Reform Zionism as
Political Theology
Stanley M. Davids
On Methodology: Logic and Biography
As efforts to define the role within Reform Judaism for Reform Zionism continue, it is useful to stipulate early on that dispassionate
analysis does not necessarily precede personal commitment. Even
the most aggressively logical of constructs is not infrequently established upon deeply emotional foundations. It is for that reason
that I have long been intrigued by the biographies of those philosophers whose ideas I have chosen to explore.
For example, if we consider those ever-increasing debates between advocates of Israel as “a state for all of its citizens” and those
who cannot comprehend how Israel could be anything other than
a Jewish democratic state, it is obvious that no matter how carefully arguments on either side are presented, the witnesses to such
debates are rarely if ever persuaded by the raw power of logic.1
After the salient points are presented and all available metaphors
deployed, those who originally were standing on one side or the
other of the divide are likely to still be found in their original positions. We are thoughtful and considerate of opposing views wellpresented and convincingly argued, but for reasons that more often
than not arise out of our personal life experiences, facts cogently
asserted often do not suffice to cause us to change our minds.
It is fair to conclude, therefore, that those among us who search
for a solid intellectual basis for a Reform Zionist commitment
STAnLEY M. DAVIDS (C65), rabbi emeritus of Temple Emanu-El (Atlanta),
was national president of ARZA (2004–2008), and he is the founder of the
Reform Zionist Think Tank from which emerged the CCAR’s 1997 Miami Platform
on Reform Zionism. He is a current member of the Board of Governors of the
Jewish Agency, of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization, and of the
board of overseers of HUC/Jerusalem, and he lectures widely in north America.
Having made aliyah with his wife, Resa, in 2004, he works within ARZEnU to shape
a contemporary Reform Zionist ideology and to create settings for ideological
conversations with Labor and Meretz.
40
CCAR Journal: The Reform Jewish Quarterly
progressive religious zionism: An ongoing diAlogue
along with those who cannot accept that such a basis could possibly exist are each not exempt from the power of our own life
stories as we consider the complex and often perplexing nature of
Jewish nationalism and its liberal Jewish permutations. nevertheless, there is significant value in seeking greater clarity in our own
thinking even as we struggle with ideas and values at variance
with our own.
This essay was undertaken so as to advance the discussions in
this journal and elsewhere regarding the nature and significance of
Reform Zionism and especially to revisit my article in the Spring
2007 issue of the CCAR Journal, entitled “A Proposed Taxonomy
for a Twenty-First Century Theology of Reform Zionism.”2 I am
deeply indebted to Haim O. Rechnizter, assistant professor of Jewish Thought at HUC-JIR, for two recent essays on Reform Zionism that have greatly assisted me in the process of clarifying my
own thinking and provided the title of this article.3 I look forward
with true anticipation to the participation of others in this essential
undertaking.
Two final preliminary notes. The document that follows seeks
to create elements of a contemporary Reform Zionism, but it must
be acknowledged that the Reform Zionism herein presented reflects the conditions, challenges, and opportunities particular to
Jewish life in the United States. We have vibrant Reform Zionist
communities throughout the world, members of the ARZEnU
family, communities that have much in common with Reform
Zionism in the United States, but much that necessarily differs.
I look forward to the work of colleagues who will bring to the
evolving shape of Reform Zionism significant considerations
from those communities.
And finally, it is difficult to undertake a consideration of Reform Zionism without wanting to immediately focus on the most
serious crises currently confronting the State of Israel, including
but not limited to the peace process. Reform Jewish institutions
and leaders are profoundly involved in seeking to apply the imperatives of the prophets and the principles of social justice to
such concerns. After careful consideration, it was decided that to
examine such matters extensively in this article would be a diversion from our central focus. nevertheless, we fully acknowledge
that Reform Zionists must address such matters immediately if
we truly hope to impact the future of Israel.
Fall 2011
41
stAnley m. dAvids
On Ideology
We are told that we live in a “post-” world: post-partisan, postnational, post-denominational, and post-ideological. An ideology, as
defined in Wikipedia, is “a set of ideas that constitute one’s goals, expectations, and actions . . . a comprehensive vision . . . [of] how society sees things.”4 If some ideologies are not perceived to be as widely
and commonly held as the dominant view, then those ideologies are
viewed as challenging the status quo and thus threatening.
Globalization and information technology have made national
borders and closed political systems porous to ideas and innovation
and significantly advantage open minds and open systems. It would
seem today that not even north Korea and China will ultimately be
able to resist the liberating power of Google’s search engine.
