JEWISH COMMUNAL POLICY TOWARD OUTMARRIED FAMILIES The Question of Outreach

CHARLES S. LIEBMAN, PH.D. Yehuda A vner Professor of Politics and Religion, Bar Ilan University and SYLVIA BARACK FISHMAN, PH.D. Associate Professor of Contemporary Jewish Life in the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Department and Co-Director of the Hadassah International Research Institute on Jewish Women, Brandeis University

The communal debate over outreach to outmarried families focuses on the wrong issue. Intermarriage is not the cause of assimilation but rather a symptom. The values held by many American Jews lead to intermarriage.

ewish communal policy toward outmarried nized Jewish community, whethei it is a syna­ Jfamilies is more complicated than it some­ gogue, a national synagogue movement, or a times appears. Having done a great deal of Jewish communal agency such as a Jewish reading, research, and some interviewing over Community Center, a Jewish family agency, or the last six months we have each arrived at a local Jewish federation, should do about it. conclusions far more complex than our initial We conclude that those engaged in the debate expectations. over outreach are focusing their attention on In light of this we are obliged to begin with the wrong issue. a personal observation. We would not want our attention to these complexities to be mis­ THE DEBATE OVER OUTREACH understood as condoning intermarriage. Ev­ Communal policy to the outmarried is of ery smdy indicates that outmarriage is associ­ concern to rabbis, professional leaders of Jew­ ated with lower levels of Jewish identity and ish organizations, lay leaders, and scholars involvement. As Steven Cohen (1998, p. 44) who study contemporary Jewish life. The points out, this is not only because the "less debate has centered around several issues; Jewishly identified individuals are more likely including the following: Should the Jewish to marry non-Jews," but even holding con­ conmiunity employ Jewish professionals and stant for initial identification, "mixed marriage teachers who ostensibly serve as role models produces lower levels of Jewish involvement and who are married to non-Jews; should non- than would otherwise be the case." However, Jews be encouraged to participate in such our opposition to intermarriage is not based religious ceremonies as lighting Shabbat solely on its measurable impact upon Jewish candles in a synagogue or being called to the continuity and survival. We believe that inter­ Torah on the occasion ofthe Bar or Bat Mitzvah marriage (the marriage between a Jew and celebiafion of a family membei; should a non- someone who is not Jewish) is a radical break Jewish child be allowed to enroll in a Jewish with historical Jewish communities, Jewish school, and does it make a difference whether religious belief, and previous generations of that child is simultaneously emolled in a church Jewish individuals. piogram. The most controversial of all topics, The question that we explore, therefore, is at least in terms of the volume of printed not whether mixed marriage can be justified— mateiial on the topic is what kinds of outreach in our opinion it cannot—but what the orga­ should be extended to intermarried couples.

17 Joumal of Jewish Communal Service / 18

Today, most synagogue movements, in­ couples and, if they do sponsor such pro­ cluding the Orthodox, have outreach programs. grams, what should be their namre. The two In many respects, the Orthodox have the most questions are related, but must be distin­ successful of all outreach programs. Indeed, guished from one another. While we begm the leader of die Reform movement, in a speech with the conttoversy surrounding the first of to which we subsequently refer, has expressed these questions, it is the second question that his envy of Chabad's outreach programs. has become far more critical but has been However, we begin by defining outreach the overlooked. We do not focus on the Orthodox- way opponents to the program imagine it: run organizations, such as Rabbi Ephraim efforts by the Jewish community—that is by Buchwald's National Jewish Outteach pro­ synagogues, Jewish Community Centers, fed­ gram of which we heartily approve, as their eration agencies, and others—to provide for­ "tough" position on intermarriage often ex­ mal and informal programs geared exclusively cludes them from the communal debate. We to the interests and to the "needs" of mixed also have not focused on the Reconstructionist married couples, as these couples themselves movement, but our impression is that its posi­ express those needs. Our discussion of out­ tion on intermarriage issues is similar to that of reach does not address programs for Jews who Reform. may be synagogue members but know little or nothing about Judaism, or programs for Jews Arguments in Favor of Outreach who are unaffiliated with any Jewish institu­ The argument in favor of outteach pro­ tion, or programs for non-Jews leading toward grams has a variety of nuances, but its general conversion. Rather, it focuses only on pro­ thrust is clear. Mixed marriage, the argument grams designed for interfaith couples with the goes, is inevitable in the open society that we goal of acquainting them with Judaism, so that enjoy. According to Rabbi Eric Yoffie (1992, the intermarried couple will feel more comfort­ p. 2), president of the Union of American able in a Jewish milieu or introducing aspects Hebrew Congregations, "Intermarriage, of of Judaism into their homes. course, is a product of modemity and not of Rabbi Alan Silverstein (1991) of die Con­ any religious stream; the only way to stamp it servative movement usefully suggested that out would be to retum the Jews to the medieval we distinguish between programs that he la­ ghetto." This statement is an unfortunate bels Keruv and outreach. Keruv comes from example of how proponents of outteach exag­ the Hebrew word karov, meaning close. gerate a position in order to undermine it. Silverstein would apply the label keruv to Nobody thinks it possible or worth attempting programs that "attempt to bring Jews and their to "stamp out" intermarriage. The goal is to non-Jewish spouses closer to us and to our contain it. established communal standards" [emphasis Outteach advocates argue that intermar­ not in original]. He would limit the term "out­ riage is likely to increase in the fumre. There­ reach" to nonjudgmental programs designed fore, unless die community commits resources primarily to help the intermarried couple and to welcoming interfaith couples and making especially the Gentile spouse feel more athome them aware of Judaism, regardless of whether in the Jewish conununity or to quote from the the non-Jewish party is interested in conver­ Jewish Oufreach Institute's definition of its sion, we will experience a substantial diminu­ own task: "preserving the Jewish continuity of tion in the size of the Jewish community in the interdating couples and intermarried families, coming decades, perhaps to the point where and promoting their inclusion in the Jewish the Jewish community in the United States will community" [emphasis not in origmal]. no longer be able to sustain itself We initially undertook to study two ques­ It is commonplace to atttibute the begin­ tions : whether the Jewish community ought to ning of serious efforts to reach out to intermar­ sponsor outteach programs to intermarried ried couples with a speech by the then-presi-

