October 2026 News – Talking, or Not, About Interfaith Family Inclusion; Responding Posivitively, or Not, to Interfaith Marriage

|

This month’s newsletter is early because we’re going on a trip to Morocco. Two topics have come up this month: whether leaders and organizations are talking – or not – about interfaith family inclusion, and whether Jews are responding positively – or not – to interfaith marriage.

The third season of Nobody Wants This has dropped; stories have already appeared in the Forward, JTA, Kveller, Hey Alma, Unpacked, Primetimer, and MEAWW. We haven’t had a chance to watch yet, and will plan to cover all of the reaction next month.

Let’s Talk About It – or Not

The Reform Movement. We often point out when interfaith family inclusion could have or should have been discussed, but was not. For example, we had been told by URJ staff that there would not be any programs about interfaith family inclusion at the upcoming Reform movement biennial in December. So we were pleased to learn that there will in fact be a session, co-led by 18Doors’ Rabbi Miriam Wajnberg and Rabbi Ari Perten from Mem Global, about “Welcoming Isn’t Enough: Why Multi-Heritage Families Still Feel Like They Don’t Belong” (programs aren’t listed yet on the website). That was very welcome news – it’s important for the movement not to be complacent, and to do what it can to increase from the current 13% the numbers of interfaith families who are synagogue members.

The Federation World. At the upcoming JFNA General Assembly in November, there will be a session on belonging (on the website look for Monday at 9 am programs):

Everyone wants to build Jewish communities where people feel they belong. Over the past several years, we have invested in new ways of creating connection, welcoming people with different identities and experiences, and designing Jewish life around the needs of a changing community. But what have we learned—and are we seeing the results we hoped for? This conversation will take an honest look at where we are today in fostering belonging. What is working, what is not, and what the next chapter of belonging in Jewish life should look like.

It’s not clear that interfaith families will be part of the discussion. The speakers include several federation officials, including the JFNA’s Rabbi Isaiah Rothstein who directs the Center for Jewish Belonging.

There’s another interesting sounding session, about “Opening New Doors and Expanding Pathways to Education” (on the on the website look for Monday at 2:45 programs) which will address “a remarkable opportunity” to bring day school and camp experiences “to many more children and families.” It’s not clear whether interfaith families and their children are part of that opportunity.

Related to the GA, the JFNA released a new survey about the “surge” in Jewish engagement post-October 7, which was covered by eJP and JTA. Top-line data and a slide deck are available.

Over a year ago, we said in our September 2025 newsletter that when JFNA started doing surveys on the surge, they included data on its impact on the engagement of various minority populations, including LGBTQ Jews, Jews of color, Jews with disabilities, financially vulnerable Jews, and, on at least one occasion, on mixed heritage couples. We didn’t see any mention of how minority populations have been impacted in the latest survey release. We were told that JFNA needed to look at that data; it doesn’t seem likely that it will be reported on at the GA.

Project Prism. In last month’s newsletter we wrote about the Project Prism study of young adults funded by the Jim Joseph Foundation. We noted that 21% of respondents said that a “more welcoming or inclusive atmosphere” was a driver of increased relevance and appeal. We expressed interest in knowing whether respondents from interfaith families (58% of the sample) or who were in interfaith relationships said that that meant a more welcoming or inclusive atmosphere with respect to people like them. We’ve been told that further analyses of the data are underway, and look forward to learning more.

David Cygielman, leader of Mem Global, wrote an interesting piece for eJP about how the Project Prism research supports Mem Global’s strategy to build flexible, informal and low pressure home-based spaces. He notes the research finding that to participate in Jewish experiences that create belonging, young adults must already have some sense of connection, but says it’s a “chicken-egg” problem: many young adults don’t have “formative” experiences that contribute to feelings of connection. He asks, “[W]hat about young adults who reach their 20s or 30s without ‘formative’ experiences like day school, summer camp or engagement on college campuses that contribute to feelings of connection?”

It was striking to me that no mention was made of young adults who have one Jewish parent, or who are partnered with people from different faith backgrounds, and how that may factor into their feelings of belonging. Perhaps they don’t feel like outsiders? Perhaps in Mem Global’s informal settings they don’t experience any negativity about interfaith relationships? Perhaps not many are partnered yet? These would be interesting questions to pursue.

Responding Positively – or Not

Embark. There was another nice article about Mem Global’s Embark program for interfaith couples, this one about an Atlanta cohort. We loved that Rabbi Daniel Dorsch, who leads Conservative Congregation Etz Chayim in Marietta, said: “I hope that the program teaches interfaith couples that there is a space for them in organized Jewish life, not only in a synagogue, but also that there is a rabbi who cares about them and welcomes them into the fold with open arms.”