In such a world, many hold that ideology is a vestigial remnant
of a difficult and contentious past and that ideological debate simply is passé and irrelevant. From such a perspective—whether it
is Thatcherism, neo-liberalism, libertarianism or Maoism—to be
ideological today can easily lead to one being portrayed as narrowly focused, limited, and out of step. Very often, one who approaches the world out of an ideological mindset is considered to
be divorced from practicality, so obsessed with a single-minded
view that he or she comes dangerously close to being an absolutist.
Merriam-Webster online tellingly defines an ideologue as “an impractical idealist” or “an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology” and then offers “crusader,” “fanatic,”
and “zealot” as synonyms and “maven” and “maniac” among related words.5 not a very attractive set of designations.
Of course, the twentieth century has taught us beyond question to be wary of ideologies, since any ideology can ultimately
prove to be horribly destructive, blinding adherents to those
moral imperatives that sit at the core of human civilization, deafening them to the rights of those who encounter the world differently. Strongly held ideological commitments can also render us
unable to cast aside aging institutional structures that no longer
serve those purposes for which they had been originally established. And ideological discussions, pursued at times out of an
uncontrollable human urge to speak rather than to listen, can be
tedious and too frequently lead to societal sclerosis and terminal
exhaustion.
42
CCAR Journal: The Reform Jewish Quarterly
progressive religious zionism: An ongoing diAlogue
Therefore it is commonly asserted that to argue on behalf of an
ideology is to become ensnared in a world that has already passed
us by. I do not agree. I believe that it remains useful, even essential,
for us to move beyond the practical, the fragmented, the quantitative, and the quotidian. We still require unifying visions that give
meaning and structure to the decisions we make, that strengthen
our undertakings by attracting others, and that offer the possibility that the struggles of our lifetime have the potential to create the
kind of organized momentum that may positively impact the lives
of future generations.
Without ideology, it is possible for us not to understand why
we should care about that which somehow seems important to
us. Without ideology, we can be left rudderless in the presence of
that chaos and unpredictability that so often mark human history.
Without ideology, we can be left ineffective in our efforts to shape
the outcome of whatever befalls us.
As an ideology, Herzlian Zionism was uniquely qualified in the
first half of the twentieth century to meet the challenges of emerging nationalism. Herzl’s Zionist vision, in conflict with but at times
nurtured by the perspectives of Ahad Ha’am, created a setting
within which the Jewish people could come together to carve out
its own particular path toward equality and security, unleashing a
flood tide of creativity in the service of nation-building, reversing
centuries of perceived and actual powerlessness, and creating new
forms of Jewish identity and self-expression.
newer ideologies arising within our people continue to struggle
to define the conversation and to gather support. Those who actively pursue the deepening of Jewish settlement on the West Bank
draw strength and support from the fact that their political actions
are sustained and defined by a sharply articulated ideology. Michael
Meyer points out that the “Zionism of the settler movement and
their supporters is a far cry from both Herzl’s and Ahad Ha-am’s
visions. In sharp contrast to the individualism and moral relativism
that increasingly characterize Israeli society, this new Zionism is
characterized by a sense of collective destiny and absolute certainty
with regard to the rightness of its cause.”6 Meyer continues: “Our
Reform Zionism can be of a kind that scarcely exists today, but is
desperately needed: a Zionism that is fully affirmative both of a
religiously motivated political liberalism and of a religiously rooted
program for a specifically Jewish future in the State of Israel.”7
Fall 2011
43
stAnley m. dAvids
It is reasonable and appropriate for us as Reform Jews to continue to struggle to create a contemporary ideology of Reform Zionism, an ideology that speaks the universalistic language of the
founders of Reform Judaism even as it addresses the geopolitical,
ethical, and spiritual processes that arise in the building of a democratic nation state. As Bill Cutter points out in his essay in the
Spring 2007 issue of this journal, the narrative that will serve to
frame our ideology might be a redemption narrative, a victimhood
narrative, or even a narrative of inevitability.8 But whatever its content and form, that ideology must emerge with clarity and with a
compelling, attractive force.
What Does it Mean to Long for Something That Already Exists?
The State of Israel exists. Classical Zionism, the Zionism of Herzl
and of the chalutzim, the Zionism of Brenner and of Gordon, the
Zionism of Abba Hillel Silver and of Ben Gurion, the Zionism of
Roland Gittelsohn and of David Polish, has created a political entity that is a member of the United nations, that opens its doors
to all Jews seeking to live there, that projects military strength in
such a fashion so as to guarantee its own borders and to grant an
enhanced sense of security to Jews throughout the world, and that
is a richly creative pressure cooker within which Jewish sacred and
secular studies and encounters are flourishing.
