Talk:Reconstructionist Judaism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Henrymichaels.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsorted text
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.


 * 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)
 * Concerning →Theology: "conditions in the outer world and drives in the human spirit which together impel man to transcend himself" can have "ontological reality, a real and absolute existence independent of human beliefs" – i.e., there's no contradiction between Kaplan's "two theologies". Also (to unsigned section above), while Kaplan "was widely accused of atheism", some no doubt laud him for it, which, in our democratic societies, should be ok. Wishing all a bright day, Dan ☺ 00:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Two stray comments
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:  El_C 10:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

High importance?
Perhaps one level of importance below the largest branches, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. Despite its small size Reconstructionism has been very influential within Liberal Judaism, e.g. Mordecai Kaplan's daughter had the first Bat Mitzvah. What does everyone think? --AFriedman (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Movements in North America, including Messianic?
When listing the major Jewish movements in the United States, I believe it would be remiss to exclude Messianic Judaism from any scholarly discussion, if for no other reason than to allow readers to make comparisons and/or to link to the article on it. Whether or not some people consider Messianics to be practicing a "valid" form of Judaism (whatever that means) or not is a matter of personal bias. The fact still remains that there are Messianic synagogues all over North America. There are Torah-observant Jews who attend these synagogues, and the movement has grown quite large. I am NOT a Messianic Jew and do not attend a Messianic synagogue--nor do I approve of all of their theology or practices--but that's not the issue. The issue is giving complete, unbiased information. What do the rest of you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddserveto (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, what does Messianic Judaism have to do with the Reconstructionist movement?
 * Second, neither Jews nor Christians consider Messianic Judaism to be a Jewish religious movement. See Messianic Judaism.
 * Finally, see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Since a tiny minority of Messianic Jews disagree with the overwhelming consensus of Jews and Christian scholars that Messianic Judaism is not Judaism, there is no reason why Wikipedia should give their point of view equal billing. — Malik Shabazz 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue has come up several times before. Each time, it's been clear that there is consensus that Messianic Judaism is a form of Christianity and not a form of Judaism. Messianic groups seldom if ever engage in authentic Jewish rituals, seldom pray in a convention Jewish fashion, are not accepted in the Jewish community and frequently profess a theology consistent with Evangelical Protestant Christianity. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Challenge to page content
The Article is devoid of any serious content. Real Reconstructionist Jews are disciples of Mordecai Kaplan. Most unfortunately, a group of Leftists and homosexuals have taken over the movement (the JRF and RRC). They are, to a large extent, anti-American, and not very knowledgable about Mordecai Kaplan's works. The Article doesn't point out that the original purpose of Reconstructionist Judaism was to harmonize Jewish Civilization with American Civilization. A book summarizing Reconstructionist Judaism, Dynamic Judaism, should be used to completely rewrite this Article so that the reader can gain a better understanding of Reconstructionist Judaism. As it stands, the Article is worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.103.114 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 *  Shalom 71.185.103.114, thanks for give your opinion. I wrote a message for you in the section "re-write the page reconstructionist Judaism", friendship and respect --Geneviève (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

