An Audio Introduction To Mordecai M. Kaplan & The Reconstructionist Movement
It should come as no surprise to anybody who knows me that the individual who has been and continues to be the biggest influence on my life Jewishly speaking is Mordecai M. Kaplan. His influence reaches all the way back to my pre-conversion days. There isn’t a day that goes by where Kaplan’s theology and/or thought doesn’t permeate my own Jewish thinking, whether it’s his notion of Judaism as an Evolving Religious Civilization or his view of God as a power or process rather than some sort of supernatural being.
While it’s true that I’ve never actually stepped foot inside a Reconstructionist shul and nor have I ever been an affiliated member of the JRF (although I did send away for membership information at one point,) I do enthusiastically self-identify, as a color inside the lines of Conservative Judaism, Kaplanian (read as Reconstructionist). What can I say no one speaks so clearly to me regarding the essence of God, Torah or the Jewish people, than Kaplan does. Of course that’s not to say that I agree 100% with everything the man says but any divergences I might have from Kaplan and his theology are few and far between.
In fact one of the reasons I chose to attend AJU (formerly the University of Judaism) is because, it’s humble origins can be traced back to the efforts and philosophy of Mordecai M. Kaplan.
What can I say, I am more than a fan, I am a disciple and I guess that’s why I’m sometimes completely awestruck by the fact that there are people out there who have no idea who Kaplan is or what Reconstructionism is about. This past August I found myself having several conversations with individuals who either had no idea what Kaplan/Reconstructionism were about or were grossly misinformed on the subject. In fact during one conversation I had with an Orthodox friend, I was told that I was nothing like Kaplan because I wasn’t an atheist. Sure Kaplan was far from being a traditionalist when it came to God but that doesn’t mean he didn’t believe in Him/Her/It.
So with the above in mind (that is both my love of Kaplan and other people’s lack of awareness,) I thought I’d pull together a series of links to various audio lectures on both Kaplan and the Reconstructionist movement. I’m not doing it to convince anyone that they should embrace Kaplan in the same way that I have chosen to or in an attempt to convince them that the Reconstructionist movement is the movement they should affiliate with. After all I’m committed to the Conservative Movement and I probably will never leave it for an other. All I’m hoping to accomplish is to make it easier for anyone who’s interested in learning more about Kaplan or Reconstructionism to do so. I guess that I just want to help close the knowledge gap when it comes to Kaplan and what he believed in. I get that some people won’t like him once they do know more about him but I’m also pretty sure a lot of people will feel at home with him and his theology.
As always, take the information contained in these audio files with a grain of salt. I say take what makes sense and leave the rest behind.
The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation (JRF) website hosts an online archive of an old radio program titled "Hearts and Minds," which during it’s run covered a variety of topics related to Judaism and the Reconstructionist movement. Here are what I consider to be the most interesting episodes of the program, which are ones that of course introduce listeners to Kaplan, God as She is understood within Reconstructionism, Reconstructionism 101 (part one and part two), Kabbalah and mysticism and there is even an episode dedicated to looking at Kashrut as it is understood and approached within the Reconstructionist movement.
However, probably the best piece of audio I’ve heard to date dealing with the subject of Mordecai M. Kaplan is an audio lecture by Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis of Valley Beth Shalom here in Los Angeles. Rabbi Schulweis considered by many to be one of Kaplan’s greatest disciples does an excellent job of conveying Kaplan’s journey and evolution as a Jew and theologian and so obviously I recommend checking out this piece of audio as well.
Last but not least the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College has a page set up with links to nine short audio clips of a 1972 interview with Mordecai M. Kaplan himself. Although the quality is rather poor, if you have any real interest in learning more about Kaplan, then check these out. It’s amazing to hear the man speak for himself unfortunately like I said the qualities not so hot and the clips are so short that they just leave you hungry for more. Regardless, they’re still awesome and worth checking out.
Like I’ve already mentioned I’m not trying to convince anyone to become a devote like I am or that they should be rethinking their theology. However having said that I’m pretty sure most of the people who actually take the time to check out these audio’s will realize that they are much closer to Kaplan and his Reconstructionism than they had previously thought. Speaking for myself I think that Kaplan is probably the most important Jewish thinker of the last century. It doesn’t matter what denomination I’m looking at or reading up on, I always see a little bit of Kaplan in whatever it is that I’m studying. He truly was a Jewish renaissance man and more importantly the guy who made Judaism accessible to me.