Conflicted Father. An essay by a very conflicted father about how he treated his son who intermarried – “My son didn’t walk away from Judaism. I walked away from him” – reveals a lot about lingering negative attitudes toward interfaith marriage that some Jews still have. The author is a Jewish American journalist, a self-described “practicing Jew” and son of a Holocaust survivor. He felt it his duty “to keep the chain of our family’s Jewish ancestry from breaking.” His son Ben married a Cuban woman who is not Jewish.

The author initially felt “emotionally wounded, defeated.” He had prayed Ben, who went to Hebrew school and had a bar mitzvah, would marry someone Jewish, but he understood the consequences of living in a multicultural world, and hadn’t objected when Ben brought home girlfriends who weren’t Jewish, or made his expectations clear.

For him, the “question was how to respond when one of your loved ones makes a central life decision that goes against the core of who you are.” At his first meeting with the couple, he was sullen, barely said a word. He turned into an “ethnocentric tribalist, … feeling betrayed, even insulted.” He would “hear the voices of my ancestors, my parents, aunts and uncles, judging me for letting someone in my family ‘stray’ outside the fold.”

Ben had two sons, the author’s grandsons, “both of whom had brises and were given Hebrew names, a process that [Ben and his wife] chose together after exploring their meaning and finding ways to honor Ben’s grandfathers. About those steps to becoming part of a Jewish community, he says, “I wanted more…  [T]hey lived in a town without a synagogue, the closest two hours away.”

Ten years on, he felt under a “cloud of sadness,” “disappointed in a reality that continues challenging me to accept my son’s choices.” When he and Ben finally started talking about it, Ben said, “I don’t want to say I regret my marriage in any way. But as I’ve gotten older and probably especially now that I have kids, and post Oct. 7th, this has carried more meaning than in my mid-20s. Should I have married Jewish? Probably. Did I let you (and my grandparents) down? Likely.” But he also said he was not “abandoning his connection to our community,” had put “much thought, effort and wrestling … into his relationship with Judaism,” and searched for ways to connect them to their Jewish roots.

The author realizes that his son hadn’t left, had kept inviting him closer; it was the author who had “stepped back from the warmth and called it loyalty to my ancestors, to the tradition.” He still struggles with his fears “that I’ve let the chain break.” But he wants to be a different father, to love his son back.

Our two observations: first, Jewish parents making their expectations clear that they want their children to marry Jews, in many if not most cases, will not only not prevent interfaith marriage, but will instead risk pushing the interfaith couples from Jewish engagement. People who are told a community disapproves of what they did will not want to engage with that community.

Second, what strikes us most here is the father thinking that what’s important is whether his son’s spouse is Jewish – not whether his son’s family and children are Jewishly engaged. He thinks that the act of intermarrying itself is disloyal to the tradition, strays from the fold, “breaks the chain.” He seems oblivious that interfaith families can and do engage with and continue the tradition; he is unsatisfied that his grandchildren look like they will in fact be part of the chain. He only starts to realize after ten years that because of the sadness and disapproval he thought was loyalty to the tradition, he missed the opportunity to love his son’s family, to embrace them – and to support and encourage their engagement with that tradition.

Stephen Flatow. Another flawed statement came from Stephen Flatow, a prominent Jewish leader whose daughter was murdered in a Palestinian terror attack in 1995. In “Zionism needs no progressive permission” he defends religious Zionism as worthy of support by progressives, in addition to “secular, liberal, democratic Zionism.” In doing so, he says that much of American Jewish life has moved for generations towards an identity “defined increasingly by ethnicity, culture, politics and family memory rather than religious observance, Jewish learning and obligation.”

There is a lot to be said for Mr. Flatow’s argument that transmission of Jewish identity needs or is certainly strengthened by the religious aspects of Judaism. Unfortunately, he bases his argument on the high rate of interfaith marriage the low rate of raising children Jewish by religion among the intermarried, stating that the American Jewish “experiment” has not worked.

He says that the figures “do not prove that cultural Judaism causes intermarriage or that intermarriage alone creates a weaker Jewish identity. Pew warns against drawing that conclusion.” But then he says that “People whose Jewish identity is already weaker may simply be more likely to marry non-Jews.”

He also says that not “every Jew must become Orthodox,” that an intermarried Jew is not less worthy, and that children from intermarried families should not be pushed away. “Quite the opposite: All Jews should be welcomed and encouraged to deepen their connection to the Jewish people.”

Mr. Flatow doesn’t get it. Trashing interfaith marriage effectively expresses that intermarried Jews are less worthy. It completely undermines the effort to welcome interfaith families and encourage them to deepen their connection that Mr. Flatow says he supports.