FALL 2000 Jewish Communal Policy toward Outmarried Families / 19 dent of the Union of American Hebrew Con­ that mixed marriage occurs almost randomly gregations, Rabbi Alexander Schindler in De­ among Jews and there is virtually nothing that cember, 1978 in whose wake the rabbinical and can be done to prevent it. This argument is synagogue arms of the Reform movement cre­ false, as demonstrated by numerous recently ated a Commission on Reform Jewish Out­ published smdies. reach. We remrn to Rabbi Schindler later in this Bmce Phillips (1996), for example, found essay as we discuss the controversy over the four factors associated with reduced rates of namre of outreach programs. intermarriage: the Jewishness of the parental family, the extensiveness of formal Jewish Arguments against Outreach education; participation in informal Jewish education, such as youth groups, camping, The argument against outreach programs and other experiences of this type; and the is much more complex. Leading Jewish profes­ extent to which high-school dating pattems sionals, rabbis, or scholars seem loathe to were primarily with Jewish friends. Phillips advance the position that no communal effort notes that even among teenagers who did not should be directed to outreach. There prob­ remember thinking it was important to marry a ably are Jewish professionals who privately Jew, those who dated mostly Jews ended up advocate this position, but none do so pub­ being far more likely to marry another Jew (79 licly, perhaps because opposing outreach percent) than those who dated an equal num­ sounds harsh and insensitive and also quix­ ber of non-Jews and Jews (54 percent). While otic. Does one really want to paint oneself into acknowledging that both formal and informal a comer and oppose programs geared to the Jewish education and the likelihood of dating special needs of interfaith families anxious to Jews in high school are all connected in some leam more about Judaism? Will this not dis­ ways with the Jewish milieu ofthe household, courage conversion by the gentile partner? Phillips' data demonstrate conclusively that Furthermore, the greatmajority of Jews, includ­ each of these three factors was also signifi­ ing very wealthy contributors to Jewish fed­ cantly associated with reduced mixed mar­ erations and synagogue movements, favor riage, independent of the Jewishness of the these programs. It seems likely that the Jewish family of origin. community is determined to undertake out­ Sylvia Baiack Fishman and Alice Goldstein reach programs regardless of the merits of the make a case that years and intensity of formal arguments against them. Jewish education create a dramatically uneven Rabbi Eric Yoffie is probably correct when, playing field (Fishman & Goldstein, 1993; in an allusion to Conservative movement lead­ Goldstein & Fishman, 1993). As Fishman (2000, ers, he says (1992, p. 2): pp. 80-81) notes in her new book, Jewish Life and American Culture, the effect of substan­ On no issue is there a greater gap between tial formal Jewish education—six or more years leadership and membership than on the out­ of classes at least several times a week—is reach question. North American Jews of all particularly striking among younger Jewish stripes want energetic outreach to intermarried adults, ages 25 to 44: Jews and Jews-by-choice in order to save them for the Jewish people. They want their Jewish Inmarriages are found among 51 percent of Jews community to be doing vigorously and without ages 25 to 44 who receive six years of supple­ apology what we have already been doing for mentary school education, 80 percent of those twenty years. who receive nine or more years of day school [and] 91 percent of those who receive nine or Those against outreach argue that the un­ more years of day school. In contrast, 34 derlying assumption of the advocates of out­ percent of Jews ages 25 to 44 who received no reach is inaccurate. This assumption holds Jewish education married another Jew.

