Intermarriage, the Rabbi, and the Jewish Communal Worker

Intermarriage, the Rabbi, and the Jewish Communal Worker GERALD B. Bums

Director, School of Jewish Communal Service, Professor of Jewish Communal Studies,

Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Los Angeles, California

rpHE rising rate of intermarriage is a source of concern for all committed to

Jewish continuity. This presentation will attempt to provide a focus for the implications for rabbis and communal workers through a review of the literature, discussion of respective roles, and responsibilities.

Intermarriage is defiined sociologically as "Marriage between persons belonging to two social groups or categories, the members of one or both of which normally disapprove, at least to some extent, of marriage with members of the other, thereby creating possible difficulty between husband and wife and/or between them and their respective groups or families or origin. Usually intermarriage is described as involving persons from different religious, social, or ethnic backgrounds".1

Mixed marriage has come to denote intermarriage with retention of one's respective original religious identification. Mal-lar has coined the term "mitzva marriage"2 to denote an intermarriage where the non-Jewish partner converts to Judaism. The term "mixed marriage" will be used here to denote an intermarriage with no conversion by either partner.

What is the Extent of the Problem? In this presentation a number of stud

ies are cited. They represent findings from studies conducted in Providence, Rhode Island; Los Angeles, California;

Washington, D.C.; Boston, Massachusetts; Indiana; Iowa; and "Lakeville". Countless others could be cited. The difficulties arise out of the reality that differing methodologies and definitions were utilized and as a result the findings must be carefully analyzed before they can be properly understood.

Before drawing any conclusions or citing the studies, it should be remembered that the phenomenon of intermarriage in America is not new. It is estimated that between 1776 and 1840, 28.7 percent of Jews intermarried.3 We have no knowledge of how many non-Jews converted to Judaism, how children were raised, or how many were considered Jews sociologically even though not qualifying as Jews according to halakhic definitions.

The benchmark most often used for contemporary times prior to the National Population Study is the 1957 U.S. Census National Sample Survey which asked questions related to religion and religious background of people. The questions which were to be part of the 1960 census were later removed from the questionnaire. People were asked to identify themselves and their spouses by religion. The sampling, therefore, did not measure conversion rates to Judaism, nor did it identify families where the Jewish partner no longer defined oneself as a Jew. The mixed marriage figure1 finally arrived at is a cumulative one. Of all those involved,

1 A Modern Dictionary of Sociology, New York, 1969, p . 212.

3 Malcolm H. Stern, "Jewish Marriage and Intermarriage in the Federal Period (1776-1840", American Jewish Archives, Vol. 19, November 1967, pp. 142, 3.

85

* Allen Mailer, "Mixed or Mitzva Marriages", Jewish Spectator, Vol. 4, No. 66, p. 8.

I N T E R M A R R I A G E , T H E R A B B I , A N D T H E J E W I S H C O M M U N A L W O R K E R

7.2 percent identified themselves as intermarried. No actual rate of intermarriage is established.

All community studies are weak statistically because they work primarily with lists provided by Jewish organizations and institutions. All studies, however, do show a rise in intermarriage rates.

Studies conducted in the 1920's showed a range of 1.2 to 2.5 percent. In the 1930's, the range was from 5 to 9 percent while studies conducted in the last two decades have shown rates ranging from 7 to 53.6 percent.4

Preliminary data on intermarriage from the National Jewish Population Study were released at the General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds in Toronto, November 8 to 12, 1972.

According to these data, the "basic" intermarriage rate of all existing marriages involving Jews (including all who considered themselves somehow to be Jewish at the time of marriage) is 16.8 percent.5 The rates are reviewed from 1900 on to the present and conclude that 48.1 percent of the marriages contracted involving Jews between 1966-1972 were intermarriages.6

In trying to assess the scope and consequences of the problem, a number of other questions must be answered before conclusions can be drawn. Rodman 7 and Fein 8 both counsel caution against hastily

* Sidney Goldstein, "American Jewry, 1970: A Demographic Profile", American Jewish Year Book, 1971, pp. 26-34.

5 Fred Massarik, "Explorations in Intermarriage", mimeographed document of CJFWF, November 1972, p. 4.

8 Ibid.

' Hyman Rodman, ed., Marriage, Family and Society: A Reader, 1965.

drawing doomsday conclusions. If a given city reports a 20 percent intermarriage rate, let us analyze how many Jews are involved. Out of 100 marriages performed, 80 percent of them are between Jews. Thus, of the 200 people involved in the 100 weddings, 80 percent, or 160, are Jewish. Half of those involved in the 100 remaining 20 marriages, or 20 people, are Jewish. Thus, 180 out of the 200 people involved are Jews. The rate of Jewish involvement in intermarriage is therefore 11 percent, since 11 percent of 180 is 20, even though the rate of intermarriage is 20 percent.