Logic demands that the classical Zionist enterprise should then
be shut down, so that the energy and dreams of the Jewish people
can be liberated to help prepare the way for new efforts to address the most pressing of a long list of challenges confronting
our people today. An ideology no longer endowed with purpose
and passion can serve no good purpose other than to sustain a
gerontocracy of individuals and institutions whose major imperative is self-perpetuation. In far too many ways, that gerontocracy
in fact exists today, still battling to control budgets and energies,
still utilizing hallowed stories of the founders to block new initiatives and to forestall flexibility and innovation. nevertheless,
classical Zionists continue to gather in old, familiar places to rail
against their traditional enemies and to rename their antiquated
strategies, unaware that they lack a contemporary narrative that
permits them to address the real, urgent world that exists on our
doorstep.
44
CCAR Journal: The Reform Jewish Quarterly
progressive religious zionism: An ongoing diAlogue
I believe that Reform Judaism can yet provide what Rechnitzer
calls a “political theology,” a “system of reasoning and discourse
that uses religious concepts in order to understand, evaluate and
form a course of action in the political arena.”9 This political theology is what I would call Reform Zionism. My understanding of
contemporary Reform Judaism is founded upon the classical notion of a universalistic vision for the messianic reshaping of human society, while at the same time I fully embrace a view of the
Jewish community as belonging to a polity that Mordecai Kaplan
brilliantly understood to be a religious civilization and that looks
to the State of Israel both as our ancient homeland and as the spiritual center serving the worldwide Jewish community. The Reform
Judaism that I chose and with which I remain comfortable is both
universalistic and particularistic, driven by goals and purposes
that are at times spiritual, at times social, at times political, at times
an amalgam of all three.
I do not turn to religious concepts and categories as conveniences to be twisted into instruments in the service of a political entity. That kind of approach would, I believe, be a serious
abuse of our integrity. Rather I embrace such religious concepts
and categories as authentically Reform Jewish expressions as to
how we understand and respond to the kabbalistic and compellingly universalistic notion of tikkun olam, while yet wholeheartedly investing ourselves in the task of moving Israel to become a
fully democratic Jewish state. I acknowledge the dynamism that
emerges from the long-standing Jewish practice of wrestling with
texts ancient and modern so as to permit the inner truths of Judaism to address contemporary concerns, even as I acknowledge the
power that emerges from our Reform practice of wrestling with
our own foundational texts so as to address with clarity and integrity our most contemporary concerns.
American Reform Judaism has always proudly and steadfastly
embraced an unbreachable wall separating religion and state. In so
doing we placed ourselves within the mainstream of American life
even as we created a secure setting within which we could flourish.10 But we need now to acknowledge that Reform Judaism in
the Jewish State can authentically and without violation of core
Reform principles see that wall differently, that the ideology of
Reform Zionism can logically and with consistency assert a privileged place for democratic and pluralistic expressions of Judaism
Fall 2011
45
stAnley m. dAvids
in Israel. As Reform Zionists we can support the struggle for Miri
Gold to receive a fair salary from the government as a rabbi in the
Gezer Region, despite the fervent opposition of those who deny
Israeli Reform rabbis Jewish authenticity. As Reform Zionists who
are a living link between American Reform Judaism and Reform
Judaism in Israel, we can in consultation and in full partnership
with the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism (IMPJ) authentically engage in lobbying Members of Knesset not to adopt bills
(such as the amended Rotem Bill on conversion) that would severely damage Diaspora Jewish life—without acceding to the demand of some in our midst that we leave to Israelis all matters
of domestic concern. As Reform Zionists we hold that legislative
undertakings by the Knesset can have a profound impact on Jewish life worldwide and thus that it is necessary for Diaspora Jewry
and Israeli leadership to be in constant, meaningful dialogue with
each other.11 In parallel fashion, we Reform Zionists can hold up a
mirror to the activities of the CCAR and the URJ and urge that no
action be taken, no policies be adopted, that could disadvantage
the growing presence of Reform Judaism in Israel.
