Talk:Reconstructionist Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Reconstructionist Judaism is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents


Article says "In agreement with the classical medieval Jewish thinkers, Kaplan affirmed that God is not personal". I always thought that the "classical medieveal Jewish thinkers" (which I'm guessing means Maimonides, the other philosophers whose names I forget, and the Rabbis that wrote commentaries on the Talmud, whose names I forget also) taught God was personal. They agreed (or at least Maimonides did) that God was incoporeal but I still thought they held he was personal. Or am I projecting Christian theology onto Judaism? Also, how many Jews actually are Reconstructionists, as a percentage? This is mainly a U.S. movement, right? -- SJK

Its not widely known, but most of the medieval Jewish theologians (Saadya Gaon, Maimonides, Samuel Ibn Tibbon, Gersonides, etc.) taught that God was not anthropomorphic or personal. This is in stark contrast to the Biblical view and the Talmudic view, which does teach that God is personal. Maimonides and other held that the Bible and Talmud spoke in the way that they did, because this is all the common people could be expected to understand. But to a wide person (which Maimonides defines as one who has mastered physics and philosophy) will see that all the anthropomorphic statements in the Bible are just metaphors to express a relationship, and are not truly descriptions in of themselves. Maimonides and other created elaborate reconciliations between the non-personal rationalism of Aristotelian philosophy and the person anthropomorphic teachings of the Bible and Talmud, always teaching that the the Aristotelian rationalism was what the Bible really meant all along. Mordecai Kaplan was controversial because he went further than this; for Maimonides, God had ontological reality, and existed apart from our thoughts and beliefs. God was and is the ultimate cause of all existence. For Kaplan, his writings kept varying between affirming God as real, and affirming that God is only the name we use for our collective beliefs about righteousness. He was widely accused of atheism, and some of his followers certainly are. Kaplan's theology kept bouncing back and forth between affirming God as real or not, and he made clear that its more imporant to say that we believe in God (and act like it) then to actually believe in God's independent, real existence. For Kaplan, belief in God weas behavioural, and not necessarilly indicative of anything real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I object to the use of the term "the" classical medieval Jewish thinkers. During the Middle Ages, other classical medieval Jewish thinkers were writing poetry, such as anim Zemirot (Shir HaKavod or the Hymn of Glory), with some of the most personal and anthropormorphic imagery in Jewish thought. It would be incorrect to say "the" classical medieval Jewish thinkers, as the impersonal school reflected only one wing of thought in a long-standing debate. Wikipedia should not use language which appears to take sides on this sort of issue. --Shirahadasha 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about you guys, but I find behaviour very real indeed, disturbingly so at times Zargulon 19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The link that gives a 404 is exactly why external links are such a bad idea. I would love to link to lots of external pictures for art entries (policy aside), but most of them are very unstable. Touristic sites change all the time, and most university sites change each term. --MichaelTinkler

Moved from article: ***would someone please add origin of siddur?*** 64.73.246.2 El_C 10:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Autonomy and Reconstructionism

an individual's personal autonomy should generally override traditional Jewish law and custom, yet also take into account communal consensus,

What is the basis for this claim? Does it come from any accepted Reconstructionist text. Reconstructionism explicitly differentiates itself from Reform Judaism in that it holds that divergence from traditional Jewish law and custom should occur through a communal decision-making process.

"Unlike Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionism does not view inherited Jewish law (halahah) as binding. We continue to turn to Jewish law for guidance, if not always for governance. We recognize that in the contemporary world, individuals and communities make their own choices with regard to religious practice and ritual observance. But where Reform Judaism emphasizes individual autonomy, Reconstructionism emphasizes the importance of religious community in shaping individual patterns of observance. Belonging to a community leads us to take the patterns of observance within that community seriously; our choices do not exist independently, but are made in response to our community as part of our participating in it. Reconstructionism thus retains a warmly traditional (and fully egalitarian) approach to Jewish religious practice."
I guess it depends on your interpretation of the above text, taken from http://www.jrf.org/recon/rjis.html. Personally, I read the bolded part as a measure of individual decision making within certain aspects, but communal decision making as an important part of where the individual starts from in his or her own decision making process.


When I was Younger the saying was "Tradition has a vote not a Veto". The major difference between Reconstructionist Judaism and Reform Judaism is that Reconstructionist Jews tended to adapt or change things to fit modern time where as Reform Judaism in the past at least tended to abandon practices entirely they though were not relevant to the practice of Judaism. I've been to different Reconstructionist congregations I think about 30 in the United States and 2 in other counties and they tend to have Religious Ideologies stretching from a Liberal version of Conservative Judaism to Secular Humanist Judaism. Each of these were done by communal decision not by individual ideology, usually lead by interaction of the Elected board members of the synagogue and the Rabbi Osl97 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejection

This article states Reconstructionist Jew reject the "Belief that their Religion is the right way for everyone"

Isn't that True of all Jews (Considering the Noachide Laws)?

