CJ: Voices of Conservative/Masorti Judaism

  Read the article

When Steven Wernick was a rabbi in Philadelphia, a member of his synagogue asked him a question that caught him completely off-guard. “Rabbi,” the man said. “I have to ask you something. I’ve been a member of this synagogue for two years. For the last year I’ve been taking my daughter to synagogue virtually every single Shabbat. Most people in this synagogue don’t even realize that I’m not Jewish. How come you’ve never asked me to convert? Is there something wrong with me?”

Wernick, floored, invited the man to begin conversion classes, which he did. For Wernick, it was an eye-opening moment. “What would it mean,” he asks today, “to really step up and say that Judaism is a world class religious tradition, one that’s worthy of other people’s interest to convert to and to participate in?”

Traditionally, Jews do not encourage people to consider conversion. Once someone does express an interest in becoming Jewish, it’s customary to dissuade him three times. These practices date back to a time when Jews were very suspicious of outsiders. That’s less relevant today. “The custom of turning someone away three times is not in Jewish law,” notes Rabbi Stephen Lerner, the director of the Center for Conversion to Judaism in New York City. Lerner has guided close to 1,500 people toward conversion. While he wants to make sure that potential converts are serious, he places a priority on being welcoming.

Most of Lerner’s conversion students have chosen Judaism because they’re in a relationship with someone Jewish. While nobody advocates pressuring non-Jewish spouses to convert, a number of rabbis have argued that one way to address intermarriage is to make conversion seem like a more viable option for couples who might otherwise be hesitant – or, like Wernick’s congregant, simply not know where to begin.

Conversion in the Conservative movement generally involves classes, attendance at services, and meetings with a rabbi, culminating in an appearance before a rabbinical court and a dip in the mikvah. The whole process usually takes between nine months and a year. Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove of Park Avenue Synagogue in New York would like to speed that up – or, more accurately, flip it on its head. Citing a famous story about Hillel, in which the sage converts a man who’s standing on one foot, Cosgrove has proposed performing the conversion first, and holding the classes afterward. In the face of rising intermarriage rates, this is “a policy aimed to create the maximum number of halachically defined Jewish families,” he writes.

When couples ask about conversion, Cosgrove explained in an interview, “The first response of the Jewish community should be, ‘Yes! How can we make this happen?’” Is his proposal halakhically acceptable? On this point, Jewish law is vague. “I’m not declaring lobster kosher,” says Cosgrove. “I’m asking a question that to the best of my knowledge exists in a halakhic grey area.”

Even without such speedy conversions, there are probably ways that Conservative communities could make conversion more accessible. Rabbi Adam Greenwald, director of the Miller Introduction to Judaism Program in Los Angeles, points out that financial obstacles, for instance, can make conversion seem less than welcoming. Potential converts pay several hundred dollars for a class. Then they pay for the mikvah. Then they go to a shul, where, says Greenwald, “They say, ’Great, we’re happy to have you as a member. Now give us money.’” That financial burden tends to fall on young couples, the demographic that can least afford it. “We need to make this available and possible for everyone,” Greenwald argues.

The simplest approach, perhaps, is for the movement to speak more openly about conversion. Jack Wertheimer, a professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, argues that Conservative communities should have ambassadors: “Let’s send out formerly intermarried families where the non-Jewish spouse had converted to Judaism, who might testify in the sense of speaking publicly about their own family’s experiences and why this conversion to Judaism helped their family life, strengthened their family life, and certainly strengthened their children’s commitment to Jewish life.”

Wertheimer suggests that conversion can be a kind of Conservative niche. “What the Conservative movement could do to be quite distinctive, because neither the Orthodox nor the Reform are doing this, is to be the movement that says, if you intermarry we will do everything possible to educate you as to the virtues, to the benefits, of unambiguously Jewish family life,” he says. The line between promoting conversion and unintentionally discouraging it, though, can be very fine. Greenwald, for example, has had many students who decide to convert, but say they would have left their introduction to Judaism classes immediately had they sensed any pressure. “I think we do better by not pushing,” he says.

It’s important to remember, too, that many non-Jews raise Jewish families and play an active role in their synagogues. Their reasons for not converting are manifold. Becoming Jewish is a very personal, and in some families very fraught, decision. Recognizing the range of Jewish involvement and identities, sociologist Steven M. Cohen has suggested creating a way to have some kind of official Jewish identification without undergoing religious conversion. Rabbi Ed Feinstein of Valley Beth Shalom in Los Angeles, in a similar vein, speculates about having some kind of green card to Judaism – a kind of intermediate step toward conversion.