In Other News

  • An interesting blog post by a Karaite Jew about their approach to patrilineality
  • Not one, but two articles about what sounds like a very interesting play that just opened in Winnipeg about an interfaith couple having their first child after fifteen years trying to decide about circumcision
  • Not sure what to make of this: a “vampire comedy” allegory for interfaith marriage involving marrying into a rich vampire family.

September 2026 News – Embark, Matrilineality, Reform Movement, Rabbi Al Axelrad

|

I hope your holidays have been meaningful in our very challenging world. It’s been quiet with respect to interfaith family inclusion; a few items reflect a wide range of attitudes towards interfaith marriage.

Embark: Embracing Interfaith Couples

The best piece this month was in the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent about a new Embark cohort there, led by Rabbi Megan GoldMarche, a campus rabbi at Penn Hillel. Embark is featured in our July newsletter. Run by Mem Global, it is “a program for interfaith and mixed-heritage couples who want Judaism to be part of their household. It is not a conversion class, though it shares qualities and lessons with one.”

I love what Rabbi GoldMarche, who aims to show interfaith couples that Jewish life is “accessible,” says:

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.

The goal is for the couple to be able to have a Jewish home together. I think we all know these days that you can have a Jewish home even if one person in the couple is not Jewish…. They can live a rich Jewish life whether they convert or not.

Identity – Challenged By Matrilineality

In “I came to America as a Jewish refuge. For some Jews, I still don’t count,” Radmilla Suleymanova, an immigrant from Turkmenistan, tells a powerful story.

Raised as a Jew by her father who is Jewish and her mother who is not, even attending Orthodox yeshivas as a child, her extended family did not consider her Jewish. But she “felt a deep connection with my Jewish roots” and felt deeply that “The Diary of Anne Frank” and “Schindler’s List” were “the history of my people.” She visited concentration camps, went on Birthright trips, yet “All the while, I carried a sense that my identity was being rejected or denied.”

[M]any Jews I encountered kept reminding me that, because my mother was not Jewish, they did not consider me Jewish either. I felt pushed out and repeatedly reminded that I was the other. Not good enough. Not one of us.

She considered conversion, but it “presented a contradiction. It would have required me to approach Judaism as an outsider, and I had never experienced myself that way. I didn’t need a stamp or diploma to become what I already was.” Conversion “was about conceding that everything I had loved until then somehow did not belong to me. I wasn’t willing to do that.”

Suleymanova is realistic, respectful, and assertive:

I understand that some Jews will never consider me Jewish. They are entitled to their beliefs, but not to rewrite my childhood or my inheritance.

I am not asking every Jewish community to bend the rules for me. But I do think the children of Jewish men get a raw deal. Jewish fathers are very influential in the home. They often set the tone, raise their children Jewish, share customs and histories. Fathers pass down identity.

I no longer need anyone to tell me what I am and whether I belong. I know what I inherited. I know who I am.

The Reform Movement: Positive – and Proactive?

There was another nice piece in the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent – an interview with Rabbi Rick Jacobs, who had some very positive things to say about interfaith marriage. (I didn’t love the way the Exponent posed the question: “Intermarriage rates are at record highs in the U.S. How can we still find ways to build strong Jewish homes in this environment?”)

Rabbi Alexander Schindler’s stance to lovingly embrace interfaith families was “the most brilliant shift… [looking] back, absolutely critical.”

The “idea that intermarriage looks like decline is a mistaken assumption.”

We have focused on bringing interfaith families into the mainstream of Jewish life and we are now succeeding…. We are now the largest movement. Part of the reason is our embrace of interfaith families.

There are things that a couple can do that increase the sense of belonging. We show up with arms extended.

I have questioned whether the Reform movement is coasting on its laurels, or proactively planning to do more to attract more interfaith families. At the time  of our June newsletter, at the upcoming biennial there were no sessions that would specifically be about interfaith family inclusion (although I was told “many sessions will be relevant.”) I said that only 13% of interfaith families belong to synagogues, and that for a synagogue movement, that data should be a spur to focused action. After the original version of this blog was posted on September 30, I was pleased to learn that there will be a session, co-led by 18Doors’ Rabbi Miriam Wajnberg and Rabbi Ari Perten from Mem Global, called “Welcoming Isn’t Enough: Why Multi-Heritage Families Still Feel Like They Don’t Belong.”

Let’s Talk About It – or Not?

A beloved rabbi, Al Axelrad, died recently. A very nice obituary in JTA described him as an early pluralist, founder of a havurah, advocate to end the war in Vietnam and divest from South Africa, activist to free Soviet Jews, and creator of adult bar/bat mitzvahs. It neglected to mention that Rabbi Axelrad was a pioneer in officiating at weddings of interfaith couples.

The obituary in the Boston Globe did mention it: “A passionate advocate for interfaith understanding and marriage, he believed that supportive partners and spouses of different faiths could strengthen Jewish families, the Jewish population and community life all around.”

