Kaplan's "Power that makes for salvation"

[dauer]

I just came across this short youtube clip and it made me think of BB's recent comparison of Reconstructionism to Jewish humanism:

YouTube - RRC & Kaplan: Rabbi Jacob J. Staub

On God as "the Power that makes for salvation" Staub quotes Kaplan as saying that "[it is not a] rational explanation... [but rather is] meant to be a rational method of indicating where to look for that inexpressible, indescribable and incomprehensible mystery we name God... that we should not look for that mystery in the astronomical, or the physical dimension of the universe, nor in miracles which are only myths, but to that striving in man by which, when we are at our best, we aim to transcend or metamorphoze ourselves. That is the striving for salvation."

While a Kaplanian conception of God is clearly some sort of reconstruction, I would suggest that it is very robust and very God-centered. As Staub interprets it, if I understand him correctly, Kaplan is speaking only of the types of tendencies that should inform our epochal reconstructions or recontextualizations of religious truth: namely, those places of growth or striving for greatness in human endeavors and the human psyche. These are not the locations of God but more or less the places that most point toward God. It is hard to say whether this is inevitably dualistic. It only seems to speak to the types of internal or external events that lead in the direction of holiness and not so clearly to God's nature. This isn't to say that it doesn't speak to God's nature but that I'm not sure it limits God so much as it takes a quietistic approach to the issue of God's nature by placing its focus upon moments where we reach for self-transcendence.

I'm personally not entirely satisfied even by this answer perhaps because it seems somewhat evasive in its eloquence of larger problems but I'm also not broadly familiar with Kaplan's religious thought. Most of what I would call Kaplanian might more appropriately be called post-Kaplanian, influenced as it is by more recent developments in the Jewish community or co-opted by a larger and less daring mainstream (in this case the Reformists despite Kaplan's origin in the Conservative movement and Orthodoxy, and the more similar ideals of religious life found between the Conservative and Reconstructionist movements) which inevitably wishes to reframe his ideas so that they are in greater agreement with its own principles and thus simplify a more rigorous theology.

Mainly I want to point out the difference between this and a Judaized humanism that rejects God entirely and consequently rejects traditional liturgy almost entirely. I do also think it might be worthwhile to speak to some of the strengths and weaknesses of Kaplan's approach. But from this passage alone that would prove difficult.

Thoughts?

 

[c0de]

Staub quotes Kaplan as saying that "[it is not a] rational explanation... [but rather is] meant to be a rational method of indicating where to look for that inexpressible, indescribable and incomprehensible mystery we name God...

Is that a subtle clue into this whole line of Kaplanian thought?

While a Kaplanian conception of God is clearly some sort of reconstruction, I would suggest that it is very robust and very God-centered.

Doesn't sound like it from this passage of his:

"Judaism is the result of natural human development. There is no such thing as divine intervention; Judaism is an evolving religious civilization; Torah was not inspired by God; it only comes from the social and historical development of Jewish people; The classical view of God is rejected. God is redefined as the sum of natural powers or processes that allows mankind to gain self-fulfillment and moral improvement;"

Reconstructionist Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mainly I want to point out the difference between this and a Judaized humanism that rejects God entirely

Sure there is a difference,

just like the chicken is different from the egg.

And the chicken (reconstructionism) did come before the egg (Jewish humanism)

seriously!! Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof" - CBS News



--------------------


Regarding the "search for God" itself:

Last time I checked, YHWH is not a name, but God telling man (politely) to quit trying to name Him. In other words, God is telling man that this mystery is beyond his grasp, and he should attend to more menial matters (perhaps ponder on the nature of his own existence instead).

So when a Kaplan comes along and tells us where to search for God, I know it's gonna be a wild goose chase. IMO, these attempts are not centered on God at all, but man striving (in vain) to assert his own being, trying to reassure him/herself of his/her own freedom (again, in vain.)

 

[dauer]

Is that a subtle clue into this whole line of Kaplanian thought?

