Theological and Pedagogical Implications of the Role of Zionism in Reform Jewish Manifestos: A...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Rechnitzer, Haim]On: 20 November 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 917026975]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Jewish EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714578333

Theological and Pedagogical Implications of the Role of Zionism in ReformJewish Manifestos: A Bridge from Vision to PraxisHaim O. Rechnitzer; Gabriella Minnes Brandes

Online publication date: 19 November 2009

To cite this Article Rechnitzer, Haim O. and Minnes Brandes, Gabriella(2009) 'Theological and Pedagogical Implications ofthe Role of Zionism in Reform Jewish Manifestos: A Bridge from Vision to Praxis', Journal of Jewish Education, 75: 4,329 — 349To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15244110903305697URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15244110903305697

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714578333

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15244110903305697

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

329

Journal of Jewish Education, 75:329–349, 2009Copyright © Network for Research in Jewish EducationISSN: 1524-4113 print / 1554-611X onlineDOI: 10.1080/15244110903305697

UJJE1524-41131554-611XJournal of Jewish Education, Vol. 75, No. 4, October 2009: pp. 0–0Journal of Jewish Education

Theological and Pedagogical Implications of the Role of Zionism in Reform Jewish

Manifestos: A Bridge from Vision to Praxis

The Role of Zionism in Reform Jewish ManifestosJournal of Jewish Education

HAIM O. RECHNITZER AND GABRIELLA MINNES BRANDES

In this article, we explore the transition from philosophical andtheological manifestos to their practical and educational imple-mentation as we analyze the official American Reform-Judaismdiscourse as curricular text. This analysis provides a tool for a dis-cussion of the relationships between vision and its implementa-tion particularly for educators and leaders. We highlight thepossibilities of dialogue among educators, rabbis-in-training, andleaders to aid in the formation of new visionary documents and,in doing so, affect the dynamics of paving new directions. Wedemonstrate a model that may be used to investigate such trans-lations from vision to a lived experience and back to reconstruc-tion of a vision.

A manifesto of a religious movement serves as the blueprint for its mem-bers’ religious aspirations. Manifestos are the product of present ideologicaland political negotiations that reflect the past and aim toward the future(Meyer, 1995; Sarna, 2004; Zola, 2001). Such documents hold the vision ofthe movement and, therefore, use declarative language, which calls for livedexperiences. However, the move from declarations, expressed in a mani-festo to their translation into experience is multilayered and complex. AsFox, Scheffler and Marom (2003) write: “Vision . . . is not simply ideologicalpreference. It implies both comprehensive understanding and guiding pur-pose. It places the work of the education in the setting of a present that isan outgrowth of the past but that also contains within it the seeds of a futureto be grasped creatively . . .” (p. 9). This article presents a philosophical and

Haim O. Rechnitzer is assistant professor of Modern Jewish Thought at Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati. E-mail: [email protected]

Gabriella Minnes Brandes was a lecturer in the Department of Curriculum & Pedagogy at theUniversity of British Columbia, she is currently teaching at Capilano University. E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded By: [Rechnitzer, Haim] At: 03:04 20 November 2009

330 Journal of Jewish Education

theological analysis and an educational discussion of the manifestos, toserve as a bridge between vision and practice. The Reform manifestos aimto “make their case for a Judaism that acknowledges the necessity anddesirability of religious innovation, change in praxis, and ideological refor-mation” (Zola, 2001, p. 160). They capture the present culture of the move-ment and, at the same time, promote its change. We must note that in amovement where individuals and congregations enjoy autonomy of practiceand diversity of viewpoints, the manifestos are not necessarily the represen-tation of the majority nor do they represent the opinions of each member inthe movement. Nevertheless, they are attempts of the established leadershipto direct the movement and, therefore, they merit discussion. As part of thatdiscussion, we propose a particular methodology that may be implementedto varied genres of texts, such as Reform Siddurim, the curriculum ofReform Hebrew schools, summer camps, and other social activities that arerelevant to the educational journey of prospective rabbis. The core of ourmethodology analyzes the formal manifestos as curricular texts that carryimplications for praxis.

At the outset of the article, we explore the ways in which Israel andZionism are discussed in the contemporary Reform Movement’s officialtexts. We analyze the discourse of Reform Zionism within the manifestosusing three aspects of the discussion of Zionism: the relationship betweenfaith, ethnicity, and national identity; the connection between Messianicaspirations and the political sphere; and language as an essential tool forthe discussion of faith and identity. In the second part of the article, wediscuss the implications for education about Israel and Zionism via threelenses: the operative, pedagogical, and practical principles embedded withinthe documents and their intended audience; what is compelling in the docu-ments; and the implied and explicit principles within the documents.

Both authors were born, raised, and educated in Israel. Haimcompleted rabbinical school in Jerusalem and in the past five years hasbeen living and teaching in the United States, in the last four, at HebrewUnion College, Cincinnati. Gabriella has been living in Vancouver, BritishColumbia for 20 years and has been teaching in the faculty of education.Prior to that she taught in Israel at both the high school and university level.In our daily and professional lives, we have been exploring the bridgesbetween ideals, texts and education. We also live the bridges and dividesbetween Israel and North America as we examine and deconstruct the rela-tionships between Israel and the Diaspora at different levels. We have dif-ferent yet strong commitments to such explorations both intellectually andexistentially as we bring our expertise to bear on the complex relationshipsbetween North American Jewry and Israel in the official texts of the Reformmovement and their implications to the training of leaders and rabbis.

The religious ideology of early Reform Judaism rejected the core claimthat Jews are and should be a nation and, therefore, rejected the role of


The Role of Zionism in Reform Jewish Manifestos 331

Zionism in Judaism. The Reform universalistic messianic utopianism stoodat odds with any concept that identified Judaism with an ethnic–national–religious community. In light of the spirit of the nineteenth century and theethos of progress, the Reformers redefined Judaism as a faith and not as anational identity. As the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform declares: “We considerourselves no longer a nation, but religious community, and therefore expectneither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons ofAaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state”(Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), 2004c, Article 5). From theperspective of these Reformers, the Zionist national concept of Judaism didnot comport with the ideals of emancipation of the Jews in the countries oftheir residency and negated the universal ideals of Enlightenment.1

Judaism was considered a universal religion in which Jewish nationalsentiment was outdated. Half a century later in the Columbus 1937 Platformthis opposition to the Zionist project changed. Reform Judaism recognizedthe “rehabilitation of Palestine . . . [as a form of] renewed life for many ofour brethren,” and thereupon “affirm[ed] the obligation of all Jewry to aid inits upbringing as a Jewish homeland by endeavoring to make it not only ahaven for refuge for the oppressed but also a center of Jewish culture andspiritual life” (CCAR, 2004b, Article A5). Nevertheless, Reform Judaism didnot neglect its core obligation to its universalistic messianic ideal of “universalbrotherhood” constituted by shared faith. In the twentieth century, Judaismwas first and foremost a brotherhood of faith and not one of an enlargedfamily or national group.2

The San Francisco 1976 Centenary Prospective Platform celebrated the“newly reborn State of Israel” and recognized the “innumerable religiousand ethnic ties” between Diaspora Jews and the Jews of Israel. It went so faras to acknowledge “both a stake and a responsibility in building the State ofIsrael, assuring its security, and defining its Jewish character [and]encourag[ing] Aliyah for those who wish to find maximum personal fulfill-ment in the cause of Zion” (CCAR, 2004f, Article 5). Despite this recognitionof the obligation to the State of Israel, and in its contribution to the enrichmentof the Jewish culture and the recognition of the ethnic aspect of Judaism, theSan Francisco 1976 Platform does not neglect the universalistic vision ofReform Judaism. It perceived the dialogue between the State of Israel andThe Diaspora as aimed toward showing “how a people transcends national-ism even as it affirms it, thereby setting an example for humanity which

1Also see Meyer, 1995, pp. 293–295 and Sarna, 2004, pp. 149–150; on America as the New Zion seeUrofsky, 1986, pp. 212–213.