His Wikipedia entry adds:

Beginning in the first years of his rabbinate, Axelrad advocated for rabbinic officiation at marriages of a Jew and a non-Jew, although only under limited circumstances. Noting that supportive non-Jewish spouses could be involved in raising Jewish children, he proposed that rabbis should be understanding of a non-Jewish partner’s reluctance to convert to Judaism for any of a variety of reasons. For couples willing to raise Jewish children, Axelrad proposed that the cooperation and support of a rabbi at the outset of the marriage could be crucial in their decision to do so.

Rabbi Axelrad was supportive in the early years of InterfaithFamily (now 18Doors). I’m sure his memory is a blessing for many, many people.

Unclear, Seems Negative

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). To the extent this is accurate and prevalent, it is a sad development.

Bovy 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 seems to be negative 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.”

The Traditional Perspective – Interfaith Marriage = the End of Judaism

An Orthodox media outlet, the Jewish Press, had a story about Todd Brody, who started a website, ChoosingTheChosenLife.com, to publicize stories of people who became traditionally observant. Brody espouses the traditional view:

I realized that if I didn’t make a change, my children might not marry Jews. And if they didn’t, then Judaism in my family line could end with me. That thought shook me.

We talk about Jewish continuity, but for many Jews, the reality is that without observance, the likelihood of intermarriage skyrockets. And once that happens, within a generation or two, the Jewish identity fades. I didn’t want to be the link in the chain where it broke.

Becoming observant wasn’t just about my own spiritual growth. It was about ensuring that my children, grandchildren, and great‑grandchildren would be part of the Jewish future.

In Other News

Season Three of Nobody Wants This is coming this month. The first eight paragraphs of a Times of Israel blog post, “Put Me Down for Outrage,” makes the interesting point that “the show asks Joanne, and, by extension, the audience, to take Noah’s Jewish commitments seriously.” (The rest of the post is critical of the way actor Adam Brody talked in an interview about the conflict in Gaza.)

August 2026 News – Reaction to the Conservative Teshuvah; plus Project Prism, Men and Parenting, and Tzomet Games

|

The big news this month is reaction to the Conservative movement’s late-July teshuvah on responding to interfaith couples. But three items first… 

Project Prism

The Jim Joseph Foundation released a report on Project Prism, a 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.”

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 in eJP by JJF’s Stacie Cherner 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 meant a more welcoming or inclusive atmosphere with respect to those in or from interfaith relationships. Hopefully that will come out in further reports on the data.

The study did ask participants if they were in Jewish or interfaith relationships: 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’m very interested to know if the research surfaced any further insights from respondents who are in interfaith relationships as to what challenges, or encourages, their participation.

Men and Parenting

Keren McGinity had an important piece in eJP, “Let’s make an egalitarian approach to fostering Jewish identity in the home a communal priority.” Her argument:

  • Among Jews in particular, women are more likely than men to take on the role of transmitting religious identity to their children.
  • Intermarried Jewish men have not raised Jewish children equally effectively as have intermarried Jewish women because they still see their primary role as providers.
  • Efforts around egalitarianism have focused on eliminating barriers to women’s full participation in Jewish life without corresponding focus on men’s full participation in family life, specifically Jewish parenting.

McGinity calls for a cultural shift towards  equal parenting as a Jewish value: “By placing greater social and cultural value on men’s roles as fathers, and by enfranchising men to participate in something that truly matters, we will increase the proportion of children raised Jewish and raise the likelihood that your grandchildren will be Jewish.”

Tzomet Games

Judah Ari Gross reports in eJP that for a year, hundreds of Jewish professionals have been playing Tzomet Games, which are designed to force participants to consider and make long-term plans for what American Jewry will look like in 2050. Tzomet Games issued a report that compares issues raised in the games, and issues raised in speeches by Jewish leaders. It notes that “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 that “conversion” as expansively defined was routinely discussed in the games, and not surprised that it’s not a subject Jewish leaders are talking about.

Conservative Developments – My Thoughts

As reported last month, In late July the Conservative movement’s Committee on Law and Standards issued a teshuvah addressing how their rabbis could support interfaith couples. In a nutshell, the ruling codified numerous practices designed to welcome and include interfaith couples, but did not address and left standing the movement’s ban on its rabbis officiating at weddings of interfaith couples.

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 is one of sadness.

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.

The rabbis 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 acknowledge that disapproval will not lead interfaith couples to engage meaningfully in Jewish practice, which is their stated objective (p 2). But I don’t think it’s possible to not disapprove yet continue to maintain that interfaith marriage “is a violation of Jewish law” (p 32).