I don't know that it is. There are two different theologies that Kaplan presents, one naturalistic and the other not. The movement which has followed him sometimes leans toward one and sometimes the other. Lately due to the influence of Renewal I'd say it has generally distanced itself from a rigid rationalistic naturalism. In your second quote the one point on which I'd say, given Kaplan's actual words from the video, that he's been misunderstood is here: "God is redefined as the sum of natural powers or processes that allows mankind to gain self-fulfillment and moral improvement" because he's said in his journal that this is not God. God is not identifiable with the sum of those powers or processes. That is merely the place to look for a God which transcends them. I'd say that this understanding is the direction that Reconstructionism has been moving more recently. See for example:

Reconstructionism on One Foot | Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
and
Is Reconstructionist Judaism For You? | Jewish Reconstructionist Federation

and the video itself is connect to a Reconstructionist youtube account that relays a speech given at the Recon rabbinical school. It may be that for a time they'd taken an overly simplistic interpretation of Kaplan and since then have deepened their understanding of his work. But it must also be reiterated that he doesn't only represent one opinion. It would be possible to creates two oppositional yet systematic theologies based upon Kaplan's writings.

I would suggest that the phrase you've emphasized in the first quote is directly related to the word before it: mystery. If anything I think he's trying to highlight the difficulty of identifying God, especially given the fact that this quote is in the context of a frustrated argument against someone who has taken his description as a rational definition of God. The place he's identified seems to me related to a belief that God is somehow connected to the good and a rejection of the infallibility of scripture.

Sure there is a difference,

just like the chicken is different from the egg.

Well that's a little rude. While this is an internet forum, given your response to me and your responses to others recently, you may be well advised to reconsider how you apply the principle of charity in your interactions with people here. Certainly I could have been more clear but the absence of clarity doesn't justify the assumption of vacuity. BB explicitly and simplistically related the two together. I was responding to him. When I said that they're different I intended that they're very different. Reconstructionism presents a robust theology while Jewish humanism rejects theology, rejects God entirely. Nor does Jewish Humanism originate in Reconstructionism. Lumping the two together is tantamount to an ideological myopia that blinds one to the subtleties of those whose positions are at a great distance from one's own.

Last time I checked, YHWH is not a name, but God telling man (politely) to quit trying to name Him. In other words, God is telling man that this mystery is beyond his grasp, and he should attend to more menial matters

It's a bit more complicated than that. Within the Jewish tradition there have been many ways that the Tetragrammaton has been understood. But from the video I'd say Kaplan doesn't quite disagree with you. Yes, God is a mystery, but that doesn't prevent one from searching for Him and arriving at some degree of knowing. There are two very well developed attitudes (and these are really groups of varied attitudes) toward knowing God in Judaism: one cynical about man's capacity to know God and the other not. There is too much nuance to speak in depth in this way but both positions are quite valid within the Jewish tradition. In the second case it is usually that God is only known according to man's capacities to know Him and there is still something of Him that is unknowable (even when it is held that Moses only saw God's back and not God's face as it were, the back is still seen.) But this looks like what Kaplan is saying. He's rejecting the portrayal of his words as rigid descriptors of the ineffable.

Of some interest to you perhaps, at times the optimistic perspective inevitably means turning inward as you suggest because within the Jewish tradition man is created b'tzelem elohim, in the image of God. Maybe more to the point, I don't see why you'd so strongly reject the possibility that man can know God at least somewhat. If God is omnipotent Creator then God can create a world in which man's purpose is to know Him or at the very least it is possible to do so and those who seek can arrive at some knowing of the Divine. I'm not saying that you ought to be persuaded to adopt a different stance but that I don't understand your strong opposition. It is a tenable position even if it isn't your own. And within the Jewish tradition it tends to receive more emphasis.

trying to reassure him/herself of his/her own freedom (again, in vain.)

I think that Reconstructionism, having on rationalist grounds rejected the traditional bindingness of halachah, is in search of a way to be obligated to the Divine thus in a sense limiting freedom (or arriving at true freedom depending upon the way in which obeying the will of God is framed). And from my own studies I can tell you that a lot of searching for God, within the Jewish tradition at least, is precisely a diminishing of the ego. For example, lately I've been studying the religious thought of Avraham HaMalach, an 18th century pietist. According to him, firstly, the Divine that exists outside of man is inaccessible. It is, relative to man's mind, in a simple unity that is unobtainable. The only way to know God is through the Divine within oneself by means of one's attributes which are the Divine image. But more to the point: there are two sets of these attributes. By means of one set an individual serves God. By means of the other, himself. There is no middle road. The way to know God is through submission to the will of God as expressed in the mitzvot and ultimately a diminishing of the ego until one can come to know the simple unity (which is itself at a higher level of those attributes within man, not outside of him.) It is not yet clear to me whether or not he holds that, assuming simple unity, knowing one bit of it is akin to knowing the whole thing. I don't at this time think he does. It's more likely I think that he's defining simple unity differently. It applies to everything above a particular rung in relation to it. At the level of Ayn Sof everything is entirely nullified while a few levels down only everything below is nullified and everything above isn't. It's perspectival, I think.