Enjoy and as always if you do check out the resources feel free to share your thoughts.
Update: Here is a link to some more recordings of Kaplan himself. By the way these clips are higher quality.
“God as the Power That Makes for Salvation” M. Kaplan
Thanks for the info…. thoughtful and extensive….as usual!
Karen
Great post Avi!
As a member of a Reconstructionist shul, but as a Jew who identifies strongly with the Conservative movement’s understanding of Jewish law, I think it is very interesting to note that Rav Kaplan wrote something to the effect of:
Jewish life without Jewish law is meaningless.
This was not as an Orthodox rabbi early on, but as a faculty member at JTS. The modern incarnation of Reconstructionism tends to downplay this attitude I think, as though Reconstructionism is Reform with more traditional aesthetics. But I think this is not an orientation Kaplan believed in, and that he needs to be explored in more depth for his philosophy of law and practice.
Thanks!
Yair
@Karen:
glad to read that you liked the post.
@Yair:
That’s an interesting quote can you share the source? As for Kaplan and Jewish law I would definitely agree that he was more seriously committed to mitzvot and their observance than what seems to be the typical norm within the Reconstructionist movement today. Having said that one of his hallmark beliefs was that Jewish mitzvot should be seen as folkways and therefore less binding than what is presented in a more traditional understanding.
Hey Avi,
Sure thing. The quote came from Rav Kaplan’s book “The future of the American Jew”, which is available here: http://www.amazon.com/Future-American-Mordecai-Menaheim-Kaplan/dp/0935457135
An interesting essay from a Reconstructionist thinker on this issue makes use of the quote, and is available from the Reconstructionism Today is available here: http://63.115.67.94/rt/recon-halakha.html
You wrote:
“one of his hallmark beliefs was that Jewish mitzvot should be seen as folkways and therefore less binding than what is presented in a more traditional understanding.”
I think maybe it’s more accurate to frame it as being binding for less divine reasons :-). As I understand Kaplan - and I most certainly may be off here - his argument of Judaism as a Civilization was not about individual Jews deciding what works for them (ie, Reform foundations), but the peoplehood responsibility is very much intact. We do these things not because an old man in the sky with a white beard will zap us with a lightning bolt if we don’t, but because they are the spiritual technology developed by the Jewish People for relating to G-d, to each other, and to the nations. This orientation is often seen as giving license to individual choice over community responsibility, but I am not sure that is what Kaplan meant. People quote his famous line “the past gets a vote, not a veto.” But I think what he meant was that the past itself is not the sole determinant of Jewish practice and ways of being, but it is among other considerations. I don’t think he was talking about individual choice here, but collective choice, ie, what the Jewish People chart as our course collectively should not be governed solely by the past (rote adherence to 400 year old codes). His comments about law only make sense if this is a community-wide endeavor, as opposed to each individual Jew charting her or his own course.
kol tuv!
Yair
After listening to parts one and two of the Intro to Reconstructionism radio shows, I hope I can consider myself a little more literate about R’ M. Kaplan and Reconstructionist Judaism (RJ). However, I would not deviate significantly from my more ignorantly-held impression of RJ as it has meandered from traditional Judaism. I get the impression from the shows I listened to that RJ is a very modern, North American, psychosocially defined construct, where I view traditional Judaism as more comfortably integrating the ancient and the modern, more universal, and more God-centered (in a non-threatening way), as well as more challenging in its theology and learning style.
This does not mean that I think that RJ is lacking in value. In my journey to where I am, it would have been a comfortable place to sojourn for a time, and for many (including extended family members) it’s a great place to take up residence permanently. It’s a comfortable fit with modern Western ways of thinking and viewing the world, and is exactly the sort of Judaism to emerge in the America described in Prof. Jonathan Sarna’s book “American Judaism.” And for Jews who make their home in the land and culture of America, what could be more appropriate?