You can’t 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, interfaith marriage is a violation of Jewish law. (p 32) (I learned something new to me from the teshuvah: 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 the Conservative understanding of halacha changes needs to change such that interfaith marriage is not a violation. As I’ve often said, 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 can be used 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 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.” (p 8) 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.

Eminent Conservative Authorities’ Debate: Rabbis Artson and Golinkin

I was thrilled to read “Leaning Toward Love: Expanding What Counts as a Jewish Home” by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, former 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. In a word, it’s because they should “lean toward love.”

Rabbi 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.”

I can only imagine the pressure Rabbi Artson’s piece puts on the Committee on Law and Standards to address and change its approach to officiation.

In hindsight, it was clear that a more traditional Conservative authority would write in disagreement, which Rabbi Prof. David Golinkin promptly did. I’m not equipped to challenge Rabbi Golinkin on fine points of halacha. But he does not address how Conservative authorities have changed the movement’s understandings in the past 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. 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. But 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 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.

National Coverage

Jay Deitcher of eJP covered the teshuvah extensively in “Conservative rabbis further welcome interfaith families — but keep weddings off the table.” He quotes Keren McGinity, the movement’s former director of intermarriage engagement and inclusion who was dismissed from her position a year ago, as “delighted to see the CJLS respond thoughtfully to interfaith issues, however, the teshuvah reads as archaic. Some Conservative rabbis have already been doing what it mentions for years.” Further, the “no Christmas tree” mention in the teshuvah “will not land well with families who have a tree for cultural — not religious — reasons, just as immigrant Jewish families did earlier in American history.” McGinity has advocated for an alternative interfaith wedding ceremony to be created.

Rabbi Jacob Blumenthal, CEO of the movement, said that while many in the movement are focused on officiation for interfaith couples, “the fact is, creating a Jewish home, raising Jewish children,… takes place every day of their lives.”

A co-editor of the teshuvah, Rabbi Pamela Barmash, said, “We’re a diverse movement that has [some rabbis that] will feel that this is already beyond what they feel is needed in their community, and we have others who feel that they need additional tools.”

The article notes that the movement has hired an intermarriage and Jewish living program manager and created advisory groups to help congregations with the recommendations in the paper, and is also working on creating curricula and training for rabbis.

(The Jewish News Service summarized the teshuvah, without commentary.)

Commentary

On Facebook, Keren McGinity made an important statement of her views, quoted here in full:

I care deeply about Jewish identity and Judaism. I worked for the Conservative movement for shy of 5 years because I believe that a strong center ultimately supports the full spectrum of identities and observance. I wanted to help stem the tide of out migration due to how Jews and their beloved of other faiths and/or cultural backgrounds were treated in Jewish spaces. So, when my phone started blowing up this week over a document released by the Rabbinical Assembly offering guidance to its members in supporting interfaith (or mixed-heritage) couples and families, I was hopeful about seeing substantive progress. Sadly, and with respect to everyone who participated in its wordsmithing, the “Gateways into Jewish Living” by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards fails to impress.

Rabbi Steven Abraham, whose intellectual courage has always impressed me, spells out his disappointment. I could not say it any better and am sharing his Substack post.

Furthermore, requiring Jews and their families to abstain from having a Christmas tree to secure a blessing from a Conservative rabbi on their home is beyond outdated. Numerous rabbis and cantors are the adult children of intermarriage who grew up with a Christmas tree! (Not to mention immigrant Jewish families earlier in American history and Louis D. Brandeis for whom Brandeis University is named who had Christmas trees.) I am concerned that this prohibition will: a) send more intermarried Jews packing; b) encourage “don’t ask, don’t tell” the rabbi.

I’ll repeat what I shared at the Conservative movement’s biennial in 2019: Let the rabbis, whose teachers trusted them enough to ordain them, decide how best to serve their communities!

In his Substack post, Rabbi Abraham says “a movement with intellectual courage” would openly debate the officiation issue, which he says is “the issue at the center of everything.”

The wedding day, we are told, is only one day in the establishment of a family. That is true. But it is a rather important day, particularly when a rabbi tells a congregant, “I will welcome you before the wedding, bless you after the wedding, hang a mezuzah on your door, stand with you at your child’s b’nei mitzvah, accept your donations, bury your spouse, and help you say Kaddish, but on the day you become a family, I cannot be there.”

Rabbi Deborah Reichman, who is not a Conservative rabbi, wrote a very powerful commentary on the teshuvah, using a “yes and” framework – she says “yes” to the steps taken “and” a change on officiation is needed.  The title says it well: “Conservative rabbis just told interfaith couples they don’t count — again; New guidance mistakenly maintains a ban on performing weddings, even as it rights other wrongs.”