At the end of the day, duly elected Israeli officials and ministers
will alone decide the direction in which they wish to lead their
country. But I believe that the very nature of Jewish peoplehood
requires of such public and political figures a knowledgeable and
sensitive concern as to the impact of what they decide is likely to be
upon Jews living across the globe. The reciprocal of such a Reform
Zionist position within Israel already exists in the forums created
by Israeli President Shimon Peres, who annually assembles world
Jewish leaders so as to engage them in conversations and seek their
counsel and guidance about the current challenges confronting Jewish life worldwide and most especially within Israel. The same Jews
who pray in the first person plural in every corner of the globe on
the High Holy Days can and should choose to address all matters
germane to the Jewish future in the first person plural.
My Reform Jewish roots, my embrace of that universalistic messianism that is central to Reform Judaism, and my understanding of
Israel as one of the instruments through which tikkun olam can have
worldwide impact provide me with a relevant, dynamic understanding as to the contemporary challenges confronting all Reform
Zionists. The work of Reform Zionists to “Zionize” Reform Judaism, to inculcate the narrative of a democratic Jewish state into the
46
CCAR Journal: The Reform Jewish Quarterly
progressive religious zionism: An ongoing diAlogue
ideology and undertakings of our Movement, remains as significant
today as our efforts to impact the very nature of Israeli society. From
such a perspective, our work has barely begun. In such a fashion do
I, as a Reform Zionist, continue to yearn for “that which already exists.” The Reform Zionist enterprise is far from concluded.
Can Jewish Nationalism Thrive in an America Increasingly
Committed to a Celebration of the Individual?
The challenges represented by this question allow for no easy answer but seem rather to cry out for an unprovable declaration of
faith, for an Obamaesque, “Yes, we can!” But such a declaration
alone won’t take us very far.
We live in a world within which “friend” has become a verb,
within which virtual communities seem to be far more significant
to many than physically centered communities, within which a
compulsion to assert individuality leads one to share the most
uninteresting details of our daily lives on Twitter or YouTube or
Facebook, and within which “flash communities” are convened
through viral e-mails—single-task communities that arise and
disappear as contemporary Brigadoons. To hope somehow that
Reform Zionism can push back against such trends does indeed
appear to be nothing more or less than a b’rachah l’vatalah.
Community will presumably never again be what traditional
sociologists and anthropologists have so caringly sought to understand and describe in the past, as they explored a social coherence
that emerged out of shared values, behaviors, concerns, and location. But there yet remains a great value added to the future of Judaism in the work of Reform Zionists as we seek out our own understanding of but one facet of community, that of location. From
its earliest nineteenth century origins, Reform Judaism has endeavored to secure and to guarantee the right of Jews living in a given
country to be treated as full citizens. As nation states arose, we
viewed ourselves and we wanted to be seen by others as German
citizens, as French citizens, as American citizens, who happened to
be of the Jewish religion (“of the Mosaic persuasion”). One of the
fundamental points of opposition within classical Reform Judaism
to the rise of Jewish nationalism was an adamant unwillingness to
abandon the gains that we had made in terms of being accepted
into full citizenship in the countries within which we lived.
Fall 2011
47
stAnley m. dAvids
The founders of modern Israel adopted early on what they viewed
to be a necessarily strict description of an authentic and complete Jewish identity—and that included living exclusively in the new Jewish
state. Aliyah was therefore the most significant of all Jewish commitments, and a failure to “go up” could only be understood to reflect
one’s less than total willingness to lead such a full Jewish life. Shivat
Tzion became the ideological underpinning for Israel’s Law of Return.
This kind of Zionism held (and holds) very little attraction to most
Reform Jews in the Diaspora, though certainly a significant number
of American Zionist leaders were Reform Jews, most of whom did not
for a moment consider the possibilities of personal aliyah.
In the Miami Platform, adopted by the CCAR in 1997,12 aliyah is
addressed as follows: “While affirming the authenticity and necessity of a creative and vibrant Diaspora Jewry, we encourage aliyah
[immigration] to Israel in pursuance of the precept of yishuv Eretz
Yisrael [settling the Land of Israel]. While Jews can live Torah-centered lives in the Diaspora, only in Medinat Yisrael do they bear the
primary responsibility for the governance of society, and thus may
realize the full potential of their individual and communal religious strivings.” not surprisingly, though the Miami Platform was
adopted by an overwhelming majority during the Miami CCAR
Convention, the practical impact of this call to aliyah has not been
equally overwhelming. Here, as in far too many other areas, we
have failed the challenge of moving from platform to program. Aliyah by choice (as opposed to aliyah from countries of distress) from
north America by Reform Jews has been slow but steady and has
never reached a level that could be transformative within Israeli
society and/or transformative of diasporic Reform Judaism.
