Once Upon a Denomination

We learned this week that the largest congregation in the Reconstructionist movement is on its way to disaffiliation, over the issue of Israel [optional: JTA link here: https://www.jta.org/2025/07/22/israel/the-largest-reconstructionist-synagogue-is-set-to-cut-ties-with-the-movement-over-israel-tensions]. The Reconstructionist Rabbinical College (RRC) has a sizeable number of students who consider themselves Anti-Zionist, which is encouraged by some of the faculty. This past year two students withdrew, feeling that their Zionist views were not sufficiently accepted or supported. The administration’s response affirming its commitment to Israel was not as strong as many expected or desired.

But even without the rift over Israel, the movement has lost most of the flavor it used to have, and now stands for inclusion, and not a whole lot more. Some lament that Reconstructionism used to mean something. [Of course, anyone over 50 or so who affiliates with any of the other movements will likely tell you the same thing.]

The world has evolved. It’s said that denominations are passe, no longer necessary. We need to ditch the divisive labels and not put people in one box or another, but let them sample from all available to create their own personal approach. The growing number of non-denominational options for rabbinical training, and their popularity, supports this reality.

Yet Reconstructionism seemed different. When I first discovered it in the 1980’s it felt newer, less ordinary, something most had not yet heard of. Back then we could experiment and “reconstruct” the tradition because enough of us had the strong Jewish backgrounds necessary for doing so. Some of us, myself included, came for the ideology, feeling a need to align our religious principles with our personal commitments. Our secret handshakes were pithy sayings like “The past has a vote, but not a veto” and “Belonging comes before behaving or believing.”

Some thought the movement more intellectual than others, but I see that as owing to its more recent start. Relatively new, Reconstructionism was still at the stage where philosophical and theological questions were being discussed and defined. The movement was small enough that it wasn’t hard to get to know the players and join the conversation. The congregations were heimish and quirky, sometimes scruffy, and often with the ethos of a havurah.

Reconstructionism succeeded in that some of its best ideas have been broadly adopted throughout progressive Judaism and beyond. A God who’s not supernatural, once a revelation, is now old hat. We’ve widely embraced the civilizational approach (of which Israel is a critical component). Today bat mitzvah is completely expected, but that wasn’t so when Judith Kaplan, daughter of the movement’s founder, became the first American one.

Gone by the wayside is one of Reconstructionism’s best ideas, that of the role of the rabbi. Laity were to be engaged and experimenting, driving things forward, continuing to grow. The rabbi was to serve as a teacher and guide, facilitating members’ further development. Important decisions were supposed to be made in a participative process. The rabbi was “an authority” not “in authority.” While these ideas are still taught at the RRC, as far as I can tell, little of this approach is being practiced at the congregational level. At a time when synagogues value and pursue lay engagement, Reconstructionism has abandoned a most effective way for achieving it.

In the Reconstructionist world, several organizations have emerged to retrieve the content and commitments that many feel are disappearing. The Kaplan Center and Beit Kaplan have attracted academics, rabbis and others. Perhaps one of these will consider establishing a congregational arm. It’s clear who’ll be the first to sign on.