Can a Reconstructionist Sin? | Reconstructing Judaism

Can a Reconstructionist Sin?

Article

Some years ago, at an informal lunch shared by a number of us who worked for the same Jewish agency, a staffer indicated she had no need to attend Yom Kippur services. Predictably provoked, we asked why. Yom Kippur was all about sin, she replied, and since she never sinned, she had nothing for which to atone.

Despite our best efforts to nail her with at least one sin from the long acrostic confession of the Yom Kipper liturgy (al het she’hatanu, “For the sin we have sinned by …”), she was adamant. “Look,” she finally said, “if I don't believe in a God who sets the rules, judges whether I’ve broken them, and holds me accountable, how can there be any sin?”

Since Reconstructionist Judaism affirms a conception of God as a force, power or process — but not as a supernatural Being who can be addressed and can respond — is it a necessary corollary to convert the concept of sin to something either minimal or meaningless? Can a Reconstructionist sin?

The founder of Reconstructionism, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, addressed this issue in 1937 (in The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion): “The term sin is a word that for most people has been emptied of meaning … If sin has no meaning, there is no need for repentance, and the whole observance of the Day of Atonement becomes much ado about nothing … The fact, however, that a word loses favor does not necessarily signify that it is without meaning.”

Kaplan tried to redefine the meaning of sin so that it retained its power: “Sin can no longer mean the provocation of God’s wrath through disobedience to His [sic] revealed law, nor can atonement mean the restoration to His grace by a pledge of future obedience, however sincere.” Identifying God with “that aspect of reality which confers meaning and value on life and elicits from us those ideals that determine the course of human progress,” Kaplan asserted that “the failure to live up to the best that is in us means that our souls are not attuned to the divine, that we have betrayed God.”

If we substitute “we have sinned” for “we have betrayed God,” we get a rather gentle reinterpretation — something like “sin lite,” which, for all of its intellectual compatibility with Reconstructionist theology, seems rather weak and not particularly challenging.

Kaplan is hardly alone in reducing the severity of sin. Open almost any “Introduction to Judaism” book, or consult almost any commentary to the High Holiday mahzor, and one inevitably finds the explanation that the Hebrew word het (sin) means something like “missing the mark” — as if life were no more than a game of darts. Our moral and relational failures receive a soothing bromide of reassurance: We need only try harder next time, with hope that we’ll hit the target more often. The operative concept is that we need to be reassured, rather than reassessed.

But without first engaging seriously in a deep moral inventory, how can we honestly move forward in life? Without the courage to descend into the depths of our failures, how can we presume to ascend in pursuit of our better self? As the Reconstructionist mahzor states, “reducing sin to the status of an almost inadvertent error hardly seems tenable in the light of our awareness of the horrors of which humans, individually as well as collectively, have proved capable.” The concept of sin, in fact, seems more, rather than less, important as we move into the 21st century — not for what it tells us about God, but for what it suggests to us about ourselves.

It is worth noting that many modern interpreters of humanistic psychology have retained the idea of sin, and especially of its correlative categories such as shame. Erik Erikson, for example, includes as one of his eight stages of human development the encounter of “autonomy versus shame and doubt” (Childhood and Society). Shame, he suggests, “supposes that one is completely exposed and conscious of being looked at: in a word, self-conscious.” Surely, the humbling experience of reciting the Yom Kippur confessional can yield a similar sense of exposure.

Erikson further notes that resolving the tension between autonomy and shame/doubt becomes decisive for “the ratio … [of] freedom of self-expression and its suppression.” So many of the sins enumerated in our liturgy are between us and other people; so many derive from an inability to balance our desire to have what we want, to do what we want when we want, to be what we want, without regard for our impact on others — without taking responsibility for suppressing our selfexpression for the sake of living responsibly, respectfully and righteously with others.

The idea that one should take responsibility for one’s actions has been supplanted by the assumption that one should find someone else to blame (and often to sue) when something we do turns out wrong. A contemporary prayer might well sound like, “For all these sins we have committed, You made us do it, they made us do it, anyone but us made us do it… . You’ll be hearing from our lawyer.”

The departure point of the religion of ancient Israel, and of later Judaism, was quite distinct from an evasion of responsibility. It was the concept of covenant — the idea that there could be a binding agreement between two parties to which they committed with hesed, dependable and reliable loyalty, fidelity, honesty and responsibility. Everything is not allowed, and what is especially sinful are those acts that violate the covenantal relationships that we need and that we build.

In our age of autonomy and individualism, perhaps the inverse of “sin” needs to be “covenant.” When we fail to be dependable, when we are unreliable, when we deceive, and when we fail to live up to obligations into which we have entered, we sin. When we lose sight of the difference between what we want and what we need; when we forget the priority between what we want and what others want of us; when we act in the moment with no regard for what came before . and what will come after, we sin.

Can we still give the concept of sin the gravity, seriousness and sense of consequence that our ancestors understood when they gathered on Yom Kippur to confess “for all these [sins], God of forgiveness, forgive us, pardon us, grant us atonement”? Atonement is a far cry from encouragement. Speaking for many traditional believers, Dostoyevsky wrote, “Without God … everything is allowed” (The Brothers Karamazov). Is everything, in fact, “allowed” in a universe of moral relativism?