Reform Jews are at home in north America. But can we ever
expect to enter into mutually useful and supportive dialogue with
our Israeli brothers and sisters if we are not also at home in Israel?
And without an active commitment to some form of aliyah, can we
rediscover our place within the world Jewish community?
In an unpublished study entitled “Multi-Local Aliyah: Placing Two Feet in Two Places,” by Israel Pupko, as part of a project
headed by Sergio DellaPergola,13 there is an important consideration of home. The questions raised are fascinating: Does calling
a place “home” require our physical presence there and, if so, for
how much time over the course of a year? Can one call a location
home while yet choosing to be physically distant?
48
CCAR Journal: The Reform Jewish Quarterly
progressive religious zionism: An ongoing diAlogue
In other words, can one actually contribute to a place that we
call home, but which we do not live in full time? Can one consider
Israel our home even while we have other places that we also call
home (like, for example, Chicago snowbirds who spend the winter
in Boca)? And even if we live in but one physical location, can we
be a functioning member of a global economy in which geographic
and economic boundaries are increasingly irrelevant or even counterproductive and yet focus our spirit and heart on a particular
place that we choose to call our home?
When we think in terms of our personal identity, how much
of how we see ourselves is predicated upon the place(s) that
we choose to call home? Does the social, political, and cultural
configuration of a physical landscape shape and determine our
interior landscape? It is clear that early Zionism absolutely believed the answer to this last question is a resounding YES: we
would come to Israel to build and to be rebuilt. Amos Oz in his
magnificent autobiographic narrative, A Tale of Love and Darkness,
tellingly described how older members of the Yishuv viewed the
bronzed chalutzim, the almost godlike new Jews, as contrasted
with how they looked upon the Yiddish-speaking Holocaust survivors, who were seen as nothing other than the generation of
the wilderness, those who must die off in order to make room
for those who are truly at home in Zion. The return to Zion not
only is to return home, it is to enter a crucible (a womb?) and to
emerge as a new kind of Jew.14
I firmly embrace aliyah as a Reform Jewish imperative, as a Reform Jewish mitzvah, whether that aliyah is a form of aliyat hanefesh15 or whether it is a “multi-local” aliyah or a “full-time” physical
aliyah as understood by the founders.
I also would stipulate here that part of my Reform Zionist mission is my full-bore participation in efforts to make certain that
my “home” in the State of Israel is a place where I am reasonably
comfortable with the political system, a place fully embracing its
security needs while actively and passionately pursuing a just
peace with its neighbors, a place where my political and religious
perspectives cannot be permitted to cause me to be categorized
as an outsider or as the “other,” where human and civil rights for
all minorities are guaranteed, where democratic values are enshrined, where common ground can be found so as to permit and
encourage positive and fruitful interaction between democratic
Fall 2011
49
stAnley m. dAvids
values and the values of Judaism, where tikkun olam is both a
shared vision and an actual commitment. Reform Zionists can
do no less.
A Reform Zionist focus upon location as one aspect of community-creation can, I believe, overcome many of the challenges to an
embrace of Jewish nationalism that flow to us in an age dedicated
to a celebration of the individual. When the individual chooses to
function as an element of the whole, when one’s individual identity finds expression in freely chosen support of collective needs
without surrendering its own uniqueness, then both community
and individual are strengthened.
Is There a Geographic Center to Jewish Life?
At one of the sessions of ARZA’s Reform Zionist Think Tank, we
had the privilege of learning from Caryn Aviv and David Shneer,
co-authors of new Jews.16 Aviv and Shneer asserted that there no
longer is a true, broadly recognized and universally accepted geographic center to the Jewish world—even as there is no longer
(with certain very limited exceptions) a Galut within which Jews
are forced to live. Rather, the authors concluded, we live in a world
of multiple diasporas—not one of which is hierarchically set above
all of the others. These diasporas are self-contained communities,
as different from one another as are the differing ways in which
human beings understand their core identities. The State of Israel
is no more and no less than one of these diasporas, even as the
north American Jewish community is but another.
Here, I must confess, I felt my biography and my emotional
history trumping my ability to dispassionately consider such
a description of Jewish topography. Growing up in Cleveland,
studying in Cincinnati, serving congregations in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, new York, and Georgia—and having personally experienced aspects of Jewish life in Canada, the USSR, Ethiopia,
Eastern and Western and Central Europe, India, South Africa,
Australia, and elsewhere—I find myself unable to contemplate
a Jewish world without Israel at its spiritual center. Galut is, for
the most part, a feature of our past. And there very well might
be a multiplicity of diasporas in our world. But for me, there is a
unique Jewish Diaspora and there is a singular center for Jewish
life.