FALL 2000 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 20

Fishman shows that the impact of Jewish programs. In fact, the mixed marrieds who education on this population crosses denomi­ reported the greatest interest in outreach pro­ national lines, citing the fact that of recent grams were couples where one partner identi­ marriages including a spouse who claimed to fies his or her religion as Jewish and the other have been brought up Orthodox, 20 percent as Christian rather than "no religion." Not were marriages to non-Jews, while nearly all surprisingly, these couples prefer programs raised-Orthodox respondents and nine out of "where our children could learn about both ten raised-Conservative respondents with types of the religions in our home" (Phillips, substantial Jewish education were married to 1996, p. 62). These are the kinds of programs another Jew. Significantly, even when a per­ that synagogues eschew. And most surpris­ son with substantial formal Jewish education ing of all, some studies suggest that the high­ marries a non-Jew, the Jewish partner is most est actual participation in outreach programs likely to encourage conversion. comes not from couples in which both or even Perhaps most importantly, Fishman and one partner identifies as Jewish but from mar­ Goldstein show that formal Jewish education riages where both partners identify themselves and the Jewishness of the home in which one as Christian, i.e. the born Jew now considers is raised are positively related to every behav­ him or herselfa Christian (p. 68). ior measured by the 1990 National Jewish In a study for the American Jewish Commit­ Population Survey, mcluding livmg m a Jewish tee that is nearing completion, Sylvia Barack milieu, rimal observance m the home, member­ Fishman is finding that outmarried couples ship in Jewish organizations, giving to Jewish who are raising some or all of their children as philanthropies, and opposing mixed marriage, Jews may make family religious decisions fauly both in theory and in practice. early in then marriage (Fishman, in press). The In addition, instimtional affiliations are also Jewish partners in many of these households related to rates of outmarriage. Bemard are deeply concemed that they be "fair" to Lazerwitz et al. (1998) note that rates of mixed their non-Jewish spouses and that they show marriage are much higher among those who are themselves willing to compromise. It is not not synagogue members, a finding recorded uncommon within these households for chil­ also within the individual movements. dren of one gender to be raised as Christians Thus, outmarriage is not a tidal wave that while those of the other gender are raised as carries away individuals randomly regardless Jews. Even where all the children are raised as of their Jewish background or orientation. Jews, family festivities may include Christmas Jews who have acquired deep connections to trees and Easter hams "to show respect" for and knowledge of Judaism are far less likely to the Christian spouse's background and heri­ marry non-Jews than those whose connec­ tage. Yearly visits to candle-lit church services tions and knowledge base are shallow. Pre­ are sometimes part of this package. Almost vention of outmarriage is not a hopeless—or universally, couples who have devised these hopelessly outmoded—strategy. types of double ceremonial observances refer Second, outreach programs cost money. to the Jewish ceremonies as "religious" and to They are paid for, sometimes indirectly and the Christian ceremonies as "not religious, just often directly, from the Jewish communal cultural." Non-Jewish partners also articulate pocket, from money that can be used else­ resentment of the idea that Jews are a distinc­ where; for example, in educational programs tive people. While they can accept the concept for children and adults that may promote the of Judaism as a religion, they find unpalatable formation of committed Jewish homes. the concept of Jewishness as an ethnicity or a The third argument against outreach relies form of national destiny. on the work of Bmce Philips (1996, p. ix) who Without being drawn in by outreach pro­ points out that "the overwhelming majority of grams (and in many cases without even being mixed marrieds are not interested" in outreach aware of them), mixed marrieds raising Jewish