re-write the page reconstructionist Judaism
Shalom, Bonjour à tous, thank you so much for your critics and opinions. I am going to try to re-write this page: see here User:Genevieve2/sandbox009cb. I am not one specialist of the Judaism simply I am a Jew who is going to pray in the Reconstructionist synagogue of Montreal. Please give me some weeks to rewrite the page (because I have a lot of work on the Women's hockey). There will be errors in my work and it will belong to you with kindness and courtesy to modify the text. You can write me on my Talk page. It will be pleasant to exchange opinions with you. Thanks, merci, תודה --Geneviève (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shalom, after reflection, I decided not go to write a new page of Reconstructionist Judaism. The subject is complex and too difficult for a new person without experience. I thank the persons who gave their opinion in the WikiProject Judaism. --Geneviève (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The word of God?
User:WalkerThrough has been adding lines to the Bible article asserting that it is the revealed word of God (fact). The section on the Hebrew Bible stated that some Jews believe that God revealed all the commandments at Sinai, and other Jews think they were revealed during the wanderings in the desert (no sources). I find this a little off, but certain, not all Jews, not all rabbis, hold to just these two views. I think it excludes the views of most Reconstructionist Rabbis and I added that some scholars believe that the laws were composed at later times in Jewish history. WalkerThrough deleted this as Original Research here. I restored it with a couple of citations, but now Walker Through is calling me an unbeliever and that Jesus is the truth. I hope that better informed watchers of this page might keep an eye on this as I do not wish to enter a revert war. I would also ask watchers of this page to look at the last section on the talk page, and, if you have something constructive to add, consider it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Kippah fabric
Does anybody know which fabric of kippah is used by Reconstructionist Jews?--Donmust90 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Donmust90
 * A question this specific would best be directed to authorities of the Reconstructionist Judaism movement. See the External links section that provides a web link to the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association. There is an "info" e-mail address at the top of its home page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Origin
I would like to add information to the "origin" section of the article. I believe it is too short on content, and I can add info from a strong reference of Marc Lee Raphaels's Profiles in American Judaism: The Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Reconstructionist Traditions in Historical Perspective (Harper & Row, 1984). For example, Mordecai Kaplan's publishing of Judaism as a Civilizationin 1935 marks as a beginning to the Reconstructionist movement. Also, the Society for the Advancement of Judaism (SAJ), founded in 1922, is very important to the establishment of the movement. The Reconstructionist Rabbinical College is mentioned in this section, but I can add the lead-up to its establishment, such as the Montreal conference in 1967 which pushed for creating a new branch of Judaism and making a college for these rabbis. If the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College is discussed, then I feel I should attach the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, dating back to 1950, as this association was vital to the eventual branching of another denomination of Judaism. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page.--Henrymichaels (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reconstructionist Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120514172921/http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/25852/Do_the_Jewish_Streams_Have_a_Future/ to http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/25852/Do_the_Jewish_Streams_Have_a_Future/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Church Road
Church Road.

Oy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.84.59 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Origin of term "reconstructionist"?
SO who thought of the name? DId Kapplan sit down in the 1920s and say "I'm going to create a movement and call it 'reconstructionism'"? Or did people later name it that because his book title was about "reconstructing" Judaism? Has the movement always been called thus, or did it start at a later date? When? Did people within the movement coin the term and call themselves "Reconstructionist", or is it a label that was applied by others and later adopted by the members themselves? Why "reconstructionist" anyway? What does that term imply? 64.222.204.246 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The short answer is no, the founders of the Reconstructionist Jewish movement didn't sit around and say "We're going to start a movement called Reconstructionism". But in some ways it isn't too far from the truth.
 * What is now the Reconstructionist Jewish movement developed beginning in the late 1920s as a philosophical approach within the Conservative Jewish movement. It originated with Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, a professor at the Conservative movement's seminary, Jewish Theological Seminary. (Years later, he was opposed to the separation of the Reconstructionist movement from the Conservative movement, and remained at JTS until his retirement in 1963.) From the 1920s, he was also the rabbi at the Society for the Advancement of Judaism, a New York synagogue where he developed some of the ideas that led to the Reconstructionist movement as well as some "radical" ideas that have become so widespread in American Judaism—such as the bat mitzvah, of which his daughter was the first—that nobody thinks they were "invented" in the 20th century.
 * "Reconstruction" is an old word that has taken unique meanings in American history (see the Reconstruction era, for example). The word means just what it seems like it means:rebuilding. Kaplan felt that Jewish life in the modern world, particularly in the United States, was unique and required new developments in Judaism. As you note, the subtitle of his major work, Judaism as a Civilization (1935), called for "a Reconstruction of American Jewish Life"; I imagine that was the source of the movement's name.
 * Kaplan and his colleagues may have labelled themselves Reconstructionists. According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, they launched a journal called The Reconstructionist in the 1930s shortly fter the publication of Judaism as a Civilization and published a "Reconstructionist Sabbath Prayer Book" in 1945. (It isn't clear whether that was the title of the book.) Hope this helps. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying the movement's name
The opening paragraph states that the movement's name was changed to 'Reconstructing Judaism' in 2018, but this is not accurate. Quoting a statement written by Rabbi Deborah Waxman, President of Reconstructing Judaism: "To be clear, we have renamed the central organization of the Reconstructionist movement, but not the movement as a whole." Jnewton37 (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I fixed this, citing the same source that you did. Mfessler (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)