50
CCAR Journal: The Reform Jewish Quarterly
progressive religious zionism: An ongoing diAlogue
There is no need to reiterate here the standard and abundant
arguments on behalf of Israel as that uniquely situated center of
Jewish life—arguments that invoke population census, volume of
Jewish liturgical and philosophical creativity, ancient and modern history, poetry, and theology. Those arguments are powerful
but somehow not ultimately dispositive in the sense of providing
a final resolution to the debate. Those who intelligently and passionately argue against such a centrality present reasonable and
abundant reasons to support their positions. I do not believe at
the end of the day that one can argue convincingly for Israel’s
centrality, for the uniqueness of its place in the Jewish universe,
against those who thoughtfully disagree; rather, one can only examine one’s own experiences and understandings and move on
from there.
My Reform Zionist experiences, reflective at least in part by my
life as a new oleh living out a multi-local aliyah, together with my
studies and periods of serious introspection, have brought me to a
place where I can personally affirm the following:
• There will not soon or perhaps ever be a time when there will be only one locus of Jewish life. The Jewish communities that
exist outside of Israel are vital to Jewish survival and vital as
well to the prophetic call for Jews to share our messages with
the world, to be l’or goyim, to hasten tikkun olam. Each such
community is authentic. Each such community has its needs,
and each has its gifts to offer. The healthiest, most productive world Jewish community should be one within which we
share mutual responsibility for each other no matter where
we might choose to live, one that supports and sustains various foci of Jewish life, in which we are profoundly areivim zeh
la’zeh.
• Within such a world, our eyes turn to Zion, to a Jewish democratic State that is itself a laboratory for the living out of Jewish
values on a daily basis, within which social equality, educational and health needs, spiritual and religious renewal, security and cultural creativity, geopolitics and a judicial system,
human foibles and the messianic visions of Isaiah all interact,
testing and challenging our priorities, demanding of us to immerse ourselves in a world for which we have yearned since
the time of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.
Fall 2011
51
stAnley m. dAvids
• Reform Zionists who embrace such a world feel no threat to our patriotism if we choose to maintain our sole citizenship
in a country other than Israel. As individuals, we are richly
complex. Our identity, for example, as American citizens is
neither challenged nor impaired by our devotion to Israel
as the center of our spiritual lives and as the place that continues to nourish that aspect of our ethnicity that is Jewish.
Our commitment to build a Jewish democracy in Israel is
in some ways an extension of our commitment to American
democratic values and certainly not a refutation or a denial of them. But neither is our commitment to the building
of a Jewish nation-state an indication that we have turned
away from the universalist/messianic underpinnings of Reform Judaism. We are citizens of the world, citizens as well
of a given country, members of the Jewish people, and adherents of the largest Jewish religious stream. We seek out
the best, the most enlightened, the most beneficial of every
facet of our identities, and we labor to build a better world
for every single human being. We celebrate borders even as
we live beyond them. We celebrate each of our identities,
and struggle to integrate them into meaningful lives. We are
loyal to that which deserves our loyalty. We are faithful to
our dreams.
Where, Then, Is K’dushah in our Twenty-First Century
Reform Zionism?
Peter Knobel has stated that: “Reform Judaism is a religious movement. Therefore there must be a theological basis for its Zionism.”17
The complexity surrounding this challenge is enormous.
I do not perceive God to be directly active in history. I do not
affirm hashgachah pratit. Even hashgachah k’lalit is difficult for me
to grasp and resides more in the realm of poetic expression than
in theological commitment. I cannot personally affirm God as One
who literally commanded laws at Sinai nor as One who reveals
ultimate intentions through prophets who serve as divine messengers. I cannot pretend that I see God’s hand in the Six-Day War
and in the overheated ascription of “miracle” to that powerfully
dramatic and unexpected victory—but neither do I see divine
52
CCAR Journal: The Reform Jewish Quarterly
progressive religious zionism: An ongoing diAlogue
intervention as protecting the nursery schools in S’derot from missiles launched from Gaza.
But I do understand God as a force that we can learn to access
so as to struggle more effectively against injustice, suffering, and
evil. I do understand God as representing that which unifies and
gives order to our world and which gives meaning to lives that so
very often are damaged by chaos, confusion, and uncertainty. We
meet God when we see evidence of the greatness of the human
spirit and of the grandeur of human creativity, when we encounter and then actually see the faces of our fellow human beings,
when we come to delight in the excellences of truth, beauty, and
goodness. When human beings, individually or collectivity, reverse defeat and rebuild their lives against all odds, I know that
God is present.