The distinction is that Reconstructionist Judaism regards Judaism as having guidelines rather than obligations, for everyone, Jew or non-Jew alike. In Kaplan's original formulation the rules are purely human inventions and not the product of a personal God. An analogy would be the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, which in the story are mere guidelines but believed to be rules due to a clever marketing ploy. It would be a bit like regarding the Ten Commandments as the Ten Suggestions. --Shirahadasha 01:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

according to the article, reconstructionists reject a "belief" that is nonexistent in judaism.

this implies that some jews DO in fact believe "their Religion is the right way for everyone", which is false. some might think theirs is the right way for every jew, but none would extend that to "jew and non-jew alike".

i don't see how the distinction between 'guidelines' and 'obligations' has any bearing on this.

couldn't it be fixed by changing "the right way for everyone" to "the right way for all Jews" or "the only correct form of judaic practice" or whatever? or, if the important take-away point is really about the relativism/subjectivity of these 'guidelines' (which are, apparently, valid for everyone?) shouldn't it just say that instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.149.33 (talk) 24 November 2006

My understanding is that the distinction between "guidelines" and "obligations" -- put more neutrally, of course -- is the key distinction involved. Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism hold that Halakha, traditional religious law including the rules of ritual practice, represents a religious obligation on all Jews and not following it represents a sin. My understanding is Reconstructionist Judaism does not believe this; it believes Halakha and Jewish ritual practice represent nice things to try (doubtless someone else can formulate this better), but there is no question of "requirement" to do it or "sin" for not doing it. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than me can explain how Reconstructionism formulates this more accurately. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in Reconstructionist Judaism, I'll leave it to others to explain this issue further and make any needed changes to the page. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

i understand why that is such an important distinction, i just don't see how it's relevant to this specific problem with this one specific sentence:

"Rejection of the belief... that their Religion is the right way for everyone"

it shouldn't say "everyone". jews think judaism is ONLY for jews, not "everyone"; being god's 'chosen people' means god chose them from all the other, non-chosen, non-jewish people.

on the other hand, many religions DO hold that "everyone" should be converted -- they have massive missionary efforts to convert as many of "everyone" as possible. judaism has taken the exact opposite approach, making it relatively difficult for new converts to join the community. apparently this is meant to test their sincerity and commitment. anyway, that's why there are no jewish missionaries, evangelism, etc.. the outreach that does happen is aimed at people who are ALREADY jewish.

this is a really big, really fundamental difference between judaism and christianity, for all kinds of reasons beyond the scope of this article. the important thing here is to not claim something as uniquely reconstructionist that is true for all jewish denominations.

i'm changing this to "Rejection of the belief that the Jews are God's chosen people, and that their Jewish practice is an obligation"


(sorry, i don't know how to sign this) 72.10.128.169 01:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

i forgot to say, i thought your way of putting it--"a nice thing to try"--captures the sentiment really nicely! 72.10.128.169 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

What is the neutrality dispute here? --Selket Talk 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can women be ordained as rabbis?

If someone could add this, it would seem an important element in the Gender Roles section. Also, is there any formal policy towards gays and lesbians? Notmyrealname 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Full egalitarianism means just that - there's no substantive difference between men and women in the denomination (little things, sure, like boys get bar mitzvahs and girls get bat mitzvahs, but no position is closed to a complete gender). I can spell it out more explicitly in the article, though. ShaleZero 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The Reconstructionist Rabbinical College was the first of the Jewish seminaries to offer admission and smichah to women. The Reform rabbinical college was the first to ordain a woman as rabbi. Chayim hm (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote-style citation

Hi! Wikipedia, in an effort to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, has created a template to suggest movement to footnote-style citation throughout Wikipedia. I've added it to this article. Footnote citations should give enough information to enable a non-expert to verify a claim, including edition an page numbers for off-line publications. See WP:CITE for more information. Because verifiers can't realistically go through a large list of books etc. to verify an individual statement, controversial statements which do not have footnote-style citations can still be challenged as unverified until they have a footnote provided for them despite the list of references at the bottom. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALL medieval commentators held God IS personal!

I was astounded to find someone wrote "the medieval thinkers" thought God is not personal! This statement is so objectively false I'd label it vandalism. EVERY jewish thinker of all time in rabbinic judaism held God IS personal (to not hold so would be heresy, hence the reason kaplan was and is derided as a heretic in orthodox circles). I can only assume the writer of this line attributed anachronistically modern sentiments to medieval rabbis in the hopes that this would confirm kaplans radical revolutionary views. Please try to be intellectually honest..I actually think the strength of reconstruction ism is it is generally quite blunt and honest when it consciously breaks from tradition and it is not embarrassed by this. Either way that comment was both original research, weasel words, completely non cited to any source, and verifiable false so I edited it. The author of these words seems to have confused anthropomorphism (which Maimonides's did reject) and personal God. Not believing God has a physical body has nothing to do with believing God is also impersonal, I don't know how one can confuse these two issues and so casually lump them together. As for the comments above that Maimonides's believed God is not personal, I refer the writer of these sentiments to Maimonides's thirteen principles of faith specifically number one where he writes that God is presently the Guide of all that happens, as well as the principles that state that God "punishes the bad and rewards the good", and that He knows the thoughts of man, that He spoke to Prophets, that He revealed the Torah to Moses, that He will send a Messiah and revive the dead etc. (come to think of it, almost all his principles reflect belief in a persoanl God). I doubt maimonodes would label himself a heretic, and so he clearly thought God was personal, just as every other rabbi until the enlightenment did. In fact the notion of a personal God is THE core belief of all monotheistic faiths in all their manifestations. YaakovOfNY (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theology

It seems most odd to begin the main discussion of Reconstructionism with a section titled Theology. Kaplan was very clear on the subject: "Behaving comes before believing." Reconstructionism has always emphasized actions -- social action as well as ritual -- as more fundamental to maintaining Jewish identity and to the ongoing evolution of Jewish civilization. Perhaps one of the RRC faculty could weigh in here with suitable citations? Chayim hm (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)