2009
ISSUE 72 |
13
Rabbi Laura Geller
Senior Rabbi,
Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills
S
teven Cohen’s essay raises important ques-
tions about the nature of Jewish identity in
America today. He asserts that we need to cre-
ate a blending of a Judaism of meaning and a
Judaism of obligation, but he doesn’t give us
guidelines for how to proceed. In fact, most of
his examples, including the discussion of the
problems of synagogues within denomina-
tions, and the distance many contemporary
non-Orthodox Jews feel from Israel, makes a
successful blending seem unlikely. The few
hopeful signs he describes – including the “self-
initiated acts of Jewish communal creations”
such as “independent
minyanim
and rabbi-led
emergent spiritual communities” are not, in
my view, so different from what is happening
in many existing synagogues. They are, rather,
just younger organizations that will inevitably
grow into some of the same challenges that
more mature synagogues face.
These questions became very real to me
in my role as the senior rabbi of a large con-
gregation where people do not know each
other very well. We were beginning the process
of one-on-one conversations through
Hineni
,
our congregation-based community organiz-
ing effort that begins with congregants talking
to each other about what really matters in their
lives. We trained several congregants to initiate
these conversations. The way it works is that a
congregant would call another congregant
whom he or she often didn’t know and say:
“
Hi, I’m from Temple Emanuel, and I would
love to meet with you for about a half an hour
to get to know you and to hear from you con-
cerns you have about the quality of life in our
city that the congregation might become in-
volved with. Don’t worry. This isn’t about
money or anything like that… just about de-
veloping connections among congregants that
will strengthen our community and maybe
even give us some clarity about what we might
do as a congregation around social justice.
I’m happy to meet you in your office, in your
home, at the temple, or at a Starbucks... let me
know a time that would work for you.”
Most people responded affirmatively, but
several did not. Their response: “I’m sorry. I’m
too busy to meet with you.” Even the sacrifice
of a little bit of time was too much to ask.
I must admit I was surprised. It raised the
question of what institutions have a claim on
us. If your alma mater calls, do you respond?
Your child’s school? Your neighborhood asso-
ciation? Your synagogue… does it have a claim
on you?
I shared this story with my congregation
during the High Holy Days and asked them:
who or what has a claim on you? People an-
swered without hesitation: children, spouses,
parents, more family members, friends, people
in crisis.
As the discussion unfolded, it emerged
that the meaning people discovered in their
lives actually has something to do with being in
relationships that can make a claim on them,
relationships that create obligation. In other
words, congregants instinctively made the con-
nection between meaning and obligation.
Given that, our challenge as a Jewish commu-
nity is to make this connection clear.
So the beginning of one answer to Steven
Cohen’s challenge is to create synagogues that
help people understand that it is through the
claims that emerge out of relationships that we
create meaning. Our congregation-based com-
munity organizing is one model. Hundreds of
these conversations have taken place over the
past three years. People have shared with each
other the concerns they have about the future
of people they love. Out of those conversations
have come connections and obligations and
even some clarity about how we might work
together to change the conditions that caused
those concerns. That clarity, in turn, has led to
coalitions with other faith communities in Los
Angeles to work together on similar concerns.
The conversations, the relationships, the obli-
gation, and the work continue. All this adds
meaning to people’s lives, to our congregation,
and to the larger Jewish community. It might
also make a difference in the world. It is one
important model of how to blend a Judaism of
meaning with a Judaism of obligation, which,
Steven Cohen concludes, is as an ongoing and
never-finished challenge.
Dr. Bruce Phillips
Professor of Jewish
Communal Service, HUC-JIR/Los Angeles
S
teven M. Cohen’s piece is breathtaking in
scope and poses a wide variety of policy
and values questions to the synagogue com-
munity in general and the Reform Movement
in particular. Given the depth and scope of the
discussion of Steve’s essay, I have chosen to
explore in greater depth some issues that over-
lap with my own research. Steve paints a
panoramic landscape of contemporary Jewish
life with necessarily broad strokes. To better
understand the implications some of the
changes he describes, I was inspired to analyze
some available studies in depth to measure
with greater precision a few of the trends
he discusses.
Cohen conjectures that “perhaps half of
the couples joining Reform temples have a
partner who was not born Jewish.” A partner
not born Jewish includes both Jews-by-Choice,
Christians, and secular non-Jews. The notion
that the Reform Movement is being reshaped
by intermarriage is widely held along with its
openness to intermarried couples as an expla-
nation for its continued growth. I have many
times been told that there are synagogues in
which intermarried couples outnumber in-
married couples. Steven’s article piqued my
curiosity to investigate the extent to which this
conventional wisdom is true. I began by turn-
ing to the 2000 National Jewish Population
Survey (NJPS), which asked specifically about
the denomination of the synagogue to which
the respondent belonged. Of all respondents
that reported belonging to a Reform syna-
gogue, 14% were intermarried as compared
with 6% of Conservative synagogue members
and 3% of Orthodox and “traditional” syna-
gogue members. Intermarried couples are most
present in Reconstructionist synagogues where
they constitute 22%of the member households.
Although the NJPS did not ask how long
the household had been a member of the syn-
agogue, we can assume that “couples joining
Reform synagogues” refers to young couples.
Because intermarriage is most prevalent among
the youngest couples, it seems logical that in-
termarriage will be more prevalent among
young couples who have joined the synagogue
R E S P O N S E S TO D R . S T E V E N C O H E N ’ S A RT I C L E | R E S P O N S E S TO D R . S T E V E N C O H E N ’ S A RT I C L E
R E S P O N S E S TO D R . S T E V E N C O H E N ’ S A RT I C L E | R E S P O N S E S TO D R . S T E V E N C O H E N ’ S A RT I C L E