Reconstructionists cannot turn to an allegedly objective universal standard of moral comportment established and sanctioned by a supernatural God. We recognize the moral imperatives of Jewish tradition as humanly-constructed efforts to live a faithful, righteous and responsible life characterized by justice and compassion. Our ethical advances from generation to generation are gradual; our awareness of changing patterns of morality cautions us about asserting absolutes. Like all human projects, ours is tentative and fallible, not perfect and authoritative. But this makes it more, not less, important that we take on the responsibility for judgment, atonement, apology and repentance.

Sin is like a contaminant — it adheres unless it is eradicated; it increases if it is ignored. Sin is found in the dark corners of our lives: in our ability to corrupt what is decent; to destroy in one thoughtless moment of irresponsibility what can take a lifetime to build; to deceive others and ourselves; in our compromises, excuses, disingenuousness and secrets; and in our inability to hold ourselves — and, perhaps more difficult, to hold each other —accountable, instead of excusable.

Can a Reconstructionist sin? Like all human beings, we not only can but will — not only in the simple sense of “missing the mark,” but by forgetting what it is we are aiming for in the first place. The soaring melody of the Ashamnu, and the congregational chanting of the Al Het, are moving, and the solidarity we experience standing with our communities is reassuring. But beyond this emotional and aesthetic experience, we should not forget the meaning of the words. In order to find the courage and the humility to confess sin, we must first be able to confront sin.

Assistant Rabbi, M'kor Shalom

Related Resources

God in Metaphor: A Guide for the Perplexed

Rabbi Toba Spitzer explores the obstacles to prayer posed by stale language about God, and suggests new language that may ease our way in finding connection.

Article
News and Blogs

Evolve: Sowing the Seeds of Constructive Evolution

Reconstructing Judaism has just rolled out Evolve: Groundbreaking Jewish Conversations with the intention of hosting difficult, groundbreaking conversations that are nevertheless mutually respectful and supportive. We invite you to visit Evolve and to join the conversations!

News
News and Blogs

Gathering Together

As we continue to develop new ways to build community across time and distance, we must also continue to find ways to “be there” for one another.

News
News and Blogs

Why Belong?

Why belong to the Jewish people? Why belong to a synagogue? Why belong to the Reconstructionist movement? These are some of the most important questions that I am asked and that I, along with all of us at Reconstructing Judaism, strive to answer powerfully and convincingly.

News
News and Blogs

Does The Torah Require Us To Publicize Names Of Sexual Abusers?

What does Judaism teach us about how to respond to accusations of harassment or assault?

News

Moses' Encounters with God

Rabbi Maurice Harris examines the Torah’s treatment of Moses’ up-close encounters with God.

Spoken Audio

"Where Was God?" - Lesson Plan On Natural Disasters and Parashat Noah

During disasters and their aftermaths, many people wonder about God’s role in their suffering. This lesson seeks to explore God’s role in tragedy from a Jewish Reconstructionist perspective. This lesson is intended for children ages 8-12.

Document

How Can Reconstructionists Pray?

How does a non-supernatural notion of God fit together with the practice of prayer? Rabbi Jacob Staub explores their intersection. 

Article

If God Is Good, Why Do Pain and Suffering Exist?

The question is an old and venerable one: If God is good, and God is all-knowing, and God is all-powerful, then why is there so much pain and suffering in the world? Rabbi Jacob Staub explores this longstanding question. 

Article

Shavuot: The Harvest Festival of Torah

Reconstructionist Jews believe that the Jewish people created the Torah and the Torah, in turn, has created and recreated the Jewish people throughout history. Shavuot, the festival of giving and receiving the Torah, should be central to our communal life. 

Article

Finding Holiness in Everyday Experience

In this award-winning High Holiday sermon, RRC student Elyssa Cherney explores where holiness resides.

Sermon

Theology Through Jewish Civilization

In this text study, Rabbi James Greene examines diverse ideas of God throughout the evolution of Jewish civilization. 

Document

Yigdal: A Reconstructionist Examination

Yigdal, one of the most beloved of the medieval piyyutim (liturgical poems) summarizes the thirteen principles of the Jewish faith as formulated by Moses Maimonides (RaMBaM; late 12th century C.E.). Reconstructionists often proudly assert that when we pray with a Reconstructionist siddur, we feel that we can 'say what we mean and mean what we say,' because our liturgical language reflects Reconstructionist theology. How might a Reconstructionist interpret the words of Yigdal in this way?

Document

Exploration of God Beliefs: A Teen Program

This pilot program for Jewish teen education provides several activities for exploring and sharing beliefs about God. 

Document

When You Say God, What Do You Mean?

When we say “God” what do we mean? Ideas of God have changed dramatically over Jewish history. These Powerpoint slides explore some of that evolution. These slides accompanied Rabbi Maurice Harris’s talk from the Global Day of Jewish Learning, 2010.

Document