What’s clear is that the old model of turning away potential converts is a thing of the past. When it comes to conversion, says Cosgrove, “We should see ourselves as agents, not gatekeepers.”

The post The “Conversion” Conversation appeared first on National Center to Encourage Judaism.

Op-Ed: Why Conservative Judaism Should Accept Patrilineal Jews

By Charles Simon | November 25, 2015 4:05pm | JTA

NEW YORK (JTA) – There’s a lot to celebrate in the Conservative movement, despite the news about our shrinking numbers. Our rabbis are finding new ways to connect with congregants. Our movement remains committed to kashrut, daily prayer, Shabbat and holiday observance. Our synagogues have become energetic, vibrant places that welcome people of color, people of different sexual orientations and people who may not even count themselves as Jews.

Conservative institutions, however, are not as effective as they could be. While our movement’s three central organizations – the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly and the Jewish Theological Seminary – are attempting to provide guidance, resources and support to help communities cope with the dramatic demographic changes affecting Conservative Jewry, they remain hampered by their traditional understanding of Jewish law and the culture that has shaped it.

It’s not easy to change institutional culture, and our movement’s central institutions are trying. But until they successfully complete that process, the distance between our institutions and what is happening in our communities is growing. This gap is forcing Conservative rabbis to address the momentous generational challenges facing our communities more or less on their own.

This is especially the case when it comes to so-called patrilineal Jews – those born to Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers who have been raised as Jews.

Many communities, after some serious soul-searching, have come to believe that the Conservative movement’s longstanding rule defining Jewish status as wholly dependent on the mother’s religion is a growing impediment to Jewish growth. They understand that smaller isn’t better and that the demographic wave of intermarriage cannot be reversed. They believe that the guidelines established for Conservative rabbis and their congregations more than 40 years ago are outdated, and that new and different strategies are required to address today’s challenges.

For now, these rabbis must determine how much flexibility exists within the legal system that governs us or whether, in order to meet the needs of current and future generations, they will ignore Conservative rules – at risk of expulsion from the movement.

These are difficult decisions, though some parts are easier than others. When a child born to a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother registers for religious school, our synagogues usually make clear at the outset that after a certain number of years, the parents will have to decide whether or not the child will undergo conversion. If not, the child cannot have a bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah.

Things are more difficult when it comes to weddings. How should a Conservative rabbi respond when a woman the rabbi has known her entire life wants to wed a partner who was raised as a Reform Jew but does not qualify as Jewish because his mother was not Jewish?

Many of my colleagues urge these patrilineal Jews to undergo formal conversion, including mikvah and ritual circumcision, or if necessary actual circumcision, to obviate problems down the road. In the event that the person in question is insulted or put off, there’s not much we rabbis can do. We are not allowed to officiate at weddings involving patrilineal Jews.

These are not rare cases. They are becoming more and more frequent. We need solutions. While some rabbis simply may tell the couple “I’m sorry, I cannot officiate at your wedding,” others might choose an alternative given their belief that the couple will live Jewish lives and raise their children as Jews.

The irony about the Conservative Jewish debate on patrilineal descent is that for the most part, the matter already has been decided. I can’t think of any Conservative synagogue that is turning away members. No one checks or most likely even asks about the bloodline of an adult.

When it comes to weddings, however, the problem cannot be avoided. When that couple gets married, do we want a Conservative rabbi standing with them under the huppah, a rabbi from a more liberal movement or no rabbi at all?

My colleagues grieve about this because they are prohibited even from attending a wedding where one partner is not considered Jewish by our definition. Do we really have to draw that line? There must be a better way.

I see two possible future scenarios given the disconnect between the standards our institutions insist upon and the reality of the Conservative Jewish landscape.

One, the leaders of the movement and its institutions affirm the values that unite us but cease to impose rules that restrict what rabbis can do in their own communities regarding matters of personal status – birth celebrations, b’nai mitzvah, weddings and divorces. This could result in significant growth for our movement.

Two, congregations continue to engage people in innovative ways without worrying about their affiliation with Conservative umbrella institutions that might censure their behavior or even expel them as members. This will strengthen congregations while weakening the influence of the movement.

I have had the privilege to visit 30-50 Conservative and Masorti congregations in North America and all over the world every year during my three decades as executive director of the Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs. Their work continues to encourage me. Despite everything, we’re still doing many things that are very right. I think we can do this better.