For me as a Reform Zionist, the rebuilding of the State of Israel,
a Jewish state, after some two thousand years is nothing other
than a sacred event in the course of human history. I embrace
with gratitude the texts in Mishkan T’filah that connect political
rebirth with the presence of holiness. I recite blessings and lift up
a cup of salvation. I find God in the opportunity and privilege to
help build in Israel a chevra l’mofet (an exemplary society that can
become a model of and an instrument for tikkun). It makes sense
to me to believe that there is something in the intermingling of
geography, history, climate, and diverse cultures that makes out
of Israel’s tiny corner of the world a unique laboratory for the
evolution of the human spirit. I embrace the notion that a Jewish state is called upon to address daily existential challenges
through both the rich storehouse of our tradition and the ethical and spiritual insights of the noblest of human thinkers and
teachers.
Can Israel in any sense be called reishit tzmichat geulateinu? Some
among us, as Reform Zionists, will strongly answer in the affirmative; others, with equal fervor, will hold for the negative. Redemption is process, not stasis. Redemption is ongoing, forever eluding
us, forever singing its siren call to us. But Reform Zionists can come
together in affirming that an Israel that fosters spiritual search and
religious experimentation; an Israel that welcomes diversity even as
it affirms its core identity; an Israel that will right its wrongs; an Israel that understands that we have not struck a good deal if we exchange the tragedy of powerlessness for the tragedy of the abuse of
Fall 2011
53
stAnley m. dAvids
military might;18 an Israel that opens up the richness of its religious
and human achievements to nurture the Jewish community worldwide; an Israel that provides settings within which our children and
grandchildren can meet a relevant, exciting, and fulfilling Judaism;
an Israel that empowers our people to create meaningful lives and
by so doing transforms our world—that Israel is most certainly a
place where heaven and earth can meet and where we confront the
presence of God.
Though clearly not a scriptural/literalist movement nor a
movement that ordinarily expresses itself in the language of
traditional theism, Reform Judaism nevertheless embraces the
power and the manifestations of the Divine Presence within the
noblest of human deeds and aspirations as well as within the rich
potential of the universe in which we human beings have made
our appearance.
When the executive committee of the CCAR convened shortly
before the Miami Convention in 1997 to give final approval to a
document entitled, “Reform Judaism and Zionism, a Centenary
Platform,” the document that became the Miami Platform, there
was a serious objection raised by a colleague to our utilization of
two biblical quotations, one from Genesis 17:8 and one from Psalms
126:1–2. The colleague feared that we were more than implying by
the use of those particular texts that a theistic, omnipotent God
was involved in assigning the Land of Israel to the Jewish people
and that the contemporary State of Israel is somehow a fulfillment
of a literal divine promise. After appropriate and respectful discussion that objection was rejected, and I believe properly so.
Reform Zionism, as an expression of Reform Judaism, is part of
the human process of advancing redemption, and we therefore see
the State of Israel as a crucial locus for human redemptive activity,
for the pursuit of k’dushah—and thus for the presence of God.
What Is at Stake?
We Reform Zionists must exercise great care in the efforts we undertake to bring the message of Reform Zionism to the world
Jewish community and in our ongoing efforts to partner with the
IMPJ and the Israel Religious Action Center so that we remain
faithful to the core values of Reform Judaism. We must continually judge our work both by our foundational values as well as by
54
CCAR Journal: The Reform Jewish Quarterly
progressive religious zionism: An ongoing diAlogue
the nature of the challenges that we confront in Israel and in the
Diaspora. Those of us who are not citizens of Israel must be profoundly sensitive as to how we seek to influence Israeli society,
even as we refuse to agree with those who hold that we have no
standing that permits us to involve ourselves actively in the labor
to build a Jewish democratic state.
As mentioned above, not only are we called upon to grapple
with defining a contemporary Reform Zionist ideology, but we
must accept the reality that words do not have much value if not
accompanied by concrete deeds. The Reform Zionist enterprise
cannot afford to neglect either. Ideas must become the basis for
dynamic action and should not be reserved for the lecture hall or
even for this journal.