2“Israel has been held together by the ties of a common history, and above all, by the heritage offaith. Though we recognize in the group loyalty of Jews who have become estranged from our religioustradition, a bond that still unites them with us, we maintain that it is by its religion and for religion thatthe Jewish people have lived. The non-Jew who accepts our faith is welcomed as a full member of theJewish community” (CCAR, 2004a, Article A5).



remains largely concerned with dangerously parochial goals”3 (CCAR, 2004f,Article 5). The supremacy of the universalistic religious vision of ReformJudaism prevailed over the parochial, even dangerous, Zionist-nationalvision (Ellenson, 1995; see p. 14). Reform Judaism accepted the Israeli statebut not the Zionist emphasis on Judaism as the national, ethnic identity of apeople of Israel. These reservations might explain the formulation of theclause that related to Aliyah, which was left to the individual.

By the end of the twentieth century, these theological reservationstoward the Jewish State were transformed; the anti-Zionism trend inReform Judaism had largely faded since the 1970s and the platforms andresolutions published by the CCAR revealed a process of intensive“Zionization” of the movement’s official ideological narrative. The MiamiPlatform 1997 was dedicated solely to the question of Reform Judaismand Zionism. The climax of “Zionization” is manifested in the “Pittsburgh1999 Statement,” which reads, “We are committed to the State of Israel,and rejoice in its accomplishments. We affirm the unique qualities ofliving in the land of Israel, and encourage immigration to Israel” (CCAR,2004d).

What is the meaning of being “committed to the State of Israel”? Whatare the “unique qualities of living in the land of Israel” from a Reform pointof view? What are the ramifications of this religious worldview of the role ofIsrael for Reform Jews living in North America? One cannot expect a mani-festo—a declarative, concise, and short document—to provide detailsbeyond general statements. Therefore, in 1992, The Association of ReformZionism of America (ARZA), the Zionist arm and voice of the Reform move-ment in the United States and the CCAR, established a think tank whosemembers come from diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise (e.g.,academics, congregational rabbis, rabbis-in-training, educators, and ReformJewish lay leaders). The purpose of the think tank was to “formally considerthe relationship of the Reform Jew to Zionism and to Israel, and to seek todefine the Reform Zionist mission” (CCAR, 1992). In 2006, celebrating its13th anniversary, the ARZA think tank gathered for an intensive three-daydiscussion of Reform Jewish Zionism. After this assembly, the CCARdevoted a special issue of their journal to Reform Zionism; many of the col-lected articles included had emerged out of the Reform Zionist think tank’smeetings and reflected the “wisdom of the ARZA think-tank; the mostintelligent, passionate, and compelling voices in the Reform movement onthese important topics” (CCAR Journal, 2007, p. 1). We turn, therefore, tothis special issue of the CCAR Journal when we examine “the exquisitely

3Borowitz (1978) writes: “Even in its praise, then, the Centenary Perspective, carefully implies thatthough the State of Israel is a great Jewish good, it is not the greatest Jewish good” (p. 80), and “whenwe Diaspora Jews stand in our unique national dialogue with the State of Israel, we transcend commonnationalism even when we affirm our ethnic binds with the Israelis” (p. 98).



complicated personal and communal issues raised when we try to explicatethe phrase ‘Reform Jewish Zionism’”( CCAR Journal, Spring 2007, p. 1).4

The Relationships Between Faith, Ethnicity, and National Identity in Reform Judaism

The Zionization of the Reform movement culminated in the 1997 MiamiPlatform‘s unqualified recognition of Aliyah and life in Israel, the nationalhome for the Jewish people. Israel was no longer perceived just as the“Land of Israel” or “the Holy Land,” but as the State of Israel, therefore seenas the ultimate fulfillment of both “the individual and communal strivings”of the Jews.5 In analyzing the Miami 1997 and the Pittsburgh1999 manifes-tos, we conclude that the Zionization of American Reform Judaism does notreduce Judaism to ethnicity or to national identity. Rather, it combines thereligious, ethnic, and national identities and perceives the mission of its reli-gious Zionism as instrumental to the protection from “narrow nationalism”(CCAR, 2004b, Preamble). This trend was fully developed in The 1999 Plat-form where, under the section entitled “Israel,” there is a commitment tostrengthening the people of Israel by making “the synagogue central toJewish communal life so that it may elevate the spiritual, intellectual andcultural quality of our lives.” The emphasis here is on Judaism across “ideo-logical and geographic boundaries” and not necessarily within the State ofIsrael. The final statements of this section of the Platform affirm the commit-ment to both Israeli and Diaspora Jewry as “vibrant and interdependentcommunities” (CCAR, 2004d). Levy (2005) analyzes the differences betweenthe two platforms with regard to the role of the State of Israel in ReformJudaism, stating that The 1999 Platform “does not see Israel as the centre ofReform Jewish life. In a sense it sees Israel as equivalent to all the states ofthe Diaspora in which Jews reside and calls for a reciprocal relationshipbetween the State of Israel and the Diaspora” (p. 235).

As the head of the Union for Reform Judaism, E. Yoffie (2007) wrote inresponse to A. B. Yehoshua: “Yes, Jewish peoplehood and Jewish religionare intimately related and inextricably intertwined. And yes, this relationshipis fraught with tension. . . . And in fact, separating the two makes no sense”(p. 142). E. Yoffie’s statement stands in direct in opposition to the spirit ofThe Pittsburg 1885 Platform that presented Judaism as a faith—not asnational identity. The tensions between peoplehood and religion are alsoreflected by Hirsch (2007), who writes: “The State of Israel needs liberalJudaism and liberal Judaism needs the State of Israel” (p. 43). This captures

4For an elaborated critique of one of the programmatic essays in this volume written by ARZA’spresident at the time, Rabbi S. M. Davids, see Rechnitzer, 2008.