FALL 2000 Jewish Communal Policy toward Outmarried Families / 21 children investigate the policies of local syna­ mitting the basics of Judaism to people who gogues toward non-Jewish spouses and tend know little or nothing about the tradition de­ to join those institutions where all are wel­ pends to a great extent on who is conveying come. the information. This argument is not, to the It should surprise no one, therefore, that best of our knowledge, to be found in print, but many religious instimtions seem unable to is of concern to some who are themselves resist the temptation to become more and more engaged in the funding and planning of out­ user-friendly to outmarried couples, motivated reach programs. Thus, some Jewish Commu­ in part by ideology, in part by the natural nity Centers that sponsor outreach programs psychological desire to be liked, and in part by have added positions for Jewish educators to the pressures of membership rosters and fi­ supervise those programs, a move that some­ nancial considerations. In one large suburban times encounters resistance from existing staff Boston Reform temple, fot example, all If the programs are led by individuals who are congregants, not only mixed married families, fairly uninformed about tradition or who, by attend a pre-Thanksgiving candlelight cer­ the standards of the mainstream Jewish com­ emony in a local church, as a form of interfaith munity cannot properly serve as role models, cooperation. then the programs they lead are of little help, Carrying this boundary-obliterating behav­ regardless of how they are evaluated by their ior even further, outreach programs often paint participants. This is often the case where a false picmre of Judaism, our fourth argument outreach programs under non-synagogue against outreach. As the Reform/ sponsorship are conducted by social workers Reconstructionist Rabbi David Polish pointed and include little substantive Jewish content. out, "Outreach to mixed-marrieds, where suc­ As one example, the Reformmovement now cessful, will have a transforming effect upon advertises a five-day course for lay people Jewish institutions, possibly diluting Jewish (affiliated with a Reform synagogue) that will content" (citedby Bayme, 1997, p. 9). Steven train them to teach conversion classes. In all Cohen (1998, p. 44) notes with regard to out­ fairness, the program is designed to prepare reach programs that "whether they succeed or applicants to work with a congregational rabbi not, the impems to change the presentation of who presumably will teach the Jewish content Judaism, if not its namre, to suit the recruitment courses. of Jews married to Gentiles may prove irresist­ Every smdy of local and national Jewish ible." As Cohen finds in his national survey of populations has shown how powerful peer American Jews published i nl 998, mixed mar­ relationships are in setting standards and riage is associated with diminished religious maintaining behaviors. Friendship groups, involvement, but even more so with dimin­ camping and youth groups, and memberships ished ethnic involvement. Programs that seek in Jewish organizations have each been shown to present Judaism in an attractive light to to play roles in enhancing and reinforcing mixed married couples necessarily downplay Jewish identification. Peer group standards the ethnic and particularistic dimensions of can reinforce—or help erode—Jewish identifi­ Judaism, stressing instead the universalistic, cation. humanistic, ethical dimensions of the badi- Fot this reason, among others, Jewish lead­ tion. Jewish attachments to the state of Israel, ers need to carefully consider the wider rami­ for example, shared by the vast majority of fications of their policy decisions. It may well American Jews and closely correlated to Jew­ be that sponsoring outreach programs can be ish identity, are absent or downplayed in many counterproductive, because such programs programs, according to the charge, because may send the message that the Jewish commu­ they are aspects of Judaism that mixed mar- nity legitimates and supports mixed marriage. rieds fmd least attractive or comprehensible. Thus, even if such programs are completely Fifth, the success of any program in trans­ funded by outside sources, such as wealthy

FALL 2000 Joumal of Jewish Communal Service / 22 philanthropists, outreach programs may do Furthermore, unlike many non-synagogue pro­ more harm than good by unwittingly reinforc­ grams they do not incorporate the goal of ing the idea that outmarriage is normative in the makmg the non-Jew comfortable with Judaism, Jewish community. whether he or she decides to convert. How­ ever, outreach programs on the ground are not The Issues That Really necessarily run in the manner or with the same Divide the Community intentions that their designers had in mind. After looking at the question over the last Types of Outreach Programs six months and having made the case against outreach programs, we note that much of the There are three types of outreach programs. fuss is over symbol rather tiian substance. A In the first type the goal is to convert the non- good portion of the debate misses the point of Jewish partner. However, this goal is some- what really ails the Jewish community. tunes unplicit, rather than explicit. The primary We began our exploration on the assump­ goal of the second type ofprogram is convinc­ tion that outreach programs were designed to ing the intermarried couple to raise their chil­ reach out into the community to identify inter­ dren as Jews, even if the non-Jewish partner married couples. In fact, it is our impression refused to convert. The goal of the third type that increasingly outreach programs, at least of program is to infroduce Jewish elements into within synagogues, are designed for intermar­ the lives of intermarried couples, regardless of ried families who are already part of the syna­ whether elements of other religions are present gogue community in one form or another. As as well. the authors of a recent smdy note with regard to outreach {Planning for Jewish Continuity, Non-Sectarian Communal Agencies 1996,p.57), and Outreach

