly shown that no Judaism or some some other religion ranks higher than any of the other possibilities. Even Israel, is facing a wave of atheism and apostacy which threatens to make Jews an endangered species in that nominally Jewish country. (This last being another plug to contribute to contribute to the WURJ Reform efforts in Israel).

    William Berkson said:

    MB, I agree with you to the extent that we should learn from and incorporate American ideas where they are good. The democratic ideals are something that improves on traditional Judaism, and I agree with Kaplan, as I said, that we should be more American in this respect.

    But I can't go all the way with you on "universalist, integrated" attitude. We can become universal and integrated by abandoning Judaism. If we have nothing that is particularly valuable or unique, then what is there to attract the people you mention? Ancestry is no longer enough.

    So I think the route is to treasure and build upon what is distinctive and valuable, incorporating any new ideas that will help.

    Your point about Israel is also a valuable one. If Israel is only Jewish by culture and ancestry, but not religion, it will drive a further wedge between Israel and the diaspora, and ultimately will threaten Israeli culture, when peace comes at last--because religion is such an important part of being a Jew.

    I think the whole issue of how much Hebrew to put in services is a huge distraction from the real issues, which have to do with the actual content and practices of our religion.

    M. B. said:

    William:

    You say: We can become universal and integrated by abandoning Judaism. If we have nothing that is particularly valuable or unique, then what is there to attract the people you mention?

    In America, and now in other lands, Reform Jews have shown that we don't to live segregated from our fellow citizens in order to be good Jews. We go to schools, public and private with people of all races, religions and national origins. We live, not in ghettos or shtels but in integrated neighborhoods. We work with, socialize with and do business with people of all faiths. Reform Jews pride themselves as being a "portion of the people" rather than "a people apart" as Jews had been forced to live in the lands of oppression. What makes us special is the ethical message of the our Bible, which it is our divine mission to spread to the rest of the world. To accomplish our mission, Jews want the rest of the world to join us in our devotion to both the ethics that guide us in the real world and in our devotion to the one true God. We brought the Bible and the belief in God to the three major monotheistic faiths. Much of what separates us is superficial and unimportant. What unites us is that which I believe we must stress both to avoid unnecessary conflict, antisemitism, and bias by Jews against others and to be that light unto the nations. Isn't it great that the Ten Commandments are fundamental to Protestants and Catholics as well as by Jews? Don't we want Christians to read the 23rd Psalm with the same reverence that we do? Aren't we glad to hear Christians quote Isaiah, Amos, Micah and the other prophets?

    For centuries, Church and states forced Jews to be superficially different so that we would not be attractive to Christians or Muslims. They had to wear strange hats or speak different languages and have limited contact. Sometimes Jewish religious authorities joined in forcing Jews to be stress differences so that they would not interact with others. Now everyone can be recognized as a human being driven by the same emotions and with so much similarity.

    William Berkson said:

    MB, Christians and Muslims would probably also say they are ethical monotheists.

    What you haven't addressed is what is distinctive about Judaism that would make us want to be Jewish, other than combating antisemitism, which is a very weak basis for Judaism.

    Our ethical monotheism is different, and those differences, and the broader differences in our traditions, are why Judaism and the Jewish community are worth sustaining as a religion separate from Christianity and Islam.

    I think in Reform we aspire to values and practices that would be best for humanity, if applied universally. But we don't agree with others about what those universals are. That gives us our distictive outlook.

    In Judaism there has always been a tension between the universal and the particular. Your denying or minimising the particular I just don't think is credible, either historically or today.

    Post a comment