In the Sept. 5 issue of The Chronicle, Martha Gershun castigates the Reform movement for refusing to allow intermarried (or inter-partnered) men and women to enter the rabbinic or cantorial programs at Hebrew Union College. (Personally, I don’t believe that it is right to extend this policy to school directors, but that is a separate issue). I believe that she has taken an overly simplified approach to this complex issue.
First of all, she uses emotionally weighted words such as “obsolete,” “offensive,” and “bigoted” to describe the HUC-JIR policy. Bigotry implies people that certain groups believe to be inferior. No one who supports the policy is saying that Gentiles are inferior to Jews.
Her statement that Jewish clergy are no different from the rest of us is only partially correct. Rabbis and cantors have traditionally been seen as role models, and they are expected to adhere to higher standards than the rest of us. An extramarital affair can cost a rabbi his or her job; this is rarely the case in other professions. One of my sons is a congregational rabbi, and he is aware that when he is out in public, he has to be conscious of the fact that in some ways he represents not only his congregation but the Jewish people in general. For example, he will never take even one alcoholic drink (except for a sip of Kiddush wine) if he is planning to drive afterward.
Gershun correctly points out that especially within Reform congregations there are many intermarried couples who are living Jewish lives and raising Jewish children. However, if HUC-JIR accepts intermarried men and women to study for the rabbinate, might not some of these candidates be married to committed Christians who would therefore not agree to raise the children as Jewish but rather try to raise them in both religions? Could a policy be framed in a way that would allow some intermarried candidates and deny others?
Gershun worries that the current policy is offensive to intermarried couples who are part of our congregational life. I wonder if she has polled such people on this issue. Non-Jewish spouses generally accept the fact that they are treated differently from the Jewish members of a congregation. For example, they do not lead services or have aliyas, just as their Jewish spouses would not take communion at their churches. In fact, I have known of previously non-Jewish spouses who have converted in order to be able to have an aliya at their children’s Bar and Bat Mitzvah ceremonies.
Clearly, there are inconsistencies with the current policy. There is no guarantee that an unmarried graduate would not intermarry after ordination. Also, the current policy could lead to insincere conversions on the part of the non-Jewish partner, which is a violation of Jewish law. However, the issue is far more complex than Gershun allows, and calling the current policy “obsolete” or “bigoted” is not a useful way to start.
Stu Lewis
Prairie Village, Kansas