This third type of program is far more likely Origmally intended to reach out toward inter­ to be found in non-synagogue settings like married couples and families, the term "out­ Jewish Coinmunity Centers. Egon Mayer (1999, reach" has been expanded to include program­ p. 2), director of the Jewish Outreach Institute, ming targeted at virtually any specific unaffili­ endorses programs run under non-denomina­ ated or underaffiliated group of people, or iden­ tional auspices at Jewish Community Centers tifiable groups that are involved but have unmet and Jewish family service agencies rather than special needs. In addition to intermarried couples by synagogues because programs for inter­ and families, unaffiliated Jews have become a married of the latter group have, in his words, central target of outreach programs. "an ulterior motive or hidden agenda." For example, the Cleveland Jewish Commu­ These programs simply do not distinguish nity Center organizes a program where, ac­ among intermarried and non-intermarried cording to the local Jewish weekly newspaper couples but include all of them in the same {Cleveland Jewish News, 1995, p. 15), "inter­ program. faith families can discuss such topics as decid­ That which we have defined as outreach, ing which religion—if any—children will be and what the opponents of oufieach have in exposed to" and the co-director is quoted as mind, is more likely to fit the parameters of saying, "We feel it would be a place where many programs under non-synagogue aus­ people wouldn't be pressured to make a deci­ pices, such as those of Jewish Community sion one way or another." A recent announce­ Centers ledby family educators. The situation ment in The Forward {1999,p. 10),anational is far more complex with regard to synagogue- Jewish weekly, armounces a program at the sponsored programs. Many, perhaps most Jewish Community Center on New York's synagogue programs that include interfaith Upper West Side in which a family and couple couples are not designed exclusively for them.

FALL 2000 Jewish Communal Policy toward Outmarried Families / 23 therapist "conducts a three-session interfaith One statement supporting this stance has workshop that discusses plaiming a wedding, been voiced by the national leadership of the celebrating holidays, raising children and maiw- Conservative movement. Its synagogue body, taining religious and ethnic identities" [em­ the United Synagogue of America, adopts a phasis not in original]. A Jewish Family Ser­ tough stance, largely through the efforts of its vice program in New Orleans sponsors "Our executive vice-president. Rabbi Jerome Faith or Yours," which the authors describe as Epstein. But this is less true of the Jewish "aprogramrun frombothpoints ofview [which] Theological Seminary (JTS), the major helps couples realize they do need to make a rabbinical school of Conservative Judaism. A choice about how to raise their children and JTS vice-chancellor was quoted as saying: hopefully [emphasis not in original] that choice "Ideally we would prefer conversion as a solu­ would be Judaism" (Daube & Frusta, 1996, p. tion, but we have to be realistic." According 54). To ensure a non-coercive atmosphere the to the vice-chancellor, the position of the program deliberately includes both a Jewish Conservative movement is to prevent inter­ and non-Jewish educator as resource persons. marriage, and if it can't be prevented then conversion is the next alternative. "But given Policy at the National Level and the fact we can't do it in all cases, we want the Implementation at tlie Synagogue Level family to feel comfortable in the synagogue and the children to be raised as Jews with a Synagogue programs are far more signifi­ Jewish experience" (Washington Jewish Week, cant from the point ofview of Jewish survival. 1995,p.5). If any outreach programs lead to conversion Within the Reform movement, even at the they are likely to be under synagogue rather national level, such voices are also heard. As than non-synagogue auspices. If Jewish Com­ already noted, those responsible for outreach munity Centers are prepared to integrate inter­ programs at the national level insist that the married couples into their community, the im­ goal of all such programs, at least imphcitly, is pact on Jewish life in general is slight. If really conversion. But at least to one journalist synagogues do so, the impact is much more who explored outreach in Reform, the impres­ significant. sion is that some programs do seek to accom­ Generalizations about outreach programs modate two-faith families. Ellen Jaffee Mclain, within Conservative and Reform synagogues who married a non-Jew and then wrote a book must be qualified by distinguishing between about her experiences both as a single Jew and the national leadership who design the cur­ a Jew married to a Gentile, praises an outreach riculum from those who conduct the programs program of the Reform movement. "Time and "on the ground." As a rule, the national level Seasons: A Jewish Perspective for Intermar­ is concerned with and designs programs that ried Couples," in her words, "brings small look toward conversion. At the synagogue groups of mixed couples together to discuss level, whete programs are acmally conducted their religious backgrounds, articulate doctri­ there are those whose "motive," explicit or nal differences between Judaism and Chris­ implicit, is to convert the non-Jewish parmer tianity, deal with the religious-culmral di­ and those whose primary goal is to convince chotomy, and work through issues surround­ the interfaith couple to raise their children as ing extended family, holidays, and child rais­ Jews. Advocates of this second type of pro­ ing. The aim is not to convert the non-Jewish gram argue that this goal can only be achieved partaer but to open the lines of communication if the Jewish community exhibits a warm and between partaers" (Mclain, 1995, p. 202). A hospitable acceptance of the interfaith couple 1989 pamphlet published by the Commission without pressuring the Gentile partner to con­ on Jewish Outreach of the Reform movement vert {Planning for Jewish Continuity, 1996, reminds its readers that "the goal is not to p. 57). segregate the outreach population by provid-

FALL 2000 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 24

ing programming for tliem" but ratlier to "help Eric Yoffie (1999, p. 5) notes, where official the entire community understand and adapt to pohcy is to seek the conversion of the non- change" {Outreach and the Changing Reform Jewish partner: Jewish Community, 1989, p. 15). Lest anyone mistalf e the intentions of the authors, the boolc- In most instances we do not encourage conver­ let includes a poem by a non-Jew married to a sion by non-Jewish spouses in our synagogues. Jew that concludes with these words: "God Perhaps this bespeaks anatural reluctance to do loves our double background with which we what we fear will give rise to an awkward or nurture our children." uncomfortable situation. Or perhaps.. .we have Perhaps it was programs and statements inadvertently sent the message that we neither like these that led the Reform movement itself want nor expect conversion. But whatever the to reevaluate its outteach programs. Rabbi reason.. .this must be counted at least a partial Janet Marder noted in 1993 (p. 7), "We have failure. unintentionally helped to create a climate in which intermarriage is increasingly taken for The reason, we think, for the disparity be­ granted, accepted as normal and inevitable." tween national policy and local implementa­ She then cited an assessment by Rabbi tion has less to do with the autonomy that Alexander Schindler, the acknowledged initia­ Reform synagogues enjoy or with open dis­ tor of the outreach program effort within Re­ agreement with national policy and much more form, that "we have neglected to to do with two aspects of Jewish life in the emphasize...the other side of outteach, an United States. First, it has to do with the unapologetic advocacy of Jewish marriage accommodations that rabbis find themselves and of conversion to Judaism. making to the demands of constituencies within Furthermore, the Reform movement seems their congregations and that are described to have responded to the criticism that its elsewhere (Liebman, 1999). Second, and this is outteach programs de-emphasized ethnic and the aspect on which we focus, this disparity is particularistic elements of Judaism. For ex­ caused by the general orientation not only of ample, of the roughly 200 pages of text in the the Reform movements but of American Juda­ 1983 edition of Introduction to Judaism pub­ ism in general. lished by the Reform movement, only 4 pages Intermarriage is not the cause of American are devoted to Israel, only an occasional term Jewry's problems; it is a symptom. Rather, the in Hebrew is used, and there is no glossary. In cause is the value system and assumptions of the 1999 edition, designed for, among others the American Jewish community as reflected m "interfaith couples desiring a firm foundation its attitudes toward outteach. on which to make religious decisions for the family" (Eisenstem, 1999), the amount of mate­ THE"VALUES" PROBLEM rial devoted to the ethnic and particularistic The vast majority of American Jews, cer­ dimensions of Judaism is substantially in­ tainly its communal leadership, pays lip ser­ creased. In roughly 400 pages, 45 pages are vice to the idea that intermarriage is bad for the devoted to Israel and Zionism under the rubric Jewish people. However, little in our basic of Yom Haatzmaut (Israel's Independence values and assumptions provides a barrier to Day), 14 pages to the Holocaust under the intermarriage. Our values and assumptions are rubric of Holocaust Memorial Day, and ten not unique to the Jews, but are embedded in the pages to a glossary of Hebrew terms with post-modem consumer culmre that character­ additional pages of Hebrew terms introduced izes contemporary Western culmre. And al­ throughout the sourcebook. though these values are foreign to historical Nevertheless, when one looks at programs Judaism, many Jews, in their role as authors, as they play themselves out in Reform syna­ artists, academics, journalists, and educators, gogues, the picture is quite different. As Rabbi play an miportant role in creating, ttansmitting.