@Yair:
I think we’re pretty much on the same page in terms of the broader stroke brushes of what Kaplan was all about and I agree that Kaplan believed in democracy is a communal process for deciding what was in what was out in terms of observance and communal life Jewishly speaking. However, I think he was much looser with the process then say the conservative movement is/was. If he didn’t like something he’d drop it from the liturgy. I’m not sure how much consultation was done with the community. I also believe that he wrote that unless the Jewish community was able to enforce community standards nothing should be considered binding. I believe (and hopefully someone will correct me if I’m wrong) this had led in large part to the decision of the Reconstructionist movement to designate Halacha and the mitzvot as nonbinding and this is where I would diverge from Kaplan and the Reconstructionist movement. I disagree with the idea that if the mitzvot can’t be enforced then they aren’t binding, which is why I say I’m a color inside the lines of Conservative Judaism Kaplanian.
Anyhow, like I said at the top of this comment I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. However, I see Kaplan as being maybe sometimes a little too fast and loose when it came to making changes to the tradition, as well as, his thoughts on the binding nature of mitzvot.
Incidentally, for what it’s worth, your conceptualization of the mitzvoth are pretty much bang on in my opinion. At least in terms of my own understanding and approach to observance.
@Shimshonit:
One of the reasons I wrote this post I wanted to give people the opportunity to see for themselves that Kaplan was not an atheist and I think the sources contained in this post do just that.
As for your comment “I get the impression from the shows I listened to that RJ is a very modern, North American, psychosocially defined construct” you are bang on. In fact many would say that it’s the only truly uniquely American expression of Judaism and by that I mean something that evolved from the fertile soil that is America as opposed to being transplanted from the old world. Kaplan’s view of living in two worlds was specifically designed to reflect the experiences and needs of American Jews.
Avi,
You may have heard the old joke about RJ, “There is no God, and Mordechai Kaplan is His prophet.” What you say may be true, in that R’ Kaplan himself may not have been an atheist. (He certainly received a traditional Torah education.) However, either his writings gave his devotees the impression, or they got it themselves in evolving from what he wrote, that God is not as He/She/It is described in the Torah. When listening to the audio show, I took some pretty careful notes. Here are some of the things R’ Liebling says in reference to God:
-The RJ impression of God is “one that makes sense to us in terms of our learning, our moral sensibilities, and our scientific understanding, taking into account that God is unknowable”
-”We don’t believe in an omnipotent all-powerful God who will willfully intervene in history and change and change things”
-”God is the web of connective tissue in the universe” (said in reference to God being a uniter of all religious peoples, and the inspiration toward good in every individual, if I have it correctly)
I’m the first to admit that it’s pretty hard to describe something as complex as God. However, it seems that RJ has made a concerted effort to simplify the notion of God by taking God out of the center of traditional Judaism and replacing God with humans. R’ Liebling says that Judaism was created out of the needs of the group of people we call “Jews” rather than from an unfolding relationship with God. He says that God is not an independent actor in the world, but effectively equates God with the yetzer hatov, the inclination toward good. According to these statements and the ones above, both Judaism and God are human constructs. If that’s the case, it’s hard for me not to see RJ as described by R’ Liebling as atheistic. It sounds to me as though RJ posits that humans came first, then humans invented God. (But perhaps this idea is refuted somewhere else in RJ writings.) That pretty well stands the Torah on its head. R’ Liebling does believe there is divinity in the world, but equates that divinity with goodness. While certainly not mutually exclusive, I’m not sure they’re theologically equivalent.
I know your stated intent was not to try to persuade anyone of the truth of RJ, but to offer information about it. I thank you for that.
Shim
I think you more or less have summarized the Reconstructionist position accurately.
However the conclusions you’ve extrapolated from this summary are not ones which I share. I don’t believe that Kaplan or Reconstructionism is suggesting that they (humans) have “invented God” but rather that the Jewish conceptualization of both God and Judaism as religion are born out of the Jewish people’s collective wisdom, insight and history. I seriously doubt that Kaplan would ever suggest that God did not exist outside of humanity. My reading of Kaplan is that he teaches that God acts through creation and therefore through humanity, via the creative impulse for good. This in my opinion takes him out of the realm of legitimately being considered an atheist.
Shabbat Shalom