There will always be tension between the universalist/messianic
dimensions of Reform Judaism, with its embrace of autonomous
decision-making and self-determination, and between Reform
Zionism, which speaks the language of ethnicity and of peoplehood and which focuses serious concern upon the Jewish State as
a means of preserving Jewish identity and which therefore is far
more particularistic. Reform Jews as Reform Zionists must be able
to say eilu v’eilu as we explore, seek to understand, and then to
live this tension. Reform Judaism needs Reform Zionism, even as
Reform Zionism needs Reform Judaism.
Notes
1. In the CCAR Journal (Spring 2007), there is a superb example of
such a debate between A. B. Yehoshua and Eric Yoffie.
2. I would refer interested readers to the Journal of Reform Zionism,
vol. 1 (March 1993); the Journal of Reform Zionism, vol. 2 (March
1995); the CCAR Journal (Spring 1998); and the CCAR Journal
(Spring 2007).
3. Haim O. Rechnitzer, “Tell Me What Your Questions Are and I Will
Tell You Who You Are: Some Reflections on ‘The Proposed Taxonomy for a Twenty-First Century Theology of Reform Zionism,’”
CCAR Journal (Summer 2008): 29–37; and Haim O. Rechnitzer and
Gabriella Minnes Brandes, “Theological and Pedagogical Implications of the Role of Zionism in Reform Jewish Manifestos: A Bridge
from Vision to Praxis,” Journal of Jewish Education 75 (2009): 329–49.
4. Wikipedia, s.v. “ideology,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
ideology.
5. Merriam-Webster.com, s.v. “ideologue,” http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/ideologue.
Fall 2011
55
stAnley m. dAvids
6. Michael A. Meyer, “Toward a Reform Jewish Vision for Zion,”
CCAR Journal (Spring 2007): 100.
7. Ibid., 104.
8. William Cutter, “A Language for Zionist Reciprocity,” CCAR Journal (Spring 2007): 7–26.
9. Rechnitzer, “Tell Me What Your Questions Are,” 29.
10. But that has not stopped American Reform Judaism from supporting a military chaplaincy paid for by the state. We pledge allegiance
to a nation “under God.” We often find ourselves supporting the
granting of special attendance requirements on Jewish holidays for
Jewish students. Our presidents are sworn into office while invoking a deity. Our currency speaks of a God in whom we trust.
11. Rechnitzer is greatly concerned that this kind of approach fails
to take into serious account “strict boundaries of the State or the
issue of citizenship.” Rechnitzer, “Tell Me What Your Questions
Are,” 35.
12. “Reform Judaism and Zionism: A Centenary Platform,” CCAR
Journal (Spring 1998): 3–14.
13. Israel Pupko, “Multi-Local Aliyah: Placing Two Feet in Two
Places” (unpublished study, Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, Jerusalem, 2009).
14. I mention with gratitude here the insights of William Cutter, who
addresses the fascinating work of the “Polish poet and intellectual Czeslaw Milosz [who] once declaimed that ‘language is our
only home.’” William Cutter, “A Language for Zionist Reciprocity,” CCAR Journal (Spring 2007): 16–20. Cutter struggles with the
application of Milosz’s insight regarding language to the effort to
create a contemporary language and narrative within which to express Reform Zionist concerns. Cutter affirms the role of Hebrew
as being a potential Zionist “home” for Jews who do not choose
to live in Israel. Though ultimately Cutter finds that—given the
nature and quality of Hebrew education in America—it is unlikely that significant numbers of Reform Jews could ever achieve
the kind of fluency that would make Hebrew a true home in the
Milosz sense, we Reform Zionists could at least aspire to having
Hebrew become a “second home” for us.
15. A spiritual aliyah, expressed through frequent visits to Israel, business investment in Israel, intensive personal study about Israel,
personal immersion in Hebrew, sending one’s children or grandchildren on extensive Israel study and travel programs, committed leadership within Reform Zionist enterprises such as ARZA,
active support of the projects and programs of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism, etc. This concept of aliyat hanefesh
was extensively discussed during various gatherings of ARZA’s
Reform Zionist Think Tank.
56
CCAR Journal: The Reform Jewish Quarterly
progressive religious zionism: An ongoing diAlogue
16. Caryn Aviv and David Shneer, new Jews: The End of the Jewish
Diaspora (new York and London: new York University Press,
2005).
17. Peter Knobel, “The Liturgy of Reform Judaism and Reform Zionism,” CCAR Journal (Spring 2007): 78.
18. Michael Marmur, “Happiness inside the State: Toward a Liberal
Theology of Israel,” CCAR Journal (Spring 2007): 85.
Fall 2011
57