https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/its-time-to-say-yes
Eight Years Later and We Are Still Lost
Eight years ago, I wrote a piece titled “It’s Time to Say Yes,” arguing that Conservative Judaism must embrace officiation at interfaith weddings to remain relevant and engaged in the modern Jewish world. Today, reflecting back, it’s clear we’ve traveled a significant distance, yet in many ways, we’ve hardly moved at all.
What Has Changed in 8 Years?
Since publishing “It’s Time to Say Yes,” Conservative Judaism has indeed taken tentative steps toward inclusivity. In 2017, our movement officially allowed non-Jews to become synagogue members. A year later, we gave rabbis permission to attend interfaith weddings, acknowledging at least symbolically that interfaith families belong within our communities. These shifts, however small, signal a growing awareness of reality: Jewish life is enriched by diversity, and our spiritual home must reflect the world in which we live.
We’ve also witnessed a cultural shift within many congregations. Discussions around interfaith marriage have grown less taboo, and more synagogues now proactively welcome interfaith families through outreach programs, inclusive language, and educational initiatives. These changes are meaningful and point to a deeper transformation in attitudes and norms at the grassroots level.
Yet, in the corridors of our seminaries and at our policy tables, the change has been slow, cautious, and at times grudging. The recent 2024 Conservative Movement resolution reaffirmed the prohibition on rabbinic officiation of interfaith marriages, underscoring that our central institutions remain tethered to policies shaped by tradition and fear rather than courage and realism.
What Has Stayed the Same?
The stubbornness of many colleagues in recognizing the shifting realities of Jewish life remains deeply entrenched. While demographic studies consistently illustrate that interfaith marriages constitute a significant majority of weddings involving Jews today, too many of our leaders continue to resist engaging fully with this reality. The rationale often provided—that officiating interfaith marriages threatens Jewish continuity—ignores mounting evidence that such weddings can foster Jewish identity and engagement if approached thoughtfully and intentionally.
Additionally, our movement remains narrowly fixated on intermarriage as the defining boundary that separates Conservative Judaism from other Jewish movements. While intermarriage is a critical issue, it is by no means the only one. We differ profoundly in theology, halachic interpretation, communal organization, and even ritual practice. By overemphasizing intermarriage as the singular differentiator, we obscure other critical debates that would deepen our understanding of Conservative Judaism’s unique identity and role in the wider Jewish world.
Where Do We Need to Go?
For Conservative Judaism to remain vibrant, authentic, and relevant, we must shift our focus from gatekeeping to welcoming, from fear to curiosity, and from rigidity to adaptability. Rather than drawing lines to define who is in or out, we must devote ourselves to articulating clearly and compellingly why Conservative Judaism matters, offering a Judaism rich enough and compelling enough to attract Jews—and their non-Jewish partners—on its own merits.
This requires courage, but it also requires rigorous honesty. We need to acknowledge openly that the current model—rejecting rabbinic officiation while encouraging outreach—is sending mixed signals that confuse and alienate more than they reassure. Clarity of message is critical, and honesty demands we either fully embrace inclusion or transparently defend exclusion, with all its implications.
Practically, we must expand the conversation beyond intermarriage. Our distinctiveness lies in our approach to Torah and tradition—our willingness to balance fidelity to halachah with openness to contemporary realities. By broadening our communal conversations to encompass how Conservative Judaism uniquely integrates tradition and modernity, we will engage more meaningfully with Jews who seek thoughtful, nuanced, and spiritually fulfilling Jewish lives.
How Do We Get There?
First, Conservative Judaism must embrace rabbinic autonomy with greater vigor, empowering individual rabbis to officiate at interfaith weddings based on their judgment, values, and community needs. Just as halachic autonomy allows rabbis discretion in various aspects of Jewish law, so too must we trust rabbis with the spiritual health of their communities regarding interfaith marriage.
Second, we must invest deeply in education—for rabbis, congregational leaders, and community members—about the complexity and possibilities inherent in interfaith families. Effective education can dismantle stereotypes, clarify misconceptions, and foster empathy, transforming theoretical policy debates into practical, relational realities. It can demonstrate convincingly that interfaith marriages, when engaged thoughtfully, strengthen rather than weaken Jewish continuity.
Third, our movement needs to foster dialogue and collaboration across denominational lines, learning from other Jewish communities that have navigated these challenges successfully. By breaking down silos and building partnerships, we enrich our own perspectives and methodologies, positioning ourselves not as isolated gatekeepers but as vibrant participants in a larger Jewish dialogue.
Finally, Conservative Judaism must reclaim and articulate a clear, bold vision of Jewish identity that transcends marital status. Our message should emphasize that what unites us—the pursuit of meaningful Jewish living informed by tradition, ethics, and spiritual depth—is more profound than what divides us.
As we look ahead, we face both a challenge and an opportunity: to reaffirm Conservative Judaism’s core values while courageously adapting our approach to meet the realities of the Jewish world today. Only then can we ensure our movement not only survives but thrives, authentically engaging the complex, beautiful tapestry of Jewish life in the 21st century.
Leave a Reply