5This is a major theme that is echoed in many Reform writings on the State of Israel for examplesee Meyer, 2007a, pp. 104–105.



the imperative of the interdependency and mutual enrichment expressed inThe Miami 1997 Platform and The Pittsburgh 1999 Platform. For Hirsch, themission of Reform Judaism is to set an alternative to the orthodoxy in Israeland to introduce a liberal religious Zionism that promotes the separation ofchurch and state while at the same time develops a Jewish way of life. Moreradical is his argument for the role of Israel within American Reform Jews.Hirsch claims that the Reform emphasis on Judaism-as-faith leads to thedilution of the ethnic–cultural identity of the Jews. In his view, Judaism hasbeen accepted as another equal faith in the open interfaith market. Thisprocess of acceptance into the American religious culture comes with a tre-mendous price because “the dimensions of Jewish peoplehood, culture, andcivilization are being de-emphasized, [and] the ethnic identity of the Jew isbeing transformed” (p. 47). This new identity of Judaism as a culture and areligion, stripped from the ethnic and national elements, leads to the loss ofJewish identity and the decline of numbers of Jews in America. ReformJudaism in America, without Zionism, is at risk of failing to fulfill the“ultimate goal of preservation of the Jewish people and its heritage” (p. 48).Hirsch’s view is in contradiction to some of the basic tenets of the AmericanJewish movement, which promotes the universal over the particular. Hetakes it further and intensifies the role of a national particular identity.

Similar to Hirsch (2007), Meyer (2007a) also discusses the role ofZionism in strengthening Jewish identity in the Diaspora: “it must addressthe quest for personal meaning, . . . it must present itself not as an ideologybut as an integral part of the Jewish religion. A Judaism without Zionism is atruncated, incomplete form of our faith” (p. 110). He goes so far as to speakof the relationships Reform Jews must form with the “Israeli land, people,and state” as “new mitzvot” (commandments). Israel, thus, becomes anessential religious element within Reform Judaism.

The Connection Between Messianic Aspirations and the Political Sphere

The Miami Platform from 1997 declares that Medinat Israel is the “Jewishpeople’s supreme creation in our age” (CCAR, 2004b, Article II). The univer-sal and liberal teaching of Reform Judaism served as a dialectic voice in therebirth of the Jewish State. Reform Judaism saw its role as helping Jewishsovereign political powers face the challenges of having Jewish polity thataligned with its universal religious standards. Reform Judaism was ready tobe channeled through a Jewish sovereign entity and became a full-blownZionist religious movement. Reform Zionism reinforced the “Jewish people’shighest moral ideals to be mamlechet kohanim (a kingdom of priests), a goykadosh (a holy people), and l’or goyim (light unto the nations)” (CCAR,2004b, Article I). The “universal”—symbolized by the term “Kadush”(holy)—worked through the “particular,” that is “a goy” (people). Therefore,



the messianic vision was no longer at odds with the national particularessence. “National life in Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) is a necessarycondition for the realization of the physical and spiritual redemption of theJewish people and of all humanity” (CCAR, 2004b, Article VI).

Reflecting and modifying the Messianic vision within Zionism, Knobel(2007) calls for the development of a different Reform Zionist theology,which reintroduces the idea of a God who acts in history through which therebirth of Israel has a theological significance. In contrast to the spirit of The1997 Miami Platform, he argues that any Reform Zionist theology must takeinto consideration the fact that the “North American Reform movement isfirmly rooted in the unique experience of the North American Diaspora”(p. 78). Hence, Jewish religiosity is based on personal autonomy, individu-alism, and spirituality and does not perceive God as active in history. There-fore, the Zionist meta-narratives of the uniqueness of the Israeli experienceof building a nation on its land, of post-Holocaust national redemption andsafe haven from persecution cannot serve as the basis for Reform Zionism.Reform Zionism must develop an alternative meta-narrative that corre-sponds to the American culture and its individualism on the one hand andthe readiness of individuals to tie their spiritual journey to missions dedi-cated to help humanity on the other. Knobel suggests “redemption” as thekey concept of Reform theology of Zionism: “Israel, i.e., the Jewish peopleand Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel), have an important role in the redemp-tion of humanity” (p. 79). The Lurianic Kabbalah and its teaching of TikkunOlam—literally fixing the world that is broken—can become a Jewish spiri-tual blueprint for this new theology. In this view, spiritual religious growthis tied to the idea that all our spiritual and social actions as individuals canhelp in mending our “broken world.” When individuals come together for ajoint mission their forces of change and Tikkun are greater than when thesame actions are done by individuals independently.

This framing of Israel as a call for the fulfillment of religious TikkunOlam requires the reintroduction of the sense of Jewish chosen-ness tobecome “light for the nations.” Then, the Israeli experience becomes a partof a spiritual quest of any religious individual. Knobel (2007) is quick tonote that the reintroduction of a messianic vision that is connected to theideas of Holy Land and Holy Nation brings the Reform Zionist theology inclose proximity to the right-wing Settlers’ Movement in Israel. The liberalReform Judaism rejects the Settlers’ Movement on religious grounds as itputs the land and the nation before humanistic, liberal, and democratic val-ues. Meyer (2007a) continues to explore these issues when he devotes mostof his article to the role of Reform Zionism in developing liberal Judaismand liberal political philosophy as the alternative both for the right-wingreligious Zionism and the extreme left post-Zionism. Reform Zionism mustpromote a democratic and liberal Judaism that demonstrates the authenticityof pluralistic Jewish positions on various religious, moral and political



issues. Reform Zionism must demonstrate the distinction between the state,the land, and the people of Israel. Meyer suggests that Reform Zionism,while acknowledging the importance of role of the State of Israel in theredemptive processes, will refer to Israel’s becoming a state as a historicevent and as the potential for becoming “reshit tz’michat g’ulateino” (thebeginning of our redemption), rather than the actual beginning of ourredemption. In this way, he hopes to neutralize the current political nation-alism of the settlers’ movement that identifies the actual present as thebeginning of the messianic era. The settlers’ messianism leads to the disre-gard of liberal humanistic and democratic values at the expense of promot-ing what they perceive to be the divine plan. For Meyer, the State of Israelhas no religious essence in and of itself. A Jewish State, with its operativepowers, can become instrumental to the redemptive processes. It provides agreater opportunity to work towards the implementation of the messianicideals, but should not be conceived as part of redemption itself. ReformJudaism must take a position toward the use of power that aligns with itsliberal humanistic religious teaching. “As Reform Zionists we too must takea position with regard to issues of power, recognizing its necessity butrefusing to valorize it, seeing it as an instrument that can be used for goodbut not as a good in itself” (Meyer 2007a, p. 108). Likewise, the Land ofIsrael is not inherently holy, but is sanctified through the moral use ofpower. The Jewish people are not inherently holy but are commended tobecome holy. Therefore, Meyer calls for the development of a theology “ofsanctification, as opposed to sanctity, that deals not only with worldwidepeoplehood but also with specific realities faced by those members of ourpeople who dwell in Zion” (p. 109). Messianism is a postulate, an ideal thatdefines the right course of action in time and space but at the same time it isbeyond time and space. It is reserved for the end of days, but it determinesthe vector toward which progress should be defined and measured. ThisReform Religious Zionist vision intensifies the question of aliyah. It is clearthat the greater and the ultimate realization of Jewish life and its messianicvision are indeed in the Land of Israel within a sovereign Jewish State.Meyer’s vision is aligned with The 1997 Miami Platform that defines aliyahas a religious mitzvah. What, then, is the meaning of Reform Zionism forDiaspora Jews who do not choose aliyah? Again, aliyah must address thequest for personal meaning in a highly individualized American culture.Similarly to Knobel, Meyer suggests that Reform Religious Zionism in theDiaspora and for the Diaspora must highlight the need to incorporate Israel asa core aspect of Jewish spirituality, and emphasize the personal and emo-tional relationships to Israel rather than see Zionism as a political movement.