Fein reminds us that one would further have to know sex distribution of those being married, age of partners, fertility rates, commitments made (and carried out) to raise children as Jews, and conversion rates before one could assess a new figure. His estimate of the Boston study is much different from Marshall Sklare's.9

Sklare cites the fact that 1 in 5 young couples are involved in intermarriage, and from that, concludes the intermarriage rate in the United States is probably 25 percent. Fein concludes that the loss rate is the crucial figure and estimates it to be 7 percent after taking into account the items referred to above. Fred Sherrow is quoted by Schwartz10 as estimating that there is a 30 percent new loss of population as a result of intermarriage. He did not weigh all the factors that Fein did, however. His estimate would seem to be unduly high. If one remembers that on a random selection basis the loss rate should be 98 percent, then at least the problem as real as it is, can be put into perspective in a statistical sense.

" Marshall Sklare, "Intermarriage and Jewish Survival", Commentary, Vol. 3, 1970, p. 52.

1 0 Arnold Schwartz, "Intermarriage in the United States", American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 7, 1970.

86

8 Leonard Fein, "Some Consequences of Jewish Intermarriage", Jewish Social Studies, January 1971, Vol. X X X I , No. I, pp. 44-59.

JOURNAL OF JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICE

Massarik's findings are the most optimistic yet published on loss rate. According to his data, nearly 96 percent of children, "Whether in non-intermarried or intermarried households as considered together, are, or were, raised as Jewish". 1 1

This figure is questioned by many as being much too high in light of "practice wisdom."

The questions related to how the children are being raised, what behaviors, affiliations, values, and knowledge they manifest, their perceptions of themselves as Jews, are not answered. Further, of course, those married since 1966 would not have had children old enough to be studied as to their own Jewish self-perceptions.

It remains necessary to understand the reasons for intermarriage if strategies are to be developed to cope with the astronomically rising rate. Massarik's findings do not suggest cause for complacency.

The Reasons Behind Intermarriage The first classic study on mixed mar

riages in the United States was reported in 1920.12 Drachsler concluded the reasons for mixed marriage to be the "preponderance of marriageable men or marriageable women, a rise in economic status, and diminution in the intensity" of the group consciousness or in the attitude of group solidarity".1 3

Throughout the decades following, conventional Jewish wisdom had it that intermarriage was an aberrant psychological or sociological act. Generally speaking, five reasons were put forth which tried to explain why people intermarried:

" Fred Massarik, ibid., p. 28. 1 2 Julius Drachsler, Democracy and Assimila

tion: The Blending of Immigrant Heritages in America, New York, 1920.

"Ibid., p. 147.

1. The minority group member wished to escape his status as a Jew.

2. He wished to punish his parent as an outgrowth of deep-seated hostility.

3. He was alienated as a Jew and sought psychological security in the majority culture.

4. He was a victim of self-hate (a more intense state than alienation).

5. He sought to better his status sociologically; he was upwardly mobile and saw intermarriage as a step up the socioeconomic ladder.

In the last 15 years a spate of studies has been conducted. Almost all have tried to assess the reasons people intermarry. Some sociologists have concluded that there is still a non-adjustmental or mal-adjustmental dynamic involved within both partners. They feel, therefore, that there is often some psychological or sociological pathology.

The most extensive study done from a psychological point of view was that of Levinson and Levinson.14 They found two types of people involved in intermarriage. They labeled them "reluctants" and "emancipated". Reluctants seemed to be trying to resolve neurotic conflicts. They tended to be fixated and had an ambivalent relationship with their mothers. Many of the men involved in the study Could not form relationships with Jewish women. They tended to see a Jewish woman as dominating, emotionally demanding, and "nervous". These reluctants opposed intermarriage but went ahead and intermarried anyway.

The emancipated tended to be assimilated. They had little relatedness to things Jewish and thus suffered no pain or guilt when they intermarried. Cahn-man has shown that the Jewish male

" M. H. Levinson & D. J. Levinson, "Jews W h o Intermarry", Yivo Annual of Social Science, Vol. 12, 1958-9.

87

INTERMARRIAGE, THE RABBI, AND THE JEWISH COMMUNAL WORKER

often feels "oppressed by the expectation of the relentless pressure of the obligation to which they will be subjected in the families of prosperous Jewish spouses".15

Generally speaking, however, there seem to be less and less data which adduce sickness, alienation, self-hate, or hostility to parent as major dynamics in explaining intermarriage. Marginality to one's Judaism is more and more a reality as are a number of other factors which have been increasingly noted in studies conducted within the recent past.