FALL 2000 Jewish Communal Policy toward Outmarried Families / 25 and reinforcing tliem. We suspect that the "wo^prepared to remain invisible (emphasis in maj ority of American Jews are more dedicated the original)" are to dictate the kinds of ser­ to these values than they are to Judaism itself vices that the Jewish community should pro­ This is not the place to analyze the malaise vide (Woocher, 1999, p, 14). Here is a taste of of our contemporary culmre. Many excellent what he says: studies describe it, in some cases with specific regard to the manner in which it has affected Looking at institutional life from the perspec­ rehgion.' In this article we point to four inter­ tive of the client has enormous and far-reaching related aspects of our culture that are espe­ implications. Of all the steps we might take to cially relevant because they undermine oppo­ make Jewish life more attractive, accessible, and sition to intermarriage. affordable, this is probably the most important because it gets to the heart of what the Jewish A Reluctance to Judge community must be about on the threshold of anewmillenium. First, there is a grave reluctance to judge the behavior of others. The assertion of the pri­ In anodier example. Dr. David Cordis (1998, vate (private rights, private interest, private p. 5 7), president of Boston' s Hebrew College, privilege) at the expense of public rights or responded to a recent study on Jewish identity public interests renders even parents reluctant as follows: to assert any set of standards or criticize the behavior of their children; communal leaders We should be hearing what these people [the become even more so. The virtue, instead, moderately affiliated] are saying to us about becomes listening to what the other has to say who they are in order to leam from them, not in and responding to the needs of the listener. order to determine how to make them conform This reluctance to judge, to assert a language to what we know to be the proper way.... Our of responsibility and a posture of authority, in challenge as a community is not to induce other words to lead, has been carried to ex­ conformity with the traditional norms which tremes by American Jewish spokespeople who may be obsolete, adherence to particularistic may not appreciate the hidden messages they notions which may be destructive or allegiance convey. Take forexample, arecentmonograph to institutional structures which may have out­ by Jonathan Woocher (1999), executive vice lived their usefulness.,.. What the "unconven­ president of the Jewish Educational Services tional" Jews have to say to us may be far more of North America. According to Woocher, the important than anything we have to say to them. key problem facing American Jewish organiza­ tions is not the absence of standards but rather poor marketing. Effective marketing demands Absence of Boundaries that we determine who our customers are and what they seek. The customers who include a The second principle that animates con­ growing population of intermarrieds who are temporary culmre as it applies to the question of intermarriage is the absence of boundaries.

'On religion see Peter Berger, A Far Glory: The As American Jews increasingly reinterpret Quest for Faith in an Age of Credulity (New York: Judaism, emphasizing and even exaggerating The Free Press, 1992), On the general topic of its universalistic and spirittial characteristics contemporary culture and the organization of while de-emphasizing and even ignoring its society see, for example, Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy particularistic and ethnic ttaits, boundaries (New York: W. W. Norton, 1995). Jeane Bethke distinguishing Jew and non-Jew lose all mean­ Elshtain, Democracy on Trial (New York: Basic ing. In his moving speech on the occasion of Books, 1995) and the writings of Alisdair Maclntyre the 20th anniversary of the Reformmovement's and Charles Taylor. See also Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic Uses of Faith after outteach program, Rabbi Eric Yoffie (1999) Freud (New York; Harper Row, 1966), declared that the Jews are a chosen and a

FALL 2000 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 26 special people. He even uses the term am either to an abstract collectivity or an imper­ segula and uiges Jews to distinguish them­ sonal code of do's and don'ts. If it is not selves from non-Jews. Hence, he notes, there meaningful, there is little sense in doing it, are certain decisions that the non-Jew, even customary duties notwithstanding. when married to a Jew, cannot make and certain Hence, the personaiist hfestyle is indeed a rimals in which the non-Jew caimot partici­ "style"; that is, a form of life given to sharp pate. Lines are to be drawn, he says, in accor­ flucmations and not a strucmre that is stable dance with four majorprinciples. But, accord­ and continuous. It tends lo be constimted out ing to Yoffie, "The fourth principle, and the of episodic and exceptional experiences that most important, is that as essential as bound­ light up the workaday and lackluster, rather aries are, the power of our outreach work than out of a fixed position that encourages derives from our refusal to be obsessed with disciplined regularity or patterned coherence. them" (1999, p. 5). He concludes with the Simply put, personalism and privatization de­ statement that "while boundaries have their tach individuals from the larger social collec­ place, bridges are always more important." tives of which they are a part, release them from the binding duties these collectives impose, Lack of Conflict between Judaism and and lead them toward self-directed lives that Contemporary Values pursue rare moments of meaning and growth. This emphasis on the self and its realization In part because of the present glorious and rather than on obligations transcending the truly unprecedented condition of Jews in the individual person entails a turning away from United States, and in part because they have the kinds of commonplace commitments that internalized the dominant values of their cul­ lack the special cachet of personal authenticity ture, Jews are reluctant, indeed close to inca­ or inner giowth. What are called "traditional pable, of acknowledging any substantive con­ family values," fot example, suffer accordingly. flict between Judaism, including the tequisites Once thought to be namral and sacred, these of Jewish survival, and contemporary mores bonds are weakening apace. What seemed and values. On the contrary, Jews are proud of mandatory only a generation or two ago—that what they consider to be the harmony between parents forego their own needs for the sake of them. their children's, that grown children bear the responsibility for the welfare of their aging Emphasis on the Self parents, that husband and wife renounce and In their recent analysis of American Juda­ compromise for each other's sake—have be­ ism, Susser and Liebman (1999) note that the come questionable propositions for very many. last two decades have been chaiacterized by Accordingly, rates of divorce among Jews are the emergence of personal and privatized Ju­ now rapidly approaching the national norm. daism and an accompanying decline of ethnic Considering that Jews are far more under­ Judaism. Personalismorprivatization, as these standing of aboition, homosexuality, and ex­ terms suggest, focuses religious life on the tramarital sexuality than other Americans, this acmal experiences of the individual. Even tendency seems likely to become even more when the experience takes place in the com­ pronounced in the future. pany of others, indeed, lequiies others for its Much the same can be said in regard to consummation, it lemains the individual's ex­ lesponsibilities toward abstract collectivities perience ofthe gioup encounter that is central. such as the Jewish people. Ftom the person­ "Immediacy," "authenticity," the "heie and aiist perspective, true love, the ultimate per­ now," the "face-to-face" encountei, the "actu­ sonal experience, far outweighs that responsi­ ally lived moment," the "meaningful expeii­ bility. Understood in terms of personal mean­ ence"—all the verbal insignia of personal- ing, Jewishness becomes—even for Jews— ism—run against the grain of responsibihties an acquired taste, a take it or leave it affair.