Meyer (2007b) redefines the concepts of ge’ulah (redemption) andDiaspora. Diaspora has three dimensions: physical, psychological, and reli-gious; ge’ulah, therefore, “can be seen as a spiritual territory that liesbetween galut (exile, Diaspora) and ge’ulah through which Jews living both



outside of Israel and within it travel, sometimes backward and sometimesforward” (p. 138). Aliyah then can be understood as both a spiritual “travel”and a physical journey. Physical aliyah does not necessarily guarantee spir-itual ascent.6 All Reform Jews, Israelis, and those who live in the Diaspora,are called upon to measure their religious spiritual life according to thisconcept of redemption and engage in this “travel” between the unredeemedreality and the messianic ideal. But, for Jews who live outside Israel, thesense of incompleteness is intensified in comparison with Jews who live ina Jewish State, which offers a fuller Jewish life. The Jew in Israel bothenjoys and is challenged by living in a Jewish State. Based on Meyer’sconcepts of galut and geula, living a Reform Jewish life in Israel becomesthe ultimate realization of the Reform religious ideals. We see Meyer’s viewof Israel as a change from the status quo of the Reform movement’s view ofthe place of Israel in Reform Judaism. In his articulation, the State of Israelbecomes simultaneously the instrument and the challenge for the develop-ment and implementation of the Jewish Reform messianic vision for years tocome.

Language as an Essential Tool for the Discussion of Faith and Identity

This shift in the attitude toward Jewish nationality was also reflected in anew emphasis on the key role of the Hebrew language. In The 1997 MiamiPlatform, Hebrew was described as “indispensable both in the study ofJudaism and fostering solidarity between Israeli and Diaspora Jews” (CCAR,2004b, Article IV). The Platform called for a commitment to teachingHebrew not just because it was the language of our sacred texts and prayersbut because of a core national Zionist argument and imperative. Hebrew isseen in this context as “a symbol of the revitalization of Am Israel,” the peo-ple of Israel. Thus, Hebrew is recognized for its national and linguisticattributes. This concept of Hebrew as a language of a living nation within itssovereign state paved the way to embracing Aliyah as a means of the real-ization of the potential of both “the individual and communal strivings” ofthe Jew (CCAR, 2004b, Article IV). Indeed, this is echoed by the variouswriters in the themed issue of the CCAR. E. Yoffie (2007), in response toA. B. Yehoshua, agrees that “the Hebrew language is a critical dimension ofJewish identity” (p. 140). At the same time, one cannot but notice that thisimperative to study Hebrew is modified and qualified in the face of reality.

6Stanley Davids (2007) acknowledges the fact that Reform Jews are not likely to make aliyah andsuggests the idea of “Aliyat Ha’Nefesh, a soul driven Aliyah that places the active love for Israel at thevery center of our lives. Aliyat Ha’Nefesh could be expressed by numerous visits for study and for vaca-tions, by extended sabbatical stays, by making certain that our children have extensive personal experi-ences of Israel, by becoming informed advocates for Israel, and by personally making certain that ourindividual congregations celebrate Yom HaAtzmaut as a religious holiday” (pp. 35–36). His idea of“Aliyat Ha’Nefesh” does not denote the messianic elements apparent in Meyer’s concept (2007a, 2007b).



Yoffie admits, that “our inability to teach Hebrew to our children in NorthAmerica and elsewhere is one of Diaspora Jewry’s great failures” (p. 140).Knobel (2007) reminds us that, “the increase of Hebrew in the worship ser-vice is more about the mystique of the language than about revival of eithertraditional theology or concern for content” (p. 80). Cutter’s (2007) essay isdevoted to the question of Hebrew and Reform Zionism and suggests thatsince fluency in Hebrew cannot be achieved among Jews who live outsideof Israel, the Reform movement should consider building a compromiseversion: a “second homeland,” that should “create some Hebrew linguisticrealities: some songs, prayers, or phrases” (p. 17). He proposes building alinguistic bridge between Jewish past and present, between myth and cul-tural history, knowing full well that from a point of view of “those whobelieve that Hebrew can save the Jewish people, or simply advocates ofHebrew . . . [this is a] limited and sometime melancholy” effort (p. 17). Cut-ter suggests that North American Jews find metaphors and words by whichto think about Israel. He also proposes that they learn Modern Hebrew in alimited scope, which will be a part of a meaningful and substantive engage-ment between American Jews and Israelis when they meet socially, cultur-ally, and professionally. That means that the Reform movement must investin facilitating “personal associations” (p. 20) that intensify the quality andfrequency of meetings between American Jews and Israelis in varied set-tings. Such meetings will create an ongoing and everchanging organicinventory of words and metaphors that will bridge between Israeli and theAmerican Jews. Cutter proposes a much more limited and perhaps morerealistic (for the majority of Jewish people in North America) role for learn-ing Hebrew. Cutter’s discussion of the lack of proficiency in Hebrew is indissonance with the platform that sets the goal of proficiency in Hebrew.Similar to Cutter, Jan Katzew (2007), the Director of Lifelong Jewish Learn-ing for the Union for Reform Judaism, argues that sharing a vocabulary pre-cedes creating a shared vision. Cutter and Katzew both present a solutionthat is different from the official narrative and they both express the sameconcern about the use of Hebrew. They suggest a different tactic when theyemphasize real personal engagement with Israelis although their counter-parts from North America may only have a rudimentary level of Hebrew.Although Cutter does not think that it is possible to learn Hebrew at thelevel needed for a full engagement, Katsew still longs for this level ofHebrew. (We explore this issue further in the later in this article.)

In the first part of the article, we analyzed the official American ReformJewish Platforms and the interpretative articles that followed their publica-tion. The purpose of these platforms was to describe, define, and provideguidelines for the ideology of the Reform movement. As such, these mani-festos have operative, pedagogical, and practical principles embedded inthem (Zola 2001). These guiding principles suggest that, the platforms andsupplementary articles can be used as curricular documents that lead to



action. In the following part of the article, we analyze the implications toeducation of those manifestos as the official texts of the Reform movement.Grant (2007) calls for collaboration between leaders in the Reform move-ment and congregational rabbis with educators in order to enhance the roleof Israel as an integral part of the ideology in the Reform movement. In ourarticle, we analyze the official texts, the manifestos so as to create the spacefor such a conversation between ideology and its educational ramifications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION

We draw from the themes and underlying vision of the American ReformJudaism movement’s manifestos to suggest content and direction for theeducation of its leaders. Curriculum can be defined quite narrowly as acourse of study, often referring to the goals, objectives, content, activitiesand assessment within a particular area. It can also be defined broadly asany activities taking place, intended or unintended, within an educationalinstitution and context (Jackson, 1992). In this article, we draw from thework of Pinar (1997) and Grumet (1997) who highlighted the silences andunspoken elements of curriculum, calling attention to the multiple decisionsand complex layers of social, cultural, and gendered engagement and rela-tionships that influence curriculum. We also use Uhrmacher’s (1997)focused attention on the language used in curriculum documents. He shedslight on what is often called the “curriculum shadow,” or the “hidden curric-ulum”: the underpinning assumptions and ideologies that shape the realitiesin schools. In our analysis, we uncover the covert, latent, and implicit waysthat institutions that train rabbis and leaders in various educational contextsare organized and how those affect the curriculum, what is learned, how itis taught and learned, and what are the goals of the learning enterprise. Wealso use the questions suggested by Bullough and Gitlin (1995) for the anal-ysis of textbooks and curriculum materials by critical “consumers” of suchdocuments. Specifically, we ask about the extent that ideas expressed in theplatforms of the Reform Judaism movement and their supplementary docu-ments are compelling for Reform Jews. We also examine the ideologicalunderpinnings of the manifestos as those pertain to the education of rabbis-and leaders-in-training. We view the Reform movement manifestos as curric-ular texts that provide us with the opportunity to analyze ideas embeddedin them with an eye toward education. In that manner, the ideas presentedwithin these manifestos have tremendous educational ramifications foraction. Although the texts that we analyze do not pertain to specific class-rooms or schools, they have implications for practice and are, therefore, rel-evant in the analysis of the education of new leaders and educators withinthe Reform movement, who are expected to carve the direction for thefuture of the movement.



When we consider the ramifications of our discussion to education andspecifically to the education of the future leaders and educators in the Reformmovement, we note that a professional development program cannot, duringits duration, teach all skills and content necessary for its graduates in theirfuture careers. Therefore, training programs should “focus on how to learnfrom experience and how to build professional knowledge” (Korthagen,Loughran, & Russell, 2006, p. 1025). Trainees, thus, learn to respond to a rangeof conflicting and competing demands. We believe that educational programsshould provide their participants, and particularly leaders-in-training, withopportunities to learn from their experiences and “shape their thinking abouttheir teaching” and their engagements with various people they encounter asa part of their job (p. 1026). Our analysis focuses on the Reform movement’straining of rabbis, throughout which we investigate the move from visionexpressed in its manifestos to its implementation in practice.

Educational Implications of the Relationship Between Faith, Ethnicity, and National Identity

We begin by discussing the intended audience of the platforms of theReform movement. We probe the operative and pedagogical implications ofthe view that the State of Israel embodies the relationship between faith,ethnicity, and national identity. We then ask about the content that could beused to implement such ideas and we conclude by identifying challengesembedded in questions of faith, ethnicity, and identity that come to light asa result of our analysis.

The documents we analyze in this article refer to the American Reformmovement.7 As discussed above, Hirsch argues that reintroducing ethnicityand national elements through Zionist education will enrich the Jewish iden-tity of the American Reform Jews. With this view at the forefront, we suggestpossible curricular content to support teaching Zionism within North Ameri-can Reform ideology. To reinforce a sense of Jewish identity as ethnicity,faith, and nationality (and expanding on Grant, 2007, pp. 5–6) we propose:

learning the history of the State of Israel in the context of the rise of thenations in the modern era,

studying ethnicity through art and folklore,exploring faiths and ethnicities within and without Judaism,examining challenges ethnic minorities face living within a pluralistic soci-

ety as they develop mechanisms to maintain their uniqueness, andlearning how the Jewish faith and practices negotiate questions of ethnicity,

universalism, and nationalism.

7The Israeli Reform movement has its own platform, which appears on a separate Web site: http://www.reform.org.il/Eng/Index.asp (retrieved December 28, 2008).



One important component of training leaders and educators is to encouragea deep examination of identity. Hence, it is imperative not just to approachthe issues from a theoretical and removed stance but, rather to allow forstructured, pedagogical moments of experiential engagements including anexploration of self within particular social contexts. In order to reflect onthe ways in which rabbis-in-training may explore their identity, we lookclosely at the Israel Seminar, a weekly course that is taken in Jerusalem andis a part of the first year (out of five) of rabbinical studies taken in any ofthe American campuses that train rabbis. The purpose of the Israel Seminaris to “place the experience [of learning to become a rabbi] in a broader his-torical, cultural, political and social context” (Leigh, Liptz, & Mendelsson,2008, p. 8). The course methodology includes lectures, museum and sitevisits, and the use of film, music, and literature. We consider these trips tovarious locations in Israel, such as the Galilee, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem, asvenues to connect experientially with Israel; however, it is important thatsuch trips are used as educational, reflective, and transformative opportuni-ties. One of the assignments in the Israel Seminar is a weekly journal “of theimpressions, thoughts, questions, revelations and queries that [these] studiesmay ignite” as a way to reflect on these experiences. We think that keepingsuch a reflective journal is an important first step in the process of learning tobecome a rabbi. However, a journal that becomes primarily a collection of“impressions, thoughts, questions, revelations and queries” (as described in thesyllabus) is only the starting point and provides a structure to move from anexperience to a systematic and analytical exploration of that experience. Wesee such a journal as a transformative tool, specifically when taken beyondthe level of description and reflection. Poignant questions and thought-pro-voking prompts can encourage the leaders-in-training to make explicit linksbetween what is experienced and its meaning. Such questions then becomethe backdrop for discussions of the multiple cultural and personal markersof identity in the context of Reform Judaism in Israel and North America, thetensions and challenges of maintaining an active Jewish leadership in NorthAmerica, and the links between the vision of the Reform movement and lifein Israel and the Diaspora. As a follow up to journal entries, their should befurther exploration and analysis of the tensions between the Reform liberaland universalistic ideology and the culture and politics in Israel.

We want to highlight the key role of the educators who pose suchquestions and lead meaningful discussions on these topics as they provideeach of the leaders-in-training with occasions to explore his or her back-ground and previous sense of self in the context of new experiences, andsuch discussions in the seminars may enhance the process of articulatingthe complex issues of identity. The Israel Seminar occupies approximately25% of the Year in Israel Program, which itself is but one fifth of the overallfive-year program. We claim that this kind of engagement in learning shouldnot be isolated to one course and must be incorporated diachronically and



synchronically across the curriculum in training new rabbis and leaders; thatis to say, questions, topics, and experiences such as those we mentionedabove should be revisited throughout the program and echoed across othercourses such as Talmud, Jewish Law, and Jewish Thought. Such an inten-tional institutional curricular planning would reflect and support an ongoingexploration of identity and its related core struggles.

