The American Judaism of Mordecai M. Kaplan

10. Kaplan, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Martin Buber: Three Approaches to Jewish Revival

CHAPTER 10 Kaplan, Abraham joshua Heschel, and Martin Buber: Three Approaches to jewish Revival S. Daniel Breslauer Modernity has forced a new agenda upon jewish thinkers. While medieval jewish philosophy sought to demonstrate the existence of God and the primacy of the Sinaitic revelation, modern jews have investigated the meaning of religion for the human believer and the responsiveness of revelation to the needs of each jew.1 Reform Judaism , jewish Orthodoxy, Zionism, and the Conservative movement in judaism represent alternative modern responses to this challenge. Mordecai M. Kaplan's relationship to his contemporary theologians derives from his views of these options. In an optimistic statement, he affirms a "greater judaism in the making" that will emerge "out of the welter of the four mutually conflicting versions of Judaism." 2 Kaplan's various writings, in diverse ways and with complex arguments, sketch out a programmatic agenda for that greater Judaism. The four alternative, "mutually conflicting" visions ofJudaism must be taken seriously as points of departure for a new jewish thinking. For Kaplan, Reform Judaism pointed to the need for an ideology that will express the "collective consciousness" of the jewish people.3 Orthodoxy, even in its "atomized conception of jewish collective life," revealed the urgency for "a creative unity, 234 KAPLAN, ABRAHAM JOSHUA HESCHEL, AND MARTIN BUBER 235 whether it be political, cultural, or religious," binding world jewry into one community.4 Zionism, while lacking "vitality and viability " because of its distance from jewish religious tradition, nevertheless provided a model of practical and relevant jewish action in the modern world. 5 This agenda-the creation of a revitalized Jewish ideology, a creative jewish community, and relevant jewish practice-linked Kaplan to other contemporary jewish theologians. The present study will examine how this agenda evolved with respect to Kaplan, Martin Buber, and Abraham joshua Heschel. In addition, Kaplan shared a common orientation with Conservative Judaism-the movement with which he has been most closely associated-whose humanistic goal was the survival and enhancement of the jewish people.6 A humanistic approach to jewish religion, however, was not restricted either to Kaplan or to Conservatism. Indeed, it is the mark of any modern theological approach to judaism. Traditional and nontraditional jewish thinkers alike have confronted the human problems facing modern jews in affirming their heritage. Whereas biblical and medieval Jewish thinkers were primarily concerned with belief in God and developed complex proofs for metaphysical affirmation of God's existence, modern jewish thinkers have placed humanity at the center of their ruminations. The jewish people and the jewish person, as well as the dynamics of being human rather than the dynamics of the divine, provide the themes of Judaic theology in the contemporary world. Kaplan comes into contact with other contemporary jewish theologians through his focus on the needs of humanity combined with a reevaluation of jewish ideology, jewish community, and jewish religious practice. Kaplan's point of departure was the reverse of traditional Judaism 's emphasis on God's need for humanity. He insisted, instead, that a modern jew "must experience God's relevance to man. " 7 From this perspective, the human need outweighs the divine. Kaplan 's program for reviving jewish theological ideology, jewish community , and jewish practice took this shift in emphasis seriously. Experience must teach the meaning of God as a reality for each jew; experience must provide the ties of unity among Jews; experience must be the criterion on which each Jew builds a pattern of religious practice. Many theologians who oppose Kaplan's pragma- 236 S. DANIEL BRESLAUER tism agree with him in focusing on the centrality of Jewish experience when renewing modern Jewish religious life. Thus Martin Buber, into whose views Kaplan demonstrated keener insight than Buber himself appreciated, also focused on the human side of the divine-human equation. Fearing that his dialogical emphasis would be misunderstood, Buber insisted that God needs humanity only insofar as humanity requires the divine need. Relationship , for Buber, demands mutuality. If human beings are to engage in relationship, then God must allow them mutuality. The divine must be self-limiting; God provides a need for each person that "constitutes the mystery of man's creation.'' 8 While Buber focuses on the human side, he emphasizes the divine need for humanity as the way in which God provides meaning to each person. Such an emphasis corresponds to the outlook of Conservative Judaism as Kaplan understood it. Buber also...