(Rabbi Charles Simon is executive director of the Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs, the male volunteer arm of the Conservative movement, and the author of “Intermarriage: Concepts and Strategies for Families and Synagogue Leaders.”)

The post Patrilineal Descent appeared first on National Center to Encourage Judaism.

ELKINS PARK, Pa. (JTA) — The Conservative movement’s leadership must drop its ban on Conservative rabbis officiating at interfaith weddings — before it’s too late.

The Rabbinical Assembly’s unequivocal rule is that a Conservative rabbi may not officiate at an intermarriage. But after 42 years as an active rabbi, during which I abided by that prohibition, I now believe it is no longer in the best interests of Conservative Judaism or the Jewish community.

Reality has overtaken us. Sixty percent of Jews who wed marry someone from another faith. The Conservative movement’s prohibition is ineffective as policy if our goal is to reduce intermarriage. It is counterproductive if we are trying to influence Jewish souls and bring them closer to the Jewish community. It needs to be modified if we are to serve our congregants faithfully.

We all want a strong future for our Jewish community. Intermarriage, the argument goes, weakens that future. But that’s not necessarily so.

In most cases of intermarriage, Jewish partners are not abandoning Judaism or rejecting their heritage, family, congregation or people. They just want to marry the people they love.

Often they want a “Jewish wedding,” which is why they want the officiant to be a rabbi, preferably one with whom they have a relationship. That is why they are so hurt when we refuse.

As they plan their interfaith ceremony, they learn more about the elements of a Jewish wedding. They typically choose to have a huppah, blessings over wine, seven marriage blessings, a ketubah and the breaking of the glass. They include these elements not to please their parents but for themselves. They often express surprise at how important these rituals turn out to be for them.

We do not know which interfaith couples will raise their children as Jews. We do not know which of their children — whether their parents raise them as Jews or not — will want to claim their own Jewish identity. The landmark 2013 Pew Research Center study of U.S. Jewry found that among millennials, 61 percent of those born to intermarried couples consider themselves Jewish.

We need to recognize that even when two Jews marry, there is no guarantee that their children will be dedicated Jews.

Some argue that if Conservative rabbis officiate at intermarriages, it will further lower Jewish standards and encourage intermarriage.

This is nonsense. It is delusional to think that a rabbi’s refusal to officiate will change any couple’s mind about whether to wed. Who would forgo a life with their beloved just because their beloved rabbi can’t be at their wedding ceremony?

The Conservative movement has approached intermarriage with ambivalence. Rabbis must refuse to be part of intermarriage ceremonies (we’re not even supposed to attend such ceremonies, though many of us do), but after the wedding we open our arms to the newly married couple and invite them to become part of our community.

But those we push away on Saturday night are not so ready to come back on Sunday morning. It is not easy to get over the initial sting of rejection and the stigma of the ambivalent way we view their marriage.

For a decade or so before my retirement from the pulpit in 2014, I increasingly felt uncomfortable sending young people for whom I had been their lifelong rabbi and our congregation their lifelong place of worship to a rabbi they did not know to perform the most sacred ceremony of their life just because their beloved was not Jewish. I felt I was abandoning them.

The issue became personal after I retired. My stepdaughter became engaged to someone who is not Jewish. Initially I thought I would approach one of my Reform colleagues to do the ceremony. But the couple wanted me to marry them, not a stranger. We talked about it. They wanted the ceremony to be as Jewish as possible. The religious symbolism would be exclusively Jewish, and I would be the only clergy officiating.

So I agreed. Looking back, I can’t believe I even gave it a second thought. Since then, I have agreed to do similar ceremonies for people dear to me, out of a sense of friendship, loyalty and love. In each case, I have been impressed by the sincerity of the couples and their desire to make their wedding both a personal and Jewish statement. I have been touched by their gratitude for my presence as a rabbi, blessing their most emotionally intimate moment in life and affirming the promise of their place in the Jewish community.

We can no longer stand on the sidelines, piously refusing to involve ourselves in intermarriage ceremonies. If we extend ourselves with acceptance, if we affirm the legitimacy of the loving choices people make by agreeing to be part of their ceremonies, more couples would be inclined to seek the spiritual fulfillment that comes from Jewish commitment.

At the very least, a superfluous impediment to couples’ involvement in our Conservative Jewish houses of worship would be removed.

(Rabbi Seymour Rosenbloom retired recently after 36 years as spiritual leader of Congregation Adath Jeshurun in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. He is now the president of the Jewish Social Policy Action Network.)

The post Allow Conservative Rabbis to Officiate at Interfaith Weddings appeared first on National Center to Encourage Judaism.