Who Intermarries? Berman cites 12 facts about intermar-

rieds which he culled after a review of the literature.

1. Jews who intermarry are more likely to lack the contact of extended family.

2. Jews in private colleges will more likely hold favorable attitudes toward intermarriage than those in urban universities.

3. Jewish men are more favorably disposed toward intermarriage and are more likely to intermarry than women.

4. Intermarrying Jews tend to marry later in life.

5. Oldest children are least likely to intermarry.

6. Intermarrieds tend to be venturesome, and slightly unconventional.

7. Jews in urban areas are less likely to intermarry.

8. Jews in new communities are more likely to intermarry.

9. Reform and unaffiliated Jews are more likely to intermarry than Orthodox (Conservative are somewhere in between) .

" Werner J. Cahnman, ed., Intermarriage and Jewish Life, Herzl Press, N e w York, 1963.

10. Jews on the periphery of Jewish life for socio-economic reasons are more likely to intermarry.

11. Jews in mobile professions are more likely to intermarry.

12. Jews who are in downward mobility from a socio-economic point of view are more likely to intermarry.1 6

Heiss 1 7 and Lazerwitz18 confirm these findings and add a few of their own. Heiss found there was a more frequent presence of 1) non-religious parents; 2) greater early family strife, and 3) greater emancipation from parents.

Lazerwitz notes a small but growing pattern of conversion into other faiths.

Mailer adds a significant reality when he points out that lack of choice can be a significant reason for intermarrying. If a person has the choice of not marrying at all or marrying a non-Jew, human drives and needs opt for the state of marriage.1 9

Sklare rightfully concludes that the reasons today are less and less psychologic and more frequently the price of the open society. Love, liberalism, acceptance, and propinquity are most frequently involved.2 0

The romantic system nurtured by our society has made the love ethic the most over-riding dynamic in ascertaining a

1 6 Louis A. Berman, Jews and Intermarriage, Yoseloff, 1958, p. 707.

" Jerrold S. Heiss, "Pre-Marital Characteristics of the Religious Intermarried in an Urban Area", American Sociological Review, February 1960.

w Bernard Lazerowitz, "Intermarriage and Conversion: A Guide for Future Research", Jewish Journal of Sociology, Vol. 13, No. 1 June 1971, pp. 41-63.

* Allen Mailer, "New Facts About Mixed Marriage", Reconstructionist, Vol. 23, 1969, and Allen Mailer, "Jews and Intermarriage", Jewish Spectator, February 1969.

2 0 Marshall Sklare, America's Jews, Random House, 1971, pp. 180-209.

88


couple's compatability for marriage. The increasingly shared value system found on the college campuses, which celebrates the equality of all men, plays havoc with a separatistic philosophy which is necessary for discouraging intermarriage.

The Jew is accepted into society. This provides increased opportunity for meet-ting non-Jews. Berman even suggests that the Jewish male is an attractive object as a potential mate because his upbringing has tended to make him "serious-minded, hardworking, ambitious, and intelligent".21 The Jew is thus a culture hero. Further, his norms of conduct—aggressiveness, audacity, intellectuality—are seen by some to match up with the mass sex role of Western society to make him even more desirable.

Less romantic is propinquity as an explanation. We marry those we come to know. With the breakdown of Jewish neighborhoods, increased attendance at college, subsequent shifting patterns of vocational choice, e.g., teaching, government work, military, scientific research, engineering, corporate business, there are more opportunities to mix and socialize with non-Jews.

This process leads to Jewish marginah-ty or Jewish indifference. The concern for Jewish continuity and the consequences of discontinuity matter less and less to more and more Jews.

Sanua finds a sizeable percentage of adolescent and college students totally unconcerned about the prospects of intermarriage.2 2

Jewish students tend to study for advanced degrees more frequently than non-Jews. This becomes especially ironic when one notes some findings that there is

" Berman, op. cit. p. 712.

" V. Sanua, "Attitudes of Jewish Students Toward Intermarriage", cited in Chapter 14, The Jewish Family In a Changing World, G. Rosenthal, ed., Yoseloff, 1970, 366 pp.

a definite weakening of opposition to intermarriage the longer one remains on a campus. 2 3 This is fragmentary and contradictory to another finding in Washington D.C. of a drop in the rate for mixed marriage graduate students.

Many communal studies show that the desire or commitment to marry Jews is not a high priority among young people. 2 4

When one analyzes the Jewish background of Jewish students, however, a differential set of attitudes emerges. Students from day schools or in religious colleges are much more conservative in their views about this issue.25 There has been shown to be a marked difference in attitude toward intermarriage by Reform and Conservative college students. Reform Jewish students are much more willing to enter into inter-faith marriages than Conservative Jews. (This same study showed more willingness of Reform Jews to marry Conservative than Orthodox Jews, while Conservative Jews were more willing to marry Orthodox Jews than Reform Jews. 2 6).

