Bringing Judaism Back to Earth

One of the great ongoing challenges in Judaism has been keeping it relevant for a modern society. Most people know of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism. Yet few know of the Reconstructionist movement, which was founded by Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan. It has disrupted traditional Jewish thought in an effort to make modern-day Judaism relevant.

This Judaism lies somewhere between Conservative and Reform Judaism — yet also pulls from Orthodox traditions; the rabbi sought to define Judaism in new ways. Jews disagreed as to what being Jewish meant: Was it a religion, a way of life, a nationality, a culture, an ethnicity — or all or some of the above? Mordecai Kaplan instead defined Judaism by calling it a civilization, a term that encompassed all of these concepts and many others.

“God is the sum of all the animating organizing forces and relationships, which are forever making a cosmos out of chaos.”

He also sought to bring Judaism back to Earth, so to speak, removing it from the realm of the supernatural and grounding it in this world. For example, ritual is a cornerstone of any faith, as it brings together all the elements necessary for both communal experience and frees the mind and soul to contemplate the grand notions offered by sacred texts.

Yet the danger of ritual is that it becomes — rote. Setting oneself on autopilot during a religious service undermines the very point of the service. As such, staying aware of both ritual and text is the key to ongoing fulfillment.

Reconstructionists go to great lengths to discuss and analyze what the Torah means in many contexts: spiritual, emotional, psychological. The late Rabbi Harold Schulweis and Rabbi Ed Feinstein of Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, California, have long hosted lengthy sessions on a given week’s Torah reading. They parse, they analyze, and they ask the congregation to contribute thoughts — all with the goal of making the passage immediately relevant.

Related: Leftists Use Jews When Politically Convenient

Kaplan’s most controversial concept was his understanding of God. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, “Kaplan did not understand God as a supernatural force in the universe, but rather as the power which makes possible personal salvation, which Kaplan understand as the ‘worthwhileness of life.’ God is the sum of all the animating organizing forces and relationships, which are forever making a cosmos out of chaos,” Kaplan wrote. “God cannot abridge the laws of nature, for God is synonymous with natural law.”

This concept is of obvious interest to political conservatives, as the message implies a reliance on personal responsibility and natural law (from which the Constitution derives).

It’s a difficult concept to grasp for people of faith, because it makes the supernatural into something real and tangible. It’s a dicey proposition, to be sure, but with contemplation comes the revelation that God is within. It is personally empowering to imagine this Divine force as not being outside of us, but inside.

Related: The Lost Valentine of the Man Who Stood Up to the Nazis

Reconstructionism is not without controversy. But as the saying goes, “Two Jews, three opinions.” Mordecai Kaplan felt that the notion of Jews as the Chosen People had been misinterpreted by non-Jews. The concept is merely that Jews were singularly chosen to enter into a covenant with God. Because critics tried to co-opt the message to support racist ideologies, and because it seemed to contradict the notion that anyone was divinely chosen, Kaplan expunged that concept.

Giving into the mob mentality does not sit well with conservatives, or many Jews. Nor can anyone control how a given text is twisted by enemies. Thus, one is more apt to find the concept of Jews as the Chosen People in more Conservative-leaning synagogues, while the liberal-driven Reform synagogues are obviously more likely to embrace Mordecai Kaplan’s concept.

While still controversial in some circles, Reconstructionism is a relatively small but thriving piece of Judaism. For those Jews who can’t quite get on board with orthodoxy, but for whom Reform seems too loosey-goosey, it is worth the time to explore.