Local Stories – Bay Area, Atlanta

David A.M. Wilensky in jWeekly wrote that the practices codified in the teshuvah are already commonplace in Northern California Conservative synagogues. “That’s been done by us;” “there isn’t much new there;” “it’s affirming what a lot of congregations have been doing.” But “it’s good to formalize it” and “the rulings send a good message.”

Rabbi Ben Herman, an 18Doors Rukin Fellow, is “among a contingent of Conservative rabbis who believe they should be allowed to officiate interfaith weddings under certain conditions.” He says, “That’s the big issue, period. In my experience, having tried to do things besides the wedding day – they generally fall flat. Because the couple’s big concern is, ‘Does this rabbi value our relationship so much that they will be with us on the biggest day of our lives up to this point?’ Anything short of offering rabbinic approval on the wedding day itself is insufficient.  When I’ve tried different approaches, I often don’t hear back. They want a yes or no.”

Dawn Kepler is quoted as saying that “allowing rabbis to officiate at interfaith weddings would be a bridge too far for the Conservative movement.” She “considers it significant that the Conservative movement is welcoming interfaith couples and families within a halachic framework.” “I think it’s terrific. There needs to be a movement in the Jewish community that adheres to Jewish law and invites interfaith families to be a part of that.” But the Conservative movement has evolved its understanding of Jewish law with respect to women and with respect to LGBTQ+ people; why couldn’t it evolve with respect to interfaith marriage?

An article in 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.

In Other News

I hate to end on a sour note, but there was yet another awful Orthodox screed out of Israel, “Assimilation Can’t Be Stopped,” in which the author, based on ChatGPT forecasts, estimates that intermarriage will reach 90% by 2050, and therefore “there is no hope for the Jewish people in America.” And yet another piece from an Israeli writer who says the American Jewish community will simply disappear because of intermarriage.

July 2026 News, from 18Doors, Embark, the Conservative Movement, jHUB, and Israel

|

18Doors

The biggest news this month: “18Doors Announces New Leadership; New Chapter Focused on Building Belonging for Multi-Heritage Families.” I am beyond pleased that 18Doors will continue, under the leadership of Adam Pollack as Executive Director and Fern Chertok as Board Chair, “refocusing on equipping clergy, professionals and lay leaders with the tools to build communities where multi-heritage individuals, couples and families actually belong, and building the network of partners and funders who can sustain that work long-term.” It’s also great to see new funding from the Leon and Toby Cooperman Family Foundation. I hope all associated with 18Doors have much success!

New Leadership at Embark and Congregation Sukkat Shalom

Mem Global has named Alyssa Craft as the new executive director of Embark, its cohort program that helps interfaith and mixed-heritage couples explore Jewish life together. “Guided by a local rabbi, and alongside a cohort of their peers, Embark couples learn how to bring Jewish learning and traditions into their lives in a way that feels relevant and accessible to them, without any prerequisites or expectations to convert.”

A former Houston Hillel professional and alumna of Moishe House, the child of an interfaith family and part of a mixed-heritage marriage herself, Craft wants “Embark to be a movement as much as a program. One that reaches mixed-heritage couples and families in every community, is embraced by rabbis and clergy across denominations and becomes a cornerstone of Jewish belonging nationwide. The stronger the sense of belonging we create for our partners and families, regardless of their religious affiliation, the stronger our Jewish future will be.”

Rabbi Sam Gordon, the founding rabbi of Congregation Sukkat Shalom in Wilmette, was a pioneer in embracing interfaith families. The Chicago Tribune ran a nice story about the new senior rabbi, Allison Tick Brill, at a congregation “busting at the seams.” Rabbi Brill notes that the  congregation’s president, who is Catholic, and its treasurer, who is Mormon, are “deeply committed to the project of the synagogue.” “It is unusual to have the highest leadership roles [in a congregation be] members of other faiths… we believe that the diversity of opinions and the richness that they bring from other traditions enhances our expression of Judaism and strengthens our tent.”

Conservative Movement

The Rabbinical Assembly has just issued a new teshuvah, “Guiding the Conservative/Masorti Rabbi in Supporting Families with Non-Jewish Loved Ones.” The co-editors of the teshuvah, Rabbis Pamela Barmash and Emily Barton, offer “As Conservative rabbis, we can’t perform interfaith weddings. But we can bless the Jewish families they create,” that explains how “they hope to balance tradition, inclusion and the realities of Jewish life today.”

The new teshuvah follows a December 2025 set of recommendations which we commented on previously. An emailing to Conservative synagogue leaders says,

This teshuvah gives Conservative/Masorti clergy new, sanctioned ways to mark meaningful moments in these families’ lives: a public mi shebeirakh before or after a wedding day, a hanukkat habayit ceremony to dedicate a couple’s home, and a welcome for non-Jewish parents on the bimah at their children’s b’nei mitzvah. It also affirms that a Jew observes full Jewish mourning practices for a non-Jewish parent, spouse, or child, and affirms that intermarried individuals can serve in most synagogue roles other than clergy.