The attitude of the parent toward inter-dating and intermarriage has been found to be highly significant. Jewish students are more influenced by parental attitudes than other groups. Less Jews would continue dating non-Jews in the face of parental objection than was the case with Catholics or Protestants.2 7

" J. Jacks, "Attitudes of Jewish Students to Intermarriage", Adolescence, Summer 1967.

" Goldstein & Goldscheider, Jewish Americans, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey 1968.

2 5 Sanua, op. cit., p. 306. M R u t h S. Cavan, "Jewish Student Attitudes

Toward Interreligious and Intra-Jewish Marriage", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 76, No. 6, May 1971.

" Israel Ellman, "Jewish Intermarriage in the United States of America", reprinted from Dispersion & Unity inThe Jewish Family, ed by B. Schlesinger, University of Toronto Press 1971.

89

INTERMARRIAGE, T H E R A B B I , A N D T H E J E W I S H C O M M U N A L WORKER

Parental disapproval can be exaggerated, however, for the expectation of parental forgiveness dilutes the impact of opposition. 2 8

The parent as a party to the process of intermarriage cannot be seen in static terms. Even as children of Reform Jews are less likely to oppose intermarriage, their parents' attitudes are changing in the other direction. The gaps between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox parents are narrowing. Modern Reform Jewish adults are more likely to oppose intermarriage than foreign born Reform Jews of the older generation.2 9

Jewish parents no longer wish to be what Sklare calls "religious abortionists". The pressure for Jewish marriage grows, even as the Jewish marriage rate diminishes.

The opposition is rarely out of the desire for group survival, but rather guilt of "failing" as parent, the fear of poor adjustment or divorce. Parental concern regarding compatability and concern for negative psychological damage to children are much more frequently cited as reasons for opposing the marriage than the commitment to Jewish continuity.

In general, the evidence suggests couples who intermarry tend to be older. As a result of this, and possibly a concern about raising children, fertility rates of intermarried couples tend to be lower.30

What is the reality? Are there more divorces, more upset children, less compatibility? The truth is, we don't know. There have been fragmentary, and at times, contradictory findings in these re-

2 8 op. cit., p. 128.

" Marshall Sklare, "Intermarriage and Jewish Survival", Commentary, March, 1970, Vol. 49, # 3 , p. 56. Sklare's source of this is one of the most definitive studies done recently of a Jewish community—the Boston Study of 1968-9.

gards. The evidence regarding divorce rates is more clear cut.

Gordon reported divorce rates among mixed married to be three times as high. 3 1 He concluded that religious similarities are highly important to happy marriages.

This was not the case in studies done of Columbia University graduates conducted later in the decade. Class differences, not religious differences, loomed much larger as a source of friction and difficulty.32 It is felt by some to be a less valid argument against inter-marriage than was the case in the past. 3 3

Mailer in a discussion on the role of Reform rabbinate quotes the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the Department of Health of the State of California.

In 1966 105,000 reports were filed in the State of California for divorce, annulment, and separate maintenance. Of these, 3,253 (3%, the same proportion as Jews in the California population) involved Jews. However, 1,553 (47%) involved a Jew married to a Gentile . . . the divorce ratio of 47% is three to four times as high proportionately, as it should be. 8 4

Allen Mailer's forthcoming dissertation on the children of mixed marriages will shed light on an area about which little is known. The only study of consequence in the United States was reported in 1960. None of the children in the study were raised as Jews and none regarded them-

3 1 A. I. Gordon, Intermarriage, Beacon Press, 1964, p. 348.

3 2 David Caplovitz & Harry Levy, "Interre-ligious Dating Among College Students", Bureau of Applied Soc. Research, Columbia University Press, 1965, prepared for the American Jewish Congress.

3 3 A Schwartz, "Intermarriage in the United States", American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 71, 1970.

8 4 Allen Mailer, "Mixed Marriages and Reform Rabbis", Reconstructionist, Vol. XXXVIII , No. 8 November, 1972, p. 26.

90

3 0 Goldstein & Goldscheider, op. cit., p. 211.


selves as Jews. They were identified by society, however, as at least half-Jews. They tended to be quite embittered with their parents for not preparing them for their status.3 5 They didn't know who they were nor why they were. From this study one would like to conclude there is a need for Jewish education even for those no longer considered Jewish.