We now turn our gaze to the tensions arising from the concept ofJewish national identity, faith, and ethnicity and discuss potential chal-lenges in implementing greater awareness of these issues in the educa-tion of Reform educators and leaders. Educators of leaders and rabbisface the predicament of educating for a particular identity (Judaism asnationality and ethnicity) while at the same time strengthening theReform concept of Judaism as a faith preaching for universal, ethical,monotheistic concepts as a part of its ideology. Taking into account thetension within this predicament, Judaism as a faith is perceived to be onpar with other universalistic faiths in the North American interfaith mar-kets such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam, which do not requireethnic and national affiliations and whose tenets are universal but standat odds with ethnic and particularistic tenets of Judaism.8 In addition,educators must deal with the complex role of Israel within North AmericanReform Judaism. The primary goal of these educators is to sustain anddevelop the Reform ideology of Judaism as a part of the American liberalapparatus. However, teaching students about Israel and its essential rolewithin Judaism sends a contradictory message that it is important tostrive for life in Israel. Grant (2007) supports our view that the tensionsembedded in teaching about Israel are not fully explored in the currentcurriculum of Reform leaders in training when she summarizes findingsfrom qualitative interviews with rabbis and educational leaders and con-cludes, that “goals for teaching Israel continue to be expressed in broadand diffuse terms” (p. 5). Grant and Marmur (2007) discuss in furtherdetail the educational role of teaching about Israel. They suggest that, atthe end of the Year in Israel, all rabbinical students ought to be able toanswer the question “Why Israel matters . . .” In order to do so, Grantand Marmur call for the need for “intellectual inquiry . . . [and] experien-tial activities that allow for meaningful and sustained encounters with abroad mix of Israelis, as well as opportunities for personal reflection onthe significance of Israel and the Jewish people to their own lives asAmerican Jews” (p. 104). This existential tension between learning about

8Meyer (2003) articulates this tension in his discussion of the education of the Reform Jew: “As aReform Jew I am persuaded that a Judaism that rests upon the ethnic pillar alone in not viable beyond afew generations. In the Diaspora, ethnic Judaism is speedily being devoured by an absorbent Americanculture; in Israel it is being transformed from Jewish to Israeli. Only a Jewish education that nurturesreligious belief and religious practice can sustain Jewish identity in the long run” (p. 158).



Israel in meaningful ways and promoting life in North America ought tobe addressed in an ongoing manner within Jewish educational settings.Grant and Marmur propose to “strengthen the connections and interac-tions between Reform Jews from North America and Reform Jews inIsrael” (p. 103). Encounters to facilitate sharing ethnic and religiousviewpoints are relatively easy to achieve and serve an important role.Nonetheless, a deeper exchange that brings to light the role of Israel asit relates to one’s Judaism should be explicitly uncovered and discussedin these meetings. For example, Reform Jews in Israel have a signifi-cantly different experience from that of their counterparts in NorthAmerica, particularly in regard to the role that Israel plays in construc-tion of their Israeli Reform Jewish identity lives. Moreover, we think thatthe North American rabbis-in-training may benefit at least as much fromencounters with other Jews and non-Jews in Israel (secular, orthodox,Mizrahi, Ethiopians, immigrants from the former Soviet Union, Palestinians,Druze, foreign workers, etc.). Such encounters with non-Reform-liberalIsraelis will push the rabbis-in-training to explore and articulate theirown understandings of their relationships toward Israel and those livingin Israel, as well as revisit and develop their own Reform concepts ofJudaism. Clearly, their educators have a critical role to play in orchestrat-ing these encounters and, even more so, in facilitating the future rabbis’processing of such encounters. Moreover, as Korthagen, Loughran, andRussell (2006) propose, “learning about teaching requires a view ofknowledge as a subject to be created rather than as a created subject”(p. 1027). Rabbis and leaders direct the content and discourse of theircongregations and communities. Therefore, during their training, thesefuture leaders must learn to articulate their vision and its practical andtheoretical implications. This journey of exploration should also takeinto account the messages of the official manifestos and how these canbe incorporated into an individual’s construction of identity. A discus-sion about various individual vision statements can also be productive ininitiating meaningful dialogues. The rabbis-in-training ought to considertheir own learning process and articulation of vision in the context ofother rabbis, leaders, and rabbis-in-training. We see the need for educa-tional training programs to provide for the necessary steps to establishand sustain such a learning environment that encourages these explora-tions. Emphasizing questions about identity and its relation to Judaismand Israel during the process of developing the next generation of rabbiswill feed directly into the creation of new platforms in the Movementand, in doing so, will affect the dynamics of paving new directions forthe Reform Movement. The exploration of identity in social, political,and ethnic specific contexts is paramount in the education of any lead-ers. It is within such explorations that visions and manifestos are exam-ined, tested, and altered to meet new directions.



Educational Implications of the Connection Between Messianic Aspirations and the Political Sphere

Stanley Davids (2007) alerts our attention to the fact that, as a movement,Reform Judaism has “failed to set ‘Jerusalem ahead of our other joys (Psalm137)’” (p. 30). Katzew (2007) highlights the need to make Israel compellingthrough personal relationships. He calls for Jewish educators to “nurturethat connection [to Israel]” (p. 53). More so, the “connection to Israel maybe considered a particularistic expression of Judaism, and the currentemphasis of the educational system in the Reform movement is universalis-tic” (p. 53). Knobel (2007) underscores that it is the individualistic spirit ofthe American concept of the self that perceives religion as personal andrejects the sentiment of “peoplehood.” As discussed above, Knobel suggeststhe idea of Tikkun Olam, the restoration of a just world, the Messianic ideaof redeeming humanity as a meaningful vehicle through which the AmericanJew can engage with Israel. Israel becomes the scene and stage where thehighest religious activities take place; he then resorts to the “need to takethem [the congregants] to Israel and create spiritually inspiring moments”(p. 80). His final conclusion shifts the emphasis from text-based curriculumto an experience-based one, although he does not provide examples forteaching such “inspiring moments.” Meyer (2007a) addresses the need tomake the Zionist Reform vision compelling through “address[ing] the questfor personal meaning which is today so characteristic of the highly individu-alized American culture” (pp. 110–111).

It seems that the above authors themselves admit that the argumentthat calls for the crucial role of Israel in educating Reform Jews is not com-pelling. We can see evidence for this resistance toward Israel in the 2001National Jewish Population Study, which reports that many Reform Jewsindicate low connections to Israel and to Klal Israel. In fact, Reform Jewshave the lowest rate of responses to questions about a sense of belongingto the Jewish people (Reform 56%, Conservative 74%, Orthodox 91%), emo-tional attachment to Israel (Reform 21%, Conservative 39%, Orthodox 68%),or visits Israel (Reform 34%, Conservative 53%, Orthodox 73%).9 Grant(2007) reports similar, more current data stating, that “Israel and a sense of Jewishpeoplehood have become increasingly peripheral for American Jewish identity”(p. 3). Both Knobel (2007) and Meyer (2007a) introduce the Messianic visionas the renewed path for engagement with Israel; they tie the personal, spir-itual quest of the individual with ideals and actions toward mending theworld. Meyer calls for the development of a liberal Jewish state, and thedevelopment of critical engagement toward the use of power within thatstate; Knobel has a more spiritual emphasis on the Messianic vision.

9The survey can be found on the National Jewish Population Survey Web site at http://www.ujc.org/page.html?ArticleID=108513 (retrieved December 28, 2008).



We consider how to translate these claims about the role of Israel to aneducational context. We think of training new leaders and rabbis with aneye toward Messianic ideals that, in the Reform context, are manifested pri-mary as a call and action for social justice. It is, therefore, imperative toinclude discussions and pedagogies that deconstruct the ways in whichsocial forces and institutions shape our views of the world—as it is now andas it could be. Such a critical gaze ought to include and draw on radical the-ories and ways of engagement in social justice, working for social, political,and economic change through social action and education (Pinar, Reyonlds,Slattery, & Taubman, 1995). Similar to Bell (1997), we define teaching forsocial justice as both a goal and a process. It includes both anti-oppressiveeducation and teaching for democratic citizenship (Kelly & Brandes Minnes,2008). A further refinement of teaching for social justice encompasses threeelements: “(a) critical analysis of social and institutional inequities; (b) com-mitment to “principled action to achieve social justice, not only for thosearound but for strangers” (Greene, 1978, p. XXXIII) and (c) willingness toquestion one’s own understanding of social justice in part through listening toalternative perspectives” (Kelly & Minnes Brandes, 2001, p. 439). We proposeincorporating the Messianic vision as articulated by Meyer (2007a, 2007b)and Knobel (2007) and the notion of teaching for social justice as both a goaland process into training programs for rabbis and leaders. Such programsshould elucidate not only the content but also the pedagogical and social justiceconsiderations that motivate the ways the content is selected and taught. Wesee the merit in having leaders-in-training read critical and radical theoriesthat expose social and political inequities. In addition, an integral part of thecurriculum for leaders-in-training ought to be an engagement in activitieswithin local institutions, both in Israel and the Diaspora, where they willactively work toward social justice. Thus, the leaders-in-training have boththeoretical and practical engagements with social justice. This kind ofengagement can be used toward a critique of the role Israel plays forReform Judaism in particular in examining the tension between (a) living inthe Diaspora and yearning for life in Israel and (b) caring about Israel whileat the same time engaging in a critique and being agents for radical change.

Taking into account Knobel’s (2007) call for spiritual engagementthrough the mystical ideals rooted in Lorianic Kabbalah, we wonder aboutthe opportunities for such an engagement both at the level of content andexperience. If we are to implement Knobel’s imperative, the training pro-gram ought to call for the integration of social justice studies and activitieswith religious training and learning in the realm of Hassidism and Jewishmysticism. The educators should facilitate the construction of bridgesbetween engagement with radical theories and actions and spiritual andreligious practices. Although we know this mandate is of crucial impor-tance, we also acknowledge the challenges embedded in it as leaders-in-training and their educators navigate between the public and private,


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232519119_Theoretical_foundations_for_social_justice_education?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-27b919d4-09bf-4b2a-961e-b4ac7d041dee&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0MDUzNDY0MjtBUzoxMDE5NjQwOTY0NzUxNDVAMTQwMTMyMTU0MzQ3MA==


individual and communal, spiritual and practical, and in regard to Kabbalisticmaterials and mystical experiences to navigate between a rational and aca-demic engagement with Judaism and a mystical one.

Educational Implications of Hebrew Language as an Essential Tool for the Discussion of Faith and Identity

Schools in general and classrooms in particular are organized in ways thatillustrate the value systems of those who create and sustain them. An analy-sis of this organization within schools illuminates these explicit and implicitvalues and the ways in which the social status quo is sustained. Curriculum,what is taught and how it is taught, is one key arena through which we canexamine these values. Curriculum documents (and, in our case, the plat-forms and supplemental papers) represent worldviews and, hence, stemfrom particular ideologies, provide an image of society, include certain bod-ies of knowledge, and serve as tools for social control often maintaining thestatus quo.

We analyze the ways in which Hebrew language plays a role in whatare “hidden” or missing aspects of curriculum in the official Reform manifestos.We look for omissions within the existing texts to shed light on the implicit set oforganizational rules, what is “privileged” and what is “disdained” (Uhrmacher,1997). When we consider the role of Hebrew in teaching about faith andidentity, we are inspired to raise the question posed by Kumashiro (2000)when he analyzed models of teaching about the “Other”: “How do . . .silences make possible and impossible different ways of thinking about”(p. 34) the use of Hebrew in this context. Similarly, Sleeter and Grant (1991)call on educators to identify the voices that are represented and those thatare silenced. The 1999 Pittsburgh Platform affirms “the importance of study-ing Hebrew . . . that we may draw closer to our people’s sacred texts”(CCAR, 2004d, Article “Torah”) and the 1997 Miami Platform argues thatHebrew is “indispensable for the study of Judaism” (CCAR, 2004b, ArticleIV). The official commentary on The Pittsburgh Platform 1999 explains thatHebrew “unlock[s] the holiness present in those texts” (CCAR, 2004e). Toclaim that Hebrew is an “indispensable” key to unlock the meaning of Juda-ism puts into question the integrity of teaching Judaism in any languageother than Hebrew. The argument is that key concepts in Judaism cannot befully translated, discussed, or learned across languages and cultures. Thisnarrows down what Judaism is—and what constitutes as being Jewish.Hence, this definition does not take into account the vast number of think-ers, writers, and artists who think, create, and produce integral parts ofJewish culture. More so, it undermines the integrity of the religious practiceof the students themselves and their American, in many cases Reform,upbringing within a Jewish congregation that uses Hebrew minimally atbest. The implications of this view of Hebrew in the official Platform also


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240723588_Toward_a_Theory_of_Anti-Oppressive_Education?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-27b919d4-09bf-4b2a-961e-b4ac7d041dee&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0MDUzNDY0MjtBUzoxMDE5NjQwOTY0NzUxNDVAMTQwMTMyMTU0MzQ3MA==


casts a shadow on the praxis of teaching Judaism in English, or any otherlanguage that is not Hebrew. That argument calls for a radical changewithin the whole curriculum of training rabbis, which currently is run pri-marily in English. In addition, it points to a new direction for change in theculture of American Reform congregations.

We have both philosophical and practical reservations about this over-arching claim about the “indispensable” role of Hebrew language for Juda-ism. While we certainly agree that in many cases the knowledge of Hebrewis necessary for a deep engagement and understanding of certain Jewishtexts and traditions, we also acknowledge that Judaism has been trans-formed, developed, and transmitted in other languages as well. Therefore,we propose a more nuanced discussion and investigation of the appropriate“tools” for different explorations of texts. This discussion should investigatethe cases in which Hebrew is essential (e.g., for understanding Piyut and itssemantic fields) and in which cases it is not (e.g., texts about Judaism andJewish thought that were not written in English). If this is the case, a discus-sion of the curriculum, the content, pedagogy, and in particular the purposeof learning, will determine the level of proficiency needed and the languagerequirements for different kinds of engagements with texts.

