To Officiate or Not to Officiate

Because the session on intermarriage was exclusive to rabbis and off the record, I am not at liberty to discuss with you the nature of the deliberations that took place in Baltimore two weeks ago at the Rabbinical Assembly convention, the annual international meeting of Conservative rabbis. The positions that were staked out, who said what – myself included – and whether it was white or black smoke that emerged at the conclusion of the session are – at least until the WikiLeaks release of the emails – private matters. Nevertheless, given that everyone in this sanctuary does in fact breathe, what I can share with you is that in North America today intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews does in fact exist.

As is well known since the last Pew study, among non-Orthodox Jews who have married since 2000, some seventy-two percent are intermarried – a statistic that undoubtedly plays out in many, if not all, of our families. The question on the table for all of American Jewry, and – for reasons that I will explain – especially for the Conservative Movement, is how the rabbinic community should respond to this reality. To officiate or not to officiate – that is the question. When a Jew falls in love with a non-Jew, should a rabbi – as a communal leader, as a teacher and exemplar of our tradition, as pastor to a flock – stand under the huppah to consecrate that couple’ affections? The session I attended would never have happened at a Reform or Orthodox rabbinical convention. In the case of the former, the decision to allow officiating at intermarriages was decided decades ago. In the case of the latter, it is a question that would never be countenanced or brought to debate. Presently, if a Conservative rabbi officiates at an intermarriage, it is cause for expulsion from the Rabbinical Assembly, and yet - as evidenced by the very fact of the special session, as a movement we clearly are squirming. 

Given that neither intermarriage nor the question of officiating is new, you may rightly wonder why the renewed debate. Part of the answer is to be found in a recently published study on the subject from the Cohen Center of Brandeis University. The survey studied some 1200 post-Birthright married couples who, roughly speaking, can be divided into three buckets: in-married couples for whom a rabbi was the sole officiant at their wedding; intermarried couples for whom a rabbi was the sole officiant at their wedding (presumably a Reform rabbi); and finally, intermarried couples who were married by a justice of the peace or other officiant. The study followed the trajectories of these couples to see whether there were any differences in their Jewish engagement in the years that followed. The brouhaha, if you will, that has emerged is the study’s finding that when it comes to synagogue attendance, keeping kosher, Sabbath observance, and other indicators of Jewish engagement, while there is a large gap in Jewish engagement between those couples married by a rabbi and those not married by a rabbi, it is a statistical dead heat in Jewish engagement between in-married and intermarried couples for whom a rabbi was the sole officiant. Simply put, couples with a rabbi officiating, in-married or intermarried, have a higher rate of Jewish engagement.

Given these findings, there are now people in the Conservative Movement asking, understandably, if the data points to the positive impact of rabbinic officiation on shaping the Jewish lives of these intermarried families, then – despite the biblical and rabbinic prohibitions on intermarriage – how can we, as stakeholders in the Jewish future, not be present for these couples? Is it at all surprising, if, at the critical moment of establishing a home, their rabbis (and by extension, the Jewish world) turn their backs on them, that these couples should then turn their backs on Jewish life and living in the future? In an era of contracting synagogues and diminishing market share, is it not time for the Conservative Movement to do the responsible and forward-looking thing by serving these couples and thus serving the Jewish future?

The argument is a forceful one, and not, let me state clearly, without its merits. It is a discussion that, under Rabbi Zuckerman’s direction, we will be having as a community into the months and years to come, beginning with a session on April 4 with Dr. Leonard Saxe, director of the aforementioned center at Brandeis University. But before we start changing policy, or getting me and my colleagues thrown out of the rabbinate, I would ask you to indulge me in hearing me out with a few thoughts on the subject.

First and foremost, as the authors of the study acknowledge, their findings do not account for pre-existing differences among the couples studied. Is the relationship between rabbinic officiation and future Jewish engagement a causal one or simply reflective of the predispositions of those couples? Meaning, are the intermarried couples married by a rabbi more Jewishly engaged because a rabbi officiated at their wedding, or was their decision to have a rabbi officiate their wedding a reflection of the fact that they were already more inclined to be engaged? The study does not and cannot answer this question, and until it does, it strikes me as ill-considered to change thousands of years of Jewish tradition based on data whose meaning is yet to be fully understood.

Second, and at risk of stating the obvious, Conservative rabbis should not jump to officiate intermarriages because doing so is against Jewish law. Of course Jewish law can, and oftentimes should, change. Anyone who knows me would, I think, characterize and categorize me as a rather progressively minded rabbi. And yet, if the definition of a Jewish wedding, normatively or halachically (according to Jewish law), is a wedding between two Jews, then rabbinic officiation should be reserved for such occasions. I do not begrudge a young Jew for falling in love with a non-Jew. Statistically speaking, in this day and age, it is intellectually indefensible not to be open to the possibility. More importantly, and speaking from the heart – from the depths of my heart – I get it, I really do get it. Falling in love is a reflection of the powerful and beautiful effect two souls can have on one another and on their shared dream of building a life together, and a Jew’s falling in love with a non-Jew is not due to any defect of character or deficiency in his or her upbringing. But just because a rabbi understands it does not mean she or he must be expected to bless it. Just as every individual has every right to choose his or her partner, Jewish law has the right to limit what it can and cannot accommodate. As Truman Capote once wrote, “The problem with living outside of the law is that you no longer have its protection,” or in this instance, its sanction. It is symptomatic of the bespoke, boutique nature of our age that the representatives of a tradition are called on to uproot that very tradition in response to the choices people make. Not every choice Jews make deserves to be validated by Jewish law; not every decision receives the imprimatur of Judaism.

Third, and perhaps most substantively, I don’t think Conservative rabbis should rush too quickly to perform intermarriages for the simple reason that as a parent, as a rabbi, and as a shaper of Jewish community and identity, I unapologetically want young Jews to marry other Jews. Rabbinic officiation at intermarriages signals an implicit and explicit leveling of the field, sending the message that all choices are equal, a message that I do not think wise given the undisputed place in-marriage has as the single most important determinant in ensuring Jewish continuity. Regardless of the legal prohibition or threat of expulsion, I fear that if Conservative rabbis officiate at intermarriages, we will lose our ability to argue for the preeminent importance of in-marriage in our synagogues, in the community-at-large, and in our own homes.

The Conservative Movement, this synagogue included, has a unique, delicate, and critically important message to communicate and role to play in the landscape of American Jewish life. First, we say loudly and proudly that we want young Jews to marry other young Jews. Second, if a Jew should fall in love with a non-Jew, as they are statistically more likely to do than not, then we want them to know that the path to conversion, to becoming a halachically defined Jew, is warm, embracing, and altogether doable – a subject to which I will turn to at some length two weeks from today. And third, if for whatever reason – and there are many reasons – conversion is not an option, then I want those interfaith couples to know that here in Park Avenue Synagogue and Conservative synagogues like ours, we will help you build a Jewish family and future – all the while respecting the spiritual integrity of the non-Jewish member of your Jewish family. Less discussed than the Brandeis study was another report emerging out of Boston’s Combined Jewish Philanthropies studying the demonstrable impact of interfaith outreach, education, and engagement on nurturing Jewish identity. As individuals, as families, and as a community, we must on the one hand live a model of Jewish life so vibrant that our children and our children’s children are predisposed to “lean in” toward Jewish engagement and marrying Jewish. And when – because it is only a matter of “when” and not “if” – an intermarriage occurs, we must be just as passionate in creating a culture of warm embrace for Jew and non-Jew alike. The message is not a simple one – it doesn’t fit neatly on a Twitter feed – but that is what this community stands for, and tempting as it may be to change millennia-old policy on a dime, as open and as excited as I am for the communal conversation to come, it is a policy that will continue to be in place for the foreseeable future.

The challenge for the Conservative Movement, as for any self-respecting organization, is how to maintain mission authenticity and market relevance at one and the same time. Ours is a time, no different than that of Queen Esther, when Jews live among non-Jews, speak in the vernacular, adopt the names of our host society, and, in some cases, integrate into the homes and hearts of our non-Jewish neighbors. The Reform and Orthodox Movements have staked out their territory and should be commended for doing so. I believe there is a differentiated and critically important role for the Conservative Movement to play – as the movement loyal both to tradition and the realities of our time. No different than Queen Esther herself, at some point we must ask ourselves for what reason we have arrived at this station. In this case, on this issue, there is an identifiable reason and clear path forward that is ours to take. The only question is whether we will do so or not. I look forward to continuing to share my vision for us two weeks from today.