The purely sociological and psychological arguments against intermarriage cannot be found to exist in the clear cut, measurable way one opposed to mixed marriage would hope. Indeed, those who have studied the American community most carefully often seem to arrive at somewhat guarded conclusions regarding the future rates of intermarriage.

C. B. Sherman states: T h e substantial growth of the Jewish population, the upward economic mobility leading to social stabilization, the (new gilded) ghetto, and the softening of status conflicts within it are factors that diminish the Jew's need to seek a marriage partner outside the Jewish environ; the intensified urge for Jewish be-longingness, stimulated by the Hitler tragedy on the one hand, and the rise of the State of Israel on the other, tends to slow the pace of intermarriage (nevertheless) (it) will increase in numbers in proportion as acculturation deepens, but will not assume, in the foreseeable future, such proportions as to threaten the existence of the Jewish community in this country."

Dr. A. I. Gordon, a Conservative rabbi and anthropologist who studied intermarriage and was, of course a staunch advocate of Jewish continuity, sadly concluded " as the generations succeed each other on the American scene, I believe that intermarriage will take place far more frequently because

Philip M. Rosten, "The Mischling; Child of the Jewish-Gentile marriage". Honors paper submitted to the Department of Social Relations, Harvard University, Harvard Press, 1960.

I a C. B. Sherman, The Jew Within the American Society, Wayne State Press, 1965, p. 189.

people, by some fortuitous circumstance, happen to meet, fall in love, and—as a result of the general weakening of contemporary family and religious ties as well as the possession of similar educational, economic, and social backgrounds —decide to marry". 3 7

The Rabbi as Counselor and Teacher This perhaps sets the stage for better

understanding some of the complexities that confront the rabbi — as counselor and rabbi.

The rabbi increasingly has been seen as a counselor and, if anything, less as a teacher. The feelings of the parent and desires of the children separate and converge and the rabbi is often the nexus between the generations and the feelings. The generations are often at one in wanting a rabbi to perform the inter-marital ceremony. Frequently, of course, the rabbi is urged by the parents to break up the proposed marriage, but, failing that, to perform the ceremony. Guilt and anguish are often displaced onto the rabbi. The children see little need for conversion (even though as noted earlier, the rate of conversion is rising). Arguments against the marriage may or may not be persuasive. To please parents, a rabbi may be acceptable to the children. The increasingly shared value system of the children often stops short of the demand for one partner to ask the other to convert.

Rabbi Richard Israel has discussed the dilemmas. The rabbi functions as a counselor with a responsibility to the individual being counseled, even as he sees himself as a rabbi wanting to avert a marriage without conversion.38

3 7 Gordon, op. cit. p. 60. S 8 R. J. Israel, "Counseling Young People",

Contemporary Intermarriage, Campus, 1966; Change and Challenge, B'nai B'rith Hillel Foundation.

91


The modern Jew often defines his Jewish self in private and individualized terms. His responsibility to the group and inter-dependence within it are little understood as realities or desiderata. The parent has tended more and more to define for himself and his family how to be Jewish. The child has followed in the footsteps of the father.

The "about to be marrieds" are often astounded at the reactions of the parents. In the eyes of everyone, a ceremony with a rabbi present is a face-saver of all concerned. The parent has had a "failure" sanctified. The newlyweds have pleased the parent (sometimes by also having a minister present) and the rabbi who performs the ceremony feels he has kept the door open to future Jewish life.

Next let us examine some of the literature relating to the role of the rabbi.

Mirsky reported that in 1969, 89 Reform rabbis out of approximately 1100 openly admitted they officiated at mixed marriages.39 He reported that the Reform rabbi thus involved saw himself serving "the larger Jewish community by sanctifying non-halakhic but communally sanctioned behavior.4 0

Mirsky asked whether the Reform rabbinate was outside the boundaries of acceptance by American Jewry and in danger of losing their validity, or did they reflect the "will" of American Jews. He concluded that while public outcries against the "marriers" may exist, private relief may be real on the part of other rabbis because of the comfort given. The children will marry anyway, so the parents, at least, are helped.

Rabbi Max Eichhorn has stated there are now 168 rabbis willing to perform

" Norman B. Mirsky, "Mixed Marriage and the Reform Rabbis", Midstream, Vol. XVI, No. 1, p. 41, January 1970.

" I b i d , p . 44.

mixed marriages.41* This represents nearly a doubling of the number Mirsky reported two years ago. It is Eichhorn's contention that the children who will result from the intermarriage must be the rabbis' concern. Hence his demand that children be raised as Jews. This includes giving them a formal Jewish education, making the home atmosphere conform with the school's teaching, having no non-Jewish religious symbols or celebrations in the home. 4 2

(Without regard to the rectitude of Rabbi Eichhorn's officiating at mixed marriages, I would raise the question of requiring participants at halakhically "kosher" weddings to make the same promises listed above as part of the Ketuba.)