CONCLUSION

We used the official Reform movement platforms and its supplementaryarticles to examined their educational operative, pedagogical, and practicalramifications. We examined the current guiding principles of the NorthAmerican Reform movement and then analyzed the consequences of thisvision in the context of the training of new rabbis. We believe that the pro-cess of reflective analysis of the manifestos of the Reform movement by itsrabbis- and leaders-in-training and their educators can lead to the organicgrowth of this vision over time. We call for venues for discussion and explo-ration of the process of learning about what it means to be Jewish withinthe Reform movement and for teaching about the meaning of Judaism. Weargue that the analytical discussion of manifestos has experiential,academic, practical and theoretical consequences. We suggest the use ofquestions stemming from curriculum theory as a means whereby futureleaders of Reform Judaism can be called on to reflect on and inquire intotheir education. In that way, other training programs of new leaders becomeholistic experiences and have deeper implications for the personal and pro-fessional lives of their participants. In particular, leaders-in-training ought topursue an analytical engagement with manifestos, an internal exploration,and negotiations of the multiple and competing realities that they will face.This mode of learning will inevitably lead to new dialogues and directionsin the articulation of visions and practices to come.



REFERENCES

Borowitz, B. E. (1978). Reform Judaism today (book three). New York: BehrmanHouse, Inc.

Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams,L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 3–15).New York: Routledge.

Bullough, R. V., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologiesfor self exploring and school context. New York: Garland.

Central Conferences of American Rabbis. (2004a). The Columbus Platform 1937.Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=40&pge_prg_id=3032&pge_id=1656

Central Conferences of American Rabbis. (2004b). The Miami Platform 1997.Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=42&pge_prg_id=4687&pge_id=1656

Central Conferences of American Rabbis. (2004c). The Pittsburgh Platform–1885.Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=39&pge_prg_id=3032&pge_id=1656

Central Conferences of American Rabbis. (2004d).The Pittsburgh Platform 1999: AStatement of Principle for Reform Judaism. Retrieved December 28, 2008, fromhttp://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=44&pge_prg_id=3032&pge_id=1656

Central Conferences of American Rabbis. (2004e).Commentary on the Platform.Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=45&pge_prg_id=4687&pge_id=1656

Central Conferences of American Rabbis. (2004f).The San Francisco Platform:Centenary Perspective–1976. Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=41&pge_prg_id=4687&pge_id=1656

Central Conferences of American Rabbis Resolutions. (1992, April). Reform ZionistThink Tank. Adopted by the 103rd Annual Convention of the Central Confer-ence of American Rabbis, San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved December 28, 2008,from http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=think&year=1992

Cutter, W. (2007). A language for Zionist reciprocity. CCAR Journal, 54(2), 7–26.Davids, S. (2007). A proposed taxonomy for a twenty-first-century theology of

Reform Zionism. CCAR Journal, 54(2), 27–41.Ellenson, D. (1995). Reform Judaism today: A consideration of first principles. Journal

of Reform Zionism, 2, 13–19.Fox S., Scheffler, I., & Marom, D., (2003). The visions project, In S. Fox, I. Scheffler,

& D. Marom, (Eds.), Vision of Jewish education (pp. 5–43). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York: Teachers College Press.Grumet, R. M. (1997). The curriculum: What are the basics and are we teaching

them? In J. L. Kincheleo & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Thirteen questions: Reframingeducation’s conversation (2nd ed., pp. 15–22). New York: Peter Lang.

Grant, L. D. (2007). Israel education in Reform congregational schools. CCARJournal, 54(3), 3–24.

Grant, L. D., & Marmur, M. (2007). The place of Israel in the identity of ReformJews. In D. Ben Moshe & Z. Segev (Eds.), Israel, the Diaspora, and Jewishidentity (pp. 101–105). Brighton and Portland, UK: Sussex Academic Press.



Hirsch, G. R. (2007). Reveille for liberal Judaism. CCAR Journal, 54(2), 42–51.Jackson, P. W. (Ed.). (1992). Conception of curriculum and curriculum specialists:

Handbook for research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.Katzew, J. (2007). Is there a part of me in the East? CCAR Journal, 54(2), 52–68.Kelly, D. M., & Brandes Minnes, G. (2001). Shifting out of neutral: Beginning teachers’

struggle with teaching for social justice. Canadian Journal of Education, 26,439–454.

Kelly, D. M., & Brandes Minnes G. (2008). Equitable classroom assessment: Promot-ing self-development and self-determination. Interchange, 39, 49–76.

Knobel, P. (2007) A new light upon Zion? The liturgy of Reform Judaism andReform Zionism. CCAR Journal, 54(2), 69–83.

Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental princi-ples for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 22, 1020–1041.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review ofEducational Research, 70, 25–53.

Leigh, J., Liptz, P., & Mendelsson, D. (2008). Israel Seminar, Unpublished coursesyllabus. Hebrew Union College.

Levy, N. R. (2005). A vision of holiness: The future of Reform Judaism. New York: URJ.Meyer M. (1995). Responses to modernity: A history of the Reform movement in Juda-

ism. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.Meyer, M. (2003). Reflections on the educated Jew from the perspective of Reform

Judaism. In S. Fox, I. Scheffler, & D. Marom (Eds.), Vision of Jewish education(pp. 149–177). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Meyer, M. (2007a). Toward a Reform Jewish vision for Zion. CCAR Journal, 54(2),98–112.

Meyer, M. (2007b). A response to A. B. Yehoshua. CCAR Journal, 54(2), 137–139.Pinar, W. F. (1997). The curriculum: What are the basics and are we teaching it? In

L. Kincheleo & S. R. Stienberg (Eds.), Thirteen questions: Reframing educa-tion’s conversation (2nd ed., pp. 23–30). New York: Peter Lang.

Pinar, W. F., Reyonlds, M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understandingcurriculum. New York: Peter Lang.

Rechnitzer, O. H. (2008). Tell me what your questions are and i will tell you whoyou are: some reflections on the “proposed taxonomy for a twenty-first-centurytheology of Reform Zionism” by S. M. Davids. CCAR Journal, 3, 29–37.

Sarna, D. J. (2004). American Judaism: A history. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Sleeter C. E., & Grant C. A. (1991). Race, class, gender, and disability in current text-books. In M. W. Apple & L. K. Christian-Smith (Eds.), The politics of the text-book (pp. 78–110). New York: Routledge.

Uhrmacher B. (1997). The curriculum shadow. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 317–330.Urofsky, M. I. (1986). Zionism: An American experience. In J. D. Sarna (Ed.), The

American Jewish experience (pp. 211–221). New York: Holmes & Meir.Yoffie, E. (2007). A response to A. B. Yehoshua. CCAR Journal, 54(2), 140–145.Zola, P. G. (2001). The common places of American Reform Judaism’s conflicting

platforms. Hebrew Union College Annual, 72, 155–191.


Theological and Pedagogical Implications of the Role of Zionism in Reform Jewish Manifestos: A...

Documents

Transcript of Theological and Pedagogical Implications of the Role of Zionism in Reform Jewish Manifestos: A...