My point is that I don't think those who seek God are necessarily so at odds with those who believe God can't be known and that if you begin with the assumption that there is no commonality between the two then you're much more at risk of failure to understand a position on its own terms.

 

[Saltmeister]

Well that's a little rude. While this is an internet forum, given your response to me and your responses to others recently, you may be well advised to reconsider how you apply the principle of charity in your interactions with people here.

While I've noticed at least one person saying that of c0de recently, I personally haven't felt that about him. Rudeness is something I know I have been guilty of towards others in recent times on these forums. There are times when I have even been aggressive, not deliberately, but just in the heat of the moment.

While c0de seems to be in the habit of "pointing out where people are wrong," which people may find annoying, the points he made were usually not over things I considered important. I generally didn't disagree strongly enough to argue with him over those points.

If someone tells me I've been rude, that would be information for me. I just think this is c0de's style. c0de's posting style is relatively mild compared to some clashes I've had in the last few months.

 

[dauer]

c0de's posting style is relatively mild compared to some clashes I've had in the last few months.

Oh I agree that it's pretty mild compared to a lot of other people, and there have certainly been occasions where I'd say c0de was correct as well as others where he seemed to be creating straw men and getting in the way of dialogue. Given his facility with theology I think he could add a lot more to the community by not lowering himself. Admittedly my personal expectations of him are higher because I think highly of him.

 

[c0de]

hmmm... conundrum...

if i reply about the comments about me,
i would risk sidetracking this thread...
which i don't want to do...

so... im just gonna get back on topic

(but thanks for the constructive criticisms + compliments)

Reconstructionism presents a robust theology while Jewish humanism rejects theology, rejects God entirely. Nor does Jewish Humanism originate in Reconstructionism. Lumping the two together is tantamount to an ideological myopia that blinds one to the subtleties of those whose positions are at a great distance from one's own.

I was not lumping the two together. But I think I failed to make myself clear. I will make the same point again, but using a different topic this time so as to not offend:

Kierkegaard (the chicken) came before Nietzsche (the egg).

N is viciously anti-Christian, while K is fundamentally, a Christian.

Think about how that works and parallels to this situation. That was my point.


And the same thing is happening today in Islam. Actually, it sprang up a long time ago with the Muʿtazilah, but back then it was defeated ideologically and politically by the Asharites. Today, it is basically being quietly revived. There is a grassroots community of Muslims who are like the reconstructionists in some sense. My hypothesis is that it will eventually result in a sort of "Islamic humanism"

I think that Reconstructionism, having on rationalist grounds rejected the traditional bindingness of halachah,

There are Muslims today who in fact think Islam is already based in rationalism (lol).

Some might think I share their characteristics, because I reject so much of established Islamic laws and regulations... But my rejection of has nothing to do with rationalism.

But there are similarities nonetheless. Like you said about nuance... it's hard to draw clear lines in the sand when it comes to such things.

But from the video I'd say Kaplan doesn't quite disagree with you.

I wish I could actually see the video then (perhaps i should have not commented on this thread at all cuz i can't actually access utube). But thanks for posting the supplemental material.

Maybe more to the point, I don't see why you'd so strongly reject the possibility that man can know God at least somewhat.

Because in the Quran, God says quite clearly that He is unlike anything else. Which basically (imo) closes the door on knowing anything about Him. Nor is there any real encouragement in the Quran (imo, again) for Muslims to go on such searches. This is why I side with those Jews who are cynical of the attempt to "find" or "know" God.

With that said, you will find many Muslims (probably a majority, in fact) who would disagree with me, and agree with those searching for God. Islam has been deeply influenced by Sufism in the past thousand years, and this "search" is central to sufism.

there are other issues which relate to my opposition, but i dont think we need to get into those.

 

[dauer]

There are ways around the great firewall. A guy I knew who was living in Hong Kong used to bypass it. Maybe it's less safe to do so on the mainland.

 

[c0de]

i tried buying a VPN dude!! but it didn't work 4 some reason

but no worries ill be out of china in a couple of months