There is some preliminary evidence that the "promissory" approach at mixed marriages works. Rabbi Burt Siegel has done a follow-up study 4 3 of 30 marriages performed in a 30-month period. Couples agreed essentially to the kind of expectations listed by Eichhom. The results were positive, but cautiously so.

23 of the 30 couples were contacted. Couples claim they still plan on raising their children as Jews, all observe some Jewish ritual, at least at the level observed by the Jewish partner prior to the wedding, and often higher. Siegel cautions about the findings because the time span has been a short one, but feels the findings are so consistent that he foresees no major attitudinal changes in the future.

" Jewish Post and Opinion, p. 2, May 5, 1972. According to private correspondence with some rabbis, I am told the figure may be higher because some rabbis refuse to be put on the list.

• Editor's Note: Thi s article was written in Feb. 1973 and thus does not take account of steps subsequently taken by rabbinical bodies.

" Ibid. 4 8 Burt Siegel, "Officiating at Mixed Mar

riages", CCAR Journal, 18:80-2, April 1971.

92


Raphael's research is much more extensive and much more pessimistic.44 His findings are based on follow up studies of 114 intermarried couples who were married by rabbis without conversion, most of whom had no standards of expectation from the couple.

After one year of marriage, 111 of the couples were of the same religion as at the time of marriage. Less than one-third attended services on High Holy days and only 14 couples attended both a High Holy day service and some other service. Of these, 11 couples also attended church together. Other measures, such as ritual observance, plans for Brit Milah and Passover observance, were reviewed. The results are equally discouraging.

Where rabbis held extensive meetings with couples before their marriage or had them in their homes, there were considerably more Jewish experiences after the marriage. Raphael concludes that "while promises to the rabbi are meaningless, participating in Jewish life prior to an intermarriage is more likely than not to encourage Jewish experiences after marriage. To demand any less . . . . is to commit Jewish suicide".4 5

Cohen's findings46 are more optimistic than Raphael's. He followed up on 146 mixed marriage couples involved in weddings he performed between 1965 and 1970. Nearly 8 per cent respondents have" converted to Judaism. All had promised to raise their children as Jews and 87.8 per cent still intended to.

• " Marc Lee Raphael , "Intermarriage and Jewish Survival: A Hard Disjunction", CCAR Journal, Vol. XIX, No . 2, pp. 56-61, April, 1972. See also Marc Lee Raphael and A. S. Mailer, "The Cost of Mixed Marriages", CCAR Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, April, 1971, pp. 48-55.

4 5 Ibid., p . 60.

*° Henry Cohen, "Mixed Marriage and Jewish Continuity", CCAR Journal, Vol. XIX, No . I, pp. 48-55, April 1972.

Cohen keeps in touch with the couples following marriage and feels this is the most significant element in the decision regarding the upbringing of children. Unfortunately, the questions are not consistent with Raphael's, so comparisons between the studies are not easily made. (Allan Mailer has pointed out some of

the potential pitfalls of research conclusions such as Cohen's because of the couple's awareness of the rabbi's questions. Less positive results may have resulted through an anonymously-administered questionnaire.)

The Conservative movement is not without its questioners about the need to officiate at mixed marriages. Rabbi Everett Gendler, a graduate of the Jewish Theological Seminary, writes of a new religion in the making among young people. He feels that new religious expressions and formations are coming into being. The new religion ". . . might truly become with time, nurture, and growth, the embodiment of our own and other's better religious selves".47 If there is a new religion in the making, then, he argues "the minimum appropriate response on the part of established Jewish religion is the recognition that it is our (rabbis') responsibility as guardians and

representatives of an evolving religious tradition to relate to this unprecendented religious situation by some form of rabbinic participation in interfaith weddings".4 8

The dilemma for the rabbi remains. Not one iota of hard evidence exists which indicates that refusing to officiate at a mixed marriage will stop that marriage from taking place. Mixed marriages have in many ways become more a

" E. Gendler, "Identity, Invisible Religion and Intermarriage", Response, N o . 6, Winter, 1969-70, p . 30.

" Gendler, op . cit., p . 31.

93


sociological reality and less a halakhic question.

The rabbi as the defender, interpreter, and advocate of Judaism must answer to the demands of individual Jews who ask him to depart from the expectations of the tradition in the process. To the degree he counsels, he may lose the individual. The rabbi works towards an accomodation between group expectation and individual demand. He is caught in the clash and conflict which sometimes results, and always must be guided by what's good for Jews and Judaism.

The communal worker proceeds from a different set of primary premises.

