Center for Radically Inclusive Judaism

09/02/2026

Loved this quote from Rabbi Megan GoldMarche who leads Embark cohorts in Philadelphia: "More importantly than whether Jews marry Jews is whether we raise Jews. The people who are going to keep Judaism alive aren’t all going to be Jewish.”

Embark is a program for interfaith couples who want Judaism to be part of their household. A new group will meet in West Philadelphia this fall.

09/01/2026

Phoebe Maltz Bovy, opinion editor of the Canadian Jewish News, refers to “October 8 endogamists” – Young Jewish women who want to date only Jewish men because they are experiencing antisemitism (or anti-Zionism). This is a sad development, though I don’t know how to evaluate how prevalent it is.

She makes an interesting observation about her own experience: “Birthright Israel was, I learned while participating, about finding a Jewish partner with whom to make Jewish babies.”

She also seems to be negative generally about interfaith marriage: “Throughout history, Jewish family lines have assimilated out of the Jewish people via such marriages, often with the Jewish spouse converting out.”

If your options are dating Jews or getting grilled on geopolitical situations outside your control or knowledge areas, are you CHOOSING to only date Jews?

08/31/2026

The big news this month: reaction to the Conservative movement’s late-July teshuvah on responding to interfaith couples. My thoughts; a debate between eminent Conservative authorities; national news coverage; commentary; and local stories from the Bay Area and Atlanta.

Also this month – interesting research from the Jim Joseph Foundation and Project Prism; an important essay by Keren McGinity on men and parenting; and intriguing data from Tzomet Games.

08/27/2026

This article from the Atlanta Jewish Times quotes two local Conservative rabbis who had adopted some of the welcoming practices codified in the recent teshuva before it was issued; one of them was “critical of the slow pace of change in the Conservative halachic body.”

The article, noting the movement’s shrinkage, sums up the issue very well:

“The caution by the Conservative movement around sanctifying interfaith marriages is motivated by some Conservative leaders who see the issue as unacceptable under Jewish law and a betrayal of Conservatism’s traditional roots.

Others, particularly younger leaders, see the trend of Jews marrying outside the faith as an undeniable reality that should be addressed if the movement wants to keep couples connected to Judaism, particularly Conservative Judaism.

They believe that it is hypocritical to make interfaith couples welcome while denying them a synagogue wedding. They point out that the movement’s refusal to marry interfaith couple has not discouraged intermarriage but may have discouraged the couple’s participation in Conservative Jewish life.”

The movement’s committee on religious law has taken steps to allow synagogues to be more welcoming while still remaining opposed to interfaith ceremonies.

08/27/2026

Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson's statement that Conservative rabbis should be allowed to officiate at weddings of interfaith couples was so powerful, and from such an eminent Conservative authority, that in hindsight it was clear that a more traditional Conservative authority would write in disagreement.

I am not equipped to challenge Prof. Rabbi David Golinkin on fine points of halacha. But he does not address how the Conservative authorities have changed the movement’s understandings so as not to conflict with contemporary moral and cultural values. He says the Jewish people will disappear if the movement endorses intermarriage. But it hasn’t disappeared because the movement endorsed equality for women, and for LGBTQ+ people. He says the movement will cease to be a halachic movement – that hasn’t happened because of the women and LGBTQ+ decisions either.

I do challenge Rabbi Golinkin on two empirical points on which , with respect, he is just mistaken. He says, without reference to anything, that in most cases, a rabbi’s officiation does not bring a couple closer to raising their children as Jews. I beg to differ; there is research showing a correlation between having a rabbi officiate and both later synagogue membership and raising Jewish children.

Moreover – it is just plain common sense.

Second, Rabbi Golinkin says that the movement will have fewer members the farther it moves away from Jewish law. Most observers attribute the movement’s shrinkage, once 40% and now 15% of affiliations, to its unwelcoming attitudes towards interfaith marriage. That at least suggests that changing that approach will change that result; indeed, that reasoning is explicitly behind the recent teshuvah’s efforts to be more welcoming.

Rabbi Golinkin says rabbis officiating would lead to a schism in the movement because rabbis in other countries would disagree. But Rabbi Artson addressed that point, saying that regional differences could persist.

Asking how we can stem the tide of intermarriage, and saying that in-marriage has preserved the Jewish people, is, with all respect, out-moded thinking that hurts the movement, to say nothing about the many interfaith couples who are interested in Jewish engagement.

While I understand and sympathize with the issues confronting Conservative rabbis and synagogues in the United States concerning intermarriage, allowing Conservative rabbis to officiate at intermarriages will not solve that problem.

08/20/2026

Yes! The most important statement yet, by an eminent Conservative rabbi, the dean of the movement’s seminary at American Jewish University for 26 years, explaining why the movement’s halachic ruling against officiating at weddings of interfaith couples needs to change.

Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson affirms the purpose of “Maximizing Jewish life, learning, practice and belonging.” “The question is how to maximize Jewish life among the families who are forming regardless of our participation. If our refusal is not preventing marriages but is diminishing Jewish connection, we must reconsider.”

He sees this as an ethical issue: “Judaism teaches that every human being is created in the image of God and commands us to love the stranger…. I now see refusal to officiate at the marriage of a Jew who loves a non-Jew as increasingly inconsistent with our affirmation that love is sacred and dignity universal.”

“Ultimately, what does a loving God want of us? How do we best secure the future of our ancient covenant in contemporary America? For me, the answer lies in leaning toward love — toward welcome rather than rejection, toward engagement rather than distance, toward building Jewish homes rather than standing outside them.”

Maximizing Jewish life, learning, practice and belonging remains nonnegotiable. However, when a halakhic ruling fails to achieve its purpose, we must reexamine the ruling.

08/19/2026

Thoughts after studying the Conservative Teshuvah about rabbis supporting interfaith families:

I greatly respect the sincerity of the rabbis on the Committee on Law and Standards and the care with which they sought to navigate their commitments to tradition, on the one hand, and their wanting to craft a welcoming response to interfaith couples, on the other.

Unfortunately, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. They don’t want to disapprove of interfaith partnerships – they say they are changing “the teshuvot of the 1980’s and early 1990’s [that] were grounded in the ‘disapproval’ framework (p 3) – and they know that disapproval will not lead interfaith couples to engage meaningfully in Jewish practice, which is their stated objective. (p 2)

But they say that interfaith marriage “is a violation of Jewish law.” (p 32)

I just don’t think it is possible to uphold Jewish law, if it is understood to disapprove of interfaith relationships, and at the same time say that you do not disapprove of those relationships, or enact measures that you say indicate that you do not disapprove.

The rabbis say at the outset that the Standard of Religious Practice that prohibits Conservative rabbis from officiating at weddings of interfaith couples is not changing. (p 2) They acknowledge that “a wedding is a moment of great significance,” but say the teshuvah addresses “many other important life cycle moments that rabbis can offer as times for Jewish celebration.” Of course it’s true that there are many important life cycle events. But the wedding moment comes first. If there’s no rabbi then, the other moments may not happen Jewishly. And the reason there’s no rabbi at the wedding is… because of the understanding that interfaith marriage violates Jewish law.

One section of the teshuvah addresses whether intermarried Jews can be hired by Conservative institutions. It holds that they “should not engage in a clergy role any rabbi or cantor who is married to (or otherwise engaged in a romantic relationship) with a non-Jewish person.” The stated reason is that rabbis are role models for observance, and, again, … interfaith marriage is a violation of Jewish law. (p 32) (I learned from the teshuvah that rabbis are expected to serve as witnesses, but being in an interfaith relationship makes one ineligible to be a witness. (p 33))

The role model argument came up when the Reconstructionist and Reform and Hebrew College seminaries were considering changing their policies on whether to admit and ordain rabbinic students who are in interfaith relationships. As I argued then, what better role model of Jewishly-engaged interfaith couples could there be for interfaith couples than intermarried rabbis. But while that engagement is the rabbis’ objective, the teshuvah rules out the possibility that the Conservative seminaries might change their policies; it says the ruling that clergy cannot be in interfaith relationships “has implications for those who might be applying for admission to one of our rabbinical or cantorial schools or membership in the Rabbinical Assembly.” (p 33)

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that unless the Conservative understanding of halacha need to change such that interfaith marriage is not a violation. As I’ve said before, the movement has changed its understanding of halacha with respect to women and to LGBTQ+ Jews. Until it does change, the “disapproval framework” towards interfaith marriage will necessarily continue, with its negative impact that discourages interfaith couples from Jewish engagement.

With interfaith marriage being a violation of Jewish law, other provisions of halacha erect boundaries around and against the violation. One section of the teshuvah says that a Dedication of the Jewish Home ceremony can be used for interfaith couples, but it erects preconditions and processes around that ceremony. It can be used with interfaith couples provided they “have decided to build an exclusively Jewish home, in which the children will be raised solely as Jews (for example, if the mother is not Jewish, those children would undergo a halakhic affirmation of their Jewish status).” Further, “There should be a clear expectation that non-Jewish symbols and observances would not be a part of the couple’s home (e.g., no Christmas tree).” And further, “there should be a requirement of meeting regularly with the rabbi for a learning program of three to six months for the rabbi and the couple to get to know each other before the ceremony, form a connection between the couple and the rabbi, and talk about the Jewish home the couple is building and the values that should animate it. Without these prior discussions, both partners might agree to something they did not really understand.” (pp 14-15)

These procedures and preconditions are likely to limit instances where these ceremonies are held, in particular the insistence on a commitment not to have a Christmas tree, which reflects a lack of understanding that many very Jewishly engaged couples have Christmas trees that do not have religious significance to their families.

