14
| THE CHRONICLE
recently than among older couples who have
been members for longer. The data from the
NJPS shows this to be the case. Among Reform
synagogue members under 40, there are 150 in-
married couples for every 100 intermarried
couples (couples in which the spouse is a Jew-
by-Choice are counted as in-marriages). Among
40
and older members of Reform synagogues,
the in-married couples outnumber the inter-
married couples by a factor of more than
three-to-one. If Jews-by-Choice are added to
non-Jewish spouses as persons of non-Jewish
birth, the numbers get even closer. The trend is
clear; more and more younger families in Re-
form congregations will include a non-Jewish
spouse and Jews-by-Choice. Reform Judaism is
not unique in this. Intermarried couples are less
present in Conservative synagogues than in Re-
form, but they are nonetheless more prevalent
among younger couples than older couples. In-
termarried and conversionary couples are also
changing the composition of Conservative con-
gregations, and they are more associated with
Reconstructionist synagogues. Among Recon-
structionist synagogues members under 40,
intermarried couples slightly outnumber in-
married couples. It is only in Orthodox
congregations that intermarried couples are few
and far between, and I suspect that the inter-
married couples who reported an Orthodox
synagogue membership were probably affiliated
with Chabad. This is important for how the
Reform Movement thinks of itself vis-a-vis
Conservative Judaism. With regard to inter-
married congregants, Conservative and Reform
share many of the same dilemmas and con-
cerns. This adds another dimension to the
growing gap Steve discusses between the Or-
thodox and other Jews.
Not all communities are equally impacted
by intermarriage. This chart compares syna-
gogue membership rates in four communities
that have conducted demographic surveys since
1999:
Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, and San
Francisco. In Chicago, 29% of current couples
are intermarried; almost double the percentage
in Baltimore (17%), but the rates of synagogue
membership for both in- and inter-married cou-
ples are almost the same. Half of all married
couples in Atlanta and San Francisco are inter-
marriages, and both these communities have
seen their Jewish populations grow by 50%
or more during the 1990s. In Atlanta only 8%
of intermarried couples are affiliated with
synagogues, as compared with 13% in San Fran-
cisco. Paradoxically, the rates are reversed for
in-married couples in these two cities. Among
in-married couples, synagogue membership is
higher in Atlanta (63%) than in San Francisco
(45%).
Why is the synagogue gap between
in- and inter-married couples smaller in San
Francisco than in Atlanta? One possible expla-
nation is that the San Francisco Jewish
community has long funded outreach programs.
Three important conclusions can be de-
rived from this comparison. First, intermarriage
is higher in rapid growth communities. Second,
outreach efforts appear to have paid off in San
Francisco. Third, the great majority of inter-
married couples in any community are not
affiliated, which poses a growing challenge to
synagogue sustainability as the number of in-
termarried couples continues to increase.
There are a number of factors associated
with the lower rates of synagogue membership
among intermarried couples, but I highlight
one that is of particular importance to syna-
gogues, the religious composition of the
couple. I have examined the impact of the re-
ligious composition of the intermarried
couples on synagogue affiliation in both the
NJPS and the San Francisco Jewish Population
Survey, and the results are strikingly similar.
Jews married to secular non-Jews are the most
likely to join a synagogue (28% nationally and
33%
in San Francisco), followed by Jews mar-
ried to Christians (26% nationally and 20% in
San Francisco). Only 1% of intermarried sec-
ular Jews in the NJPS and only 4% in San
Francisco belonged to a synagogue. The figure
is not much different for secular Jews married
to other secular Jews (8%). Secular Jews (i.e.
persons born Jewish who list “none” for their
current religion) don’t waste their money on
religious institutions.
Dual Religion intermarriages (Jews mar-
ried to Christians) in the NJPS outnumbered
Judaic intermarriages (Jews married to secular
non-Jews) by a factor of four-to-one in the
NJPS, and similar proportions apply to local
studies as well. Among members of Reform
synagogues in the NJPS, Dual Religion cou-
ples outnumbered Judaic couples by a factor of
three-to-one. Surprisingly, Dual Religion cou-
ples in the NJPS were almost as likely as Judaic
couples to raise their children in Judaism (45%
and 53% respectively). They do so for many
reasons. Some are only nominally Christian,
meaning that they classify themselves accord-
ing to the denomination in which they were
raised but do not identify strongly with it.
Others are sympathetic to the minority status
of Jews and agree that one more Jewish child
will have a greater impact in the big picture
than one more Christian child. Gender is also
important; intermarried Jewish women are al-
most twice as likely as intermarried Jewish men
to raise their children in Judaism. For syna-
gogues this means that coping with
intermarriage will involve dealing with non-
Jewish spouses with various degrees of
commitment to Christianity. This underscores
Steve’s conclusion that the increasing diversity
of American Jews “makes the task of bridging
Judaic mission and Jewish market an ongoing
and never-finished challenge.”
Synagogue Membership for Inmarried and Intermarried Couples in Four Communities
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