The Communal Worker Traditionally, intermarriage has not

concerned the communal workers as a professional issue. A review of the Index to Jewish Periodical Literature and Trends and Issues in Jewish Social Welfare 1900 to 1950 reveals a paucity of writings related to the subject.

The professional roles and values of communal workers were shaped primarily by schools of social work, humanistic and liberally oriented philosophies, and Freudian psychoanalytic theory.

"Beginning where the client is"; "the client's right to self-determination" are but two practice principles which guide the roles of most communal workers in their work. The right of the client to self-fulfillment, self-determination, and actualizing of personal potentialities are shibboleths with the force of dogma.

Communal workers tend to see themselves as enablers to free individuals to "be themselves". The community which pays the workers' salaries and has shaped the institutions which the workers represent, seem too seldom to be viewed as a goal for continuity as well as an instrument for serving individuals. The issue has not been joined.

Jewish continuity is a stated or assumed objective of most Jewish agencies.

The worker is seldom viewed by the client as a representative of Judaism and its traditions. He is approached for problem solving, assuagement of pain, counsel, support, clarification, release from guilt, and the other myriad dynamics that draw human beings who happen to be Jewish to Jewish communal organizations.

For the communal worker, the rabbi's tension is not real, because it has not been actuated. The worker, perforce, must confront and answer a number of questions which must become of equal concern to him in his practice. All practice, at its base, is value-laden. The guiding principles of practice cannot mean for the individual, everything; for the group, nothing. The exquisite tension between individual rights and societal expectations are always present in reality. Jewish societal rights and expectations must come to be included in the agenda of professional, agency, and organizational concern.

Is there professional responsibility to help decelerate the mixed marriage rate? If mixed marriage is "bad" for the Jewish people, even though it may be "good" for the individual Jew, does the professional still discourage mixed marriage?

The findings of studies cited here suggest a series of strategies which can encourage in-marriage and discourage intermarriage. I suggest that professional concern calls for the encouragement of the development of strategies which encourage the values and behaviors least likely to lead to intermarriage and mixed marriage.

This concern cannot fly in the face of sound practice principles. Consciousness of concern related to group survival and continuity can come to be as natural and professional a concern as individual survival and continuity.

94

J O U R N A L O F J E W I S H C O M M U N A L S E R V I C E

Jewish communal workers and their agencies must confront the issue of intermarriage as a practice concern, a professional concern, and a Jewish communal concern.

We know some of the strategies the rabbi and the communal worker must invoke to discourage mixed marriages. They begin long before the couples meet. They include 1) having Jewish homes, 2) getting a Jewish education, 3) living near other Jews, 4) providing Jewish socializing opportunities, 5) encouraging Jewish self expression, 6) providing channels for Jewish commitment vis-a-vis social action for Israel, Russian Jews, Jewish poor, and 7) providing Jewish models in leadership roles.4 9

The Jewish communal workers have the responsibility and the right to evolve those services which will reinforce or encourage the use of these strategies. Family life education programs, public forums, retreats, discussions with teens, young adults, and young marrieds are but a few of the approaches possible.50

Based upon the studies dealing with the subject, increasing attention must be

4" Mantieim S. Shapiro, "Dimensions Symposium: T h e Jewish Family in a Changing Society", UAHC, New York, 1969, Chapter 15, C. Rosenthal, Ed.; Gerald B. Bubis, "The Modern Jewish Family", Journal of Jewish Communal Service, Vol. XLV22, No. 3, Spring, 1971, and Gerald B. Bubis, "Synagogue Leadership for the 70's", Re-constructionist, Vol. XXV22, No . 7, 1971.

" T h e place of agencies in developing values which in turn reinforce behavior is discussed in some depth in Gerald B. Bubis, "The Role of the Jewish Community Center in Jewish Education", Journal of Jewish Communal Service, Vol. XLIX, No. 1, pp. 48-57. See also Gerald B. Bubis, "Value Building in the Pre-School Years", Pedagogic Reporter, Vol. XXIV, No . 1, Fall, 1972, American Association for Jewish Education. A value frame of reference for Jewish communal workers is discussed in Gerald B. Bubis, "Categorial Imperatives for Jewish Communal Workers", Viewpoints, February, 1972.

paid to the loss rate as indicated earlier in this article. Fein, 5 1 Lazerwitz,52 and Mailer 5 3 have emphasized the potentialities vis-a-vis stemming the loss rate. By lowering it to 50 percent through encouragement of "mitzva marriages" there could be a net gain. The mitzva marriage is more likely to last and more likely to produce positively oriented and committed Jews.