Another section of the teshuvah holds that “Non-Jews may not have an aliyah to the Torah” and that “Non-Jews may accompany their partner on the bimah in such a way that it does not
appear that they are having an aliyah but does respect their effort in supporting Jewish family life.” (page eight) The teshuvah’s rationale is that the words of the Torah blessings “are not naturally applicable to those outside the Jewish community.” As I’ve argued elsewhere, a partner from a different faith background could say with authenticity that their family is part of the “us” that was chosen and to whom the Torah was given, and that they too are part of that family. Even with the desire to move away from the disapproval framework, that is a bridge too far for the movement to cross.

I grew up in the Conservative movement and for my entire Jewish professional career I have hoped and encouraged the movement to help itself by doing better by interfaith couples. My emotional reaction to the teshuvah, then, is sadness.

https://www.jta.org/2026/07/29/ideas/as-conservative-rabbis-were-rethinking-how-our-communities-embrace-intermarried-couples?

The authors of a new teshuvah approved by Conservative Judaism’s Law Committee explain how they hope to balance tradition, inclusion and the realities of Jewish life today.

08/19/2026

Highlighting this very thoughtful piece -- even though it's not about interfaith family inclusion.

https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/im-not-jumping-for-jewish-joy-heres-why/?

“Jewish joy.” The phrase has become nearly ubiquitous across the Jewish communal landscape in recent years. Hillels, federations, day schools, camps and communal organizations regularly invite us to “celebrate Joyful Judaism,” “amplify Jewish joy,” “spread joyful Judaism” or “be ce...

08/14/2026

The Jim Joseph Foundation commissioned Project Prism, a very extensive multi-method research study of more than 2,000 Jewish young adults, seeking insights about “how this demographic expresses their Judaism, the types of experiences and relationships that impact them most, the external factors that shape their lives, and the key drivers of much of their decision-making.” The project (link in comments) was led by Sense Worldwide with NORC as a partner.

Of the sample, 58% do not have two Jewish parents, 22% were raised partly Jewish, and 33% were not raised Jewish. One of the key insights highlighted by Stacie Cherner, the project owner at JJF, is that “These Jewish young adults report a lower sense of connection, have fewer Jewish background experiences and are less likely to participate in Jewish experiences currently. However, many say they are open to engaging more in Jewish life.”

In a section about challenges to participation, the report notes that 21% said that a “more welcoming or inclusive atmosphere” was a driver of increased relevance and appeal (Public Preview Presentation, slide 64). I’m interested to know if respondents from interfaith families said that a more welcoming or inclusive atmosphere with respect to those in or from interfaith relationships was a driver for their participation. I didn’t find any information about that in my scan of the huge amount of data and numerous reports released as part of the project.

It appears that the study did ask participants if they were in Jewish or interfaith relationships, because a slide about the impact of recent events mentions “are in a Jewish relationship” and “are in a non-Jewish relationship” as factors (slide 68). I am very interested to know if the research surfaced any insights from respondents who are in interfaith relationships as to what challenges, or encourages, their participation.

Project Prism was a rigorous research project offering an unprecedented look at Jewish young adults today, including those not involved in Jewish communal life.

08/13/2026

Judah Ari Gross in eJP reports that for a year, hundreds of Jewish professionals have been playing Tzomet Games. The Games are designed to force participants to consider and make long-term plans for what American Jewry will look like in 2050.

Tzomet Games has issued a report on the issues raised in the games, and also analyzed the issues raised in speeches by Jewish leaders to see where there is alignment and where there are gaps. “Conversion” issues were routinely raised in the games, but not mentioned in any of the leaders’ public speeches.

“Conversion” as it came up in the games is not limited to formal religious conversion; it includes “streamlined Reform conversion, Jews becoming more comfortable reaching outside their communities, mass conversions in non-traditional contexts, cultural citizenship as a layer of belonging distinct from formal conversion, symbolic Jewish passports, [and] patrilineal recognition.”

I was glad to see “conversion” as expansively defined was routinely discussed in the games, and not surprised that it’s not a subject Jewish leaders are talking about.

https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/after-a-year-of-playing-tzomet-games-compares-its-simulations-to-real-world-jewish-leaders-rhetoric/?

For more than a year, hundreds of Jewish professionals across the United States and around the world have been playing a game forcing them to consider: What will American Jewry look like in 2050?  Launched last May, Tzomet Games — the brainchild of Jewish entrepreneur and philanthropist Phil Sie...