FALL 2000 Jewish Communal Policy toward Outmarried Families / 27

Moreover, experience-based religiosity has Daube, Susan D., & Frusta, Sidney C. (1996). no intrinsic justification for exclusion or bound­ Discovering and responding to the needs of aries; it necessarily includes all who are partner intermarried families. In Egon Mayer (Ed.), to the inspirational moment. The language of Making Jewish outreach work: Promoting privatized Jewishness speaks in the hushed, Jewish continuity among the intermarried. soft terms of individual meaning, journeys of New York: Jewish Outreach Institute. discovery, and the search for fulfillment. Its Fishman, Sylvia Barack. (2000). Jewish life and emphases are interpersonal rather than collec­ American culture. Albany: SUNY Press. tive. Its favored qualities are authenticity, Fishman, Sylvia Barack. (In press). Listening to sincerity, and, most recently, spirituality, rather learn: A comparative study of outmarried than achievement or efficiency. Typically it is Jewish families. New York: American Jewish consoling, non-judgmental, intuitive, and non- Committee. obligating. Fishman, SylviaBarack, & Goldstein, Ahce. (1993). In this climate of opinion, there are no When they are grown they will not depart: impediments to intermarriage. From this per- Jewish education and the Jewish behavior of sonahst perspective, true love, the ultimate American adults. Waltham, MA: Brandeis immediate personal experience, far supercedes University Cohen Center for Modern Jewish the historical weight of ethnic ties. Indeed, to Studies. the degree that love needs to overcome ob­ Goldstein, Ahce, & Fishman, SylviaBarack. (1993). stacles (ethnic or religious) in order to be Teach your children when they are young: realized, it is considered the more authentic Contemporary Jewish education in the United and marvelous. Jewishness has increasingly States. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University become an acquired taste, not an historical Cohen Center for Modem Jewish Studies. obligation. Lazerwitz, Bernard, etal. (1998). Jewish choices: The assimilation process is not simply a American Jewish denominationalism. Albany: process whereby individuals distance them­ SUNY Press. selves farther and farther from their own roots. Mayer, Egon. (1999). Why outreach? And how? It is also a process by which the group increas­ Jewish Outreach Institute Newsletter, 6(2), 2. ingly internalizes and coalesces conceptions Phillips, Bruce. (1996). Re-examining intermar­ that prevail in the general culmre about itself, riage: Trends, textures, strategies. Boston: about others, and about God. This form of Wilstein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies. acculmration and coalescence is inevitable in Planning for Jewish continuity: Synagogue-federa­ an open society and under certain circum­ tion collaboration: A handbook. (1996). New stances may be a source of stiength. But it is York: JESNA. a mistake to belie ve that it is invariably a source Silverstein, Alan. (1991). A threefold response to of stiength or that in the last analysis it does intermarriage. In The intermarriage crisis: not threaten Jewish survival and continuity. Jewish communal perspectives and responses. New York: American Jewish Committee. REFERENCES Susser, Bemard, & Liebman, Charles. (1999). Choosing survival: Strategies for a Jewish Bayme, Steven. (1997). A statement on the future. New York: Oxford University Press. Jewish future. New York: American Jewish Yoffie, EricH. (1999). Remarksfrom the president: Committee. 20th Anniversary Symposium for the William Cohen, Steven M. (1998). Religious stability and and Lottie Daniel Department of Outreach. ethnic decline: Emerging patterns of Jewish New York: Union of American Hebrew identity in the United States. "HtviY ork:itv^'\s\\ Congregations. Community Centers Association.

FALL 2000