The communal worker and the agency he represents may prove less threatening to the couples involved than would be the case oi a rabbi playing a counseling role. There are elements in the process which might properly be the concern of different agencies at varied points on the continuum.

Centers, camps, youth organizations can best play their role by providing intensive and positive Jewish experiences to their constituencies. Levin has gone as far as to suggest that YMHA's and Jewish community centers involve themselves in much more Jewish religious programming in light of the findings related to Jewish identity and identification formation.54

Centers will not only be challenged to anticipate and develop strategies to slow mixed marriage and encourage mitzva marriages but will increasingly be the communal institution through which intermarried couples will seek some Jewish identification and outlets. Their presence must be more consciously ascertained and their special needs identified. Counseling opportunities together with Jewish Family Service agencies might be indicated to focus on potential problems

5 1 Fein, op. cit., p. 3. 5 2 Lazerwitz, op. cit., p. 7.

" Mailer, op. cit., p. 11. 5 4 Morris Levin, "An Analysis of Selected Re

search on Jewish Identification and Implication for Jewish Communal Service", NJWB, monograph, 1972.

95


arising out of such unresolved questions as how to raise children, exposing children to Jewish and Christian education and living experiences, etc.

Outreach programs by Jewish family services geared to pre-marital and post-marital counseling could encompass the concerns dealt with in articles cited here. There are those who suggest that Judaism's stand against mixed marriage is stronger than the stand against premarital sex. As a result, it is contended, couples might better be encouraged to live together for an extended period of time prior to marriage instead of marrying without conversion.55

Federations and Welfare Funds must confront their responsibilities. Consideration to funding conversion classes56 must be intensified. Experimental programs specifically designed to lower the loss rate must be encouraged regardless of auspices. The Federations and Welfare Funds are ipso facto the treasury of American Jewry. The concern and commitment for the Jewish future knows no ideological or sponsorship boundaries. The communal worker can do no less than to rise above his own sponsorship in joining with all who share this concern.

The rabbi and the communal worker are caught in the same vise. Yet they have not seen each other as allies in dealing with a problem of common concern. They each must deal with the issue at different moments in the time continuum. For both, the role which is most hopeful and helpful is that which works on the preventive aspect of the problem.

Intensification of the Jewish self results in heightened Jewish awareness and identity. The process needed to slow the rate of mixed marriage is then a long

M Mailer, op. cit., p. 23. M Mailer, op. cit., 1972, p . 25.

one. The need to act to slow the loss rate is an immediate one.

The intermarriage rate is rising, and one could conclude, will continue to rise in an open society. As Jews become Americanized, the shared values of the marriage partners result in perceiving mixed marriages differently than in the past. The Jew who intermarries rarely sees himself as betraying himself or his people. He is often not alienated as a Jew and insists on some Jewish practice in his home, even as the spouse may insist upon Christian practices.

The most crucial concern is the loss rate. The strategies to hold down the loss rate flow from the strategies to slow down the intermarriage rate.

Sociology is not prescriptive — it is descriptive. The rabbi deals in the world of imperatives and injunctions; the communal worker in the world of needs and wants. The genius of the Jew and Judaism has seemed to be the sustaining of a delicate tension between the actual and the desired — the "is" and the "ought".

So it is now. What we see is not what we want. What we wish for is not what is presently the actual. The conflict between the day-to-day practices of the Jew and the teachings of our sages is increasingly abrasive. Adjustments are needed. Out of the conflict must come the creative tension. Railings against the acts of Jews are not enough.

As the rabbi must bend to the pressures of the present, the communal worker must pay more attention to the import of the past. Both professions must see themselves as servers of human beings and conduits for a people and its heritage. Intermarriage is the concern of both. Human beings who are Jewish are of concern for both. How we serve, whom we serve, what we stand for, and

96


how we act are in need of review and modification.

The clash of reality and tradition must be turned into a harmony. Prof. Nathan Rotenstreich of Hebrew University closes his latest book with the following:

T h e progressive erosion of tradition as the norm in Jewish life, articulated by trends in Jewish thought, has reached its end. We can only return to primary concepts: the position of tradition in human life as against the contemporary tendency to live in the present even at the expense of the future. Here Jewish thought has to face what might be called the anthropological problem of tradition in human life.

"And again not only in terms of the idea of tradition, but in terms of the validity of substantive ideas, Judaism has but one alternative: to atttempt to reformulate some of the basic notions of the world outlook expressed in Judaic sources. Here, too, man and history might be the main issue and, to paraphrase an ancient Talmudic adage, everything else is but commentary."

This is our challenge. Let us begin together.

" N. Rotenstreich, Tradition and Reality, Random House, 1972, p. 130.

97

Intermarriage, the Rabbi, and the Jewish Communal Worker

Documents