But,

On the wedding day itself, clergy will continue to officiate a wedding ceremony only when both partners are Jewish, though this teshuvah focuses on the many meaningful ways clergy and communities can walk alongside a couple before and after that day.

Rabbis Barmash and Barton say that with the teshuvah, halacha “address[es] issues facing intermarried couples and families robustly” and “seeks to honor these couples and families and their commitment to Jewish life in our congregations and communities.”

As I’ve said many, many times in the past, anything the movement does to help interfaith couples and partners from different faith backgrounds to feel welcomed and included is positive, but respectfully, until halacha advances so as to allow Conservative rabbis to officiate for interfaith couples, those couples and partners won’t feel fully included, or feel belonging in Conservative settings.

At this writing I haven’t had a chance to study the teshuvah itself, and will plan to comment next month.

HUC

The Forward reported on an upswing in HUC and JTS rabbinical school enrollment, with both institutions reporting their largest classes in fifteen years. I was curious and inquired whether any part of the HUC increase could be traced to the change in policy which now allows students who are in interfaith relationships to be admitted; I was told that the school doesn’t ask the question, and thus doesn’t have that data.

The article notes that more than one third of Conservative congregations have closed since 2000, as have one in five Reform synagogues.

Cleveland’s jHUB

I continue to be impressed with Cleveland, where, “as intermarriage has risen,” with more Jewish children raised by interfaith parents, they are “Building Jewish identity through education, family engagement.” One synagogue educator says, “we are creating programs to welcome families that have non-Jewish parents;” “We try to take into account, for those parents who might not have the same background, those differences and we try to be inclusive. We find that families of interfaith children are very excited to learn and we want to make it as positive as we can for them.”  Marlyn Bloch Jaffe, the CEO at the Jewish Education Center of Cleveland, says, “Strategically, it is important to offer multiple paths to engagement, because people connect differently,” including “jHUB for interfaith couples and families.”

Remembering Rabbi Kelman

Jweekly published my letter to the editor: “In addition to the many pioneering efforts of Rabbi Stuart Kelman mentioned in Sue Fishkoff’s lovely tribute (“Rabbi Stuart Kelman, Conservative pioneer, 84,” June 3) he was part of the Tiferet Project, a consortium of Conservative rabbis who spent two years studying issues of intermarriage, resulting in a groundbreaking book, “A Place in the Tent: Intermarriage and Conservative Judaism.” The group advocated in the book for making “a genuine place” “for intermarried households within the communal tent” because “by doing so, many Jews who feel there is no place for them or for their Jewish children will come to be a vital part of the Conservative synagogue community and, by extension, the larger Jewish community.”

Smoothing the Path

Smoothing the Path: Strategies for Integrating Newly-Connecting Jews is a fascinating report by Rabbi Julia Appel of Clal. Based on interviews of ten “Jewish seekers” and six Jewish professionals, it asks, when already motivated individuals reach out for a way into Jewish community in Toronto, how institutions could best help them integrate and build a sustainable Jewish life. (Rabbi Appel also wrote about the report for Times of Israel, “We Have the Seekers. Will We Keep Them?”)

The participants included four Jews by Choice, three patrilineal Jews, two matrilineal Jews, and one in the process of converting. Whether any were in interfaith relationships is not noted. Curiously, the only mention of interfaith families is in a recommendation about learning, which notes “a recent uptick in non-Jews wanting to learn more about Judaism as allies,” says the “same basic curriculum would apply to both new seekers and non-Jews with no plans for becoming Jewish,” and then adds, “Additionally, non-Jewish partners of Jews are an interested and invested audience to basic Judaism learning courses.”

But many of the observations about these seekers fit like a glove with respect to interfaith couples and partners from different faith backgrounds, especially this one in the Recommendations section of the report: “Belonging is not simply stated welcome, but actively recognizing people as legitimate members of the Jewish community, especially if they fall outside the commonly assumed Jewish life path.”

Here are other observations that resonated:

  • Low-barrier, nonjudgmental spaces and programs explicitly open to all, regardless of background, were critical starting points. “All interviewees mentioned at some point their fear of “doing it wrong” or their lack of ritual or Hebrew literacy, which discouraged their ongoing engagement.”
  • “When people meet a person and they feel like this person is not judging me and is welcoming me, it makes all the difference. The more personal, human to human contact, the better.”
  • Interviewees “named certain legitimators that made them feel they belonged at a given Jewish event, including being personally invited, knowing someone there, or receiving clear explanations of what to expect.”
  • “Interviewees had to actively determine whether a Jewish community would truly welcome them, rather than merely tolerate their presence.… Patrilineal Jews, Jews of Color, Jews by Choice, LGBTQ individuals, Soviet Jews, or who held other marginalized identities especially could not take their own inclusion for granted.”
  • “[I]nterviewees were not looking for affirmation only of their specific identity. They consistently described gravitating toward Jewish communities explicitly broadcasting acceptance and diversity as core values, which gave interviewees permission to be themselves.” “When spaces were intentionally inclusive of one marginalized group, interviewees across identities understood that those spaces might also include them.”
  • “Having a stated commitment to diversity and pluralism made interviewees feel they could even hold divergent views and still feel that they belonged. At the same time, many noted that feeling they aligned on core values with communal leadership, particularly rabbis, on major issues increased trust and comfort. And seeing other participants who were ‘like them,’ or people they wanted to get to know better, also played a significant role in sustaining engagement. Jewish field practitioners stressed the importance of clarity, noting that ‘people need to know what a space is and who it’s for so they can self-select.’” “Pluralism, clarity of values, and visible diversity allowed seekers to find places where they could bring their full selves, … Communal leadership might … encourage institutions to name both their boundaries and their welcome.”
  • “Interviewees described feeling like they weren’t part of the ‘in-crowd’ of Jewish life, whether because they did not attend Jewish overnight camp, did not grow up in Toronto, did not live in the ‘right’ neighborhood, or did not know the ‘right’ people—like they could never catch up or fully enter the social fabric of Jewish life. Several mentioned ‘Jewish geography’ as something they actually longed for and were trying to give to their children.”
  • “[G]atekeeping – turning people away who are deemed not sufficiently Jewish – [i]s a major problem.” “Finding a community where they met ritual requirements around Jewish status, and therefore could participate fully, was a challenge for those who were not born Jewish according to traditional Jewish law. The assumption of Ashkenazi identity and being born Jewish was frequently named as alienating, even by interviewees who had formally converted. Several patrilineal Jews and converts experienced the casual dismissal of their identity as illegitimate, one even in a Kiddush conversation, which left them feeling like they couldn’t be full members of the community.”
  • “[O]nboarding involves repair, because many adults who are returning to Judaism carry long memories of prior exclusion. Even communities that sincerely aspire to be inclusive can inadvertently cause new injury if past harms are not acknowledged or if insider norms go unexamined. Transparency about communal boundaries can reduce confusion, but it does not eliminate pain, particularly for those who have experienced repeated exclusion. Inclusion will sometimes generate discomfort—especially as assumptions are challenged and insider norms are named. Repair of prior harm cannot be rushed or outsourced.”

News and Opinion from/about Israel

Illustrating the diversity of opinion in Israel, Judah Ari Gross reported for eJewishPhilanthropy that the Jewish Agency for Israel, in “a rare public rebuke of the Israeli government,” criticized two coalition-backed bills that “could undermine Jewish pluralism and weaken the Jewish people.” “One would effectively criminalize egalitarian and women-led prayer at the Western Wall, and the other would reject non-Orthodox conversions to Judaism for the purpose of immigration to Israel.”

Far from the coalition’s position, Nava Anne Grant offers in Ha’arertz, “Patrilineal Jews Like Gwyneth Paltrow Deserve Better From the State of Israel.” Paltrow, a patrilineal Jew married to a Jewish man, had appeared in advertising for real estate in Israel and then criticized for doing so by critics of Israel. Grant writes, “absurdly, according to the outdated standards of Israel’s religious authorities, Jews with Paltrow’s background must often contend with outrageous question marks over their identity and place within the Jewish tribe.”

The ill-treatment of patrilineal Jews is a tragedy. Halakhically, we must make it as easy as possible for people with mixed heritage to formally join the Jewish community. They are some of the Jewish people’s most impassioned supporters. Why would we cast a doubt over their Jewish identity?

Frank interviewed Rabbi Adam Mintz, who runs Project Ruth, an organization “working to make Orthodox conversions more fair and welcoming.” While Jews with patrilineal heritage are not Jewish according to halakha, they have a status called zera Israel – they come from “a Jewish seed.” According to Grant, Rabbi Mintz said that the Jewish community has a history of rabbinical courts which have exercised more leniency toward them, yet the Israeli rabbinate refuses to follow that precedent.

In Other News

  • A story about the revival of the New Orleans Jewish community and Touro Synagogue, a nearly 200-year-old Reform congregation that is “defying institutional decline,” where interfaith families are part of the revival.
  • An interesting essay about “Jewish citizenship” by Joshua Ladon, a senior faculty member at the Shalom Hartman Institute, who lays out a” comprehensive yet flexible vision for meaningful Jewish participation rooted in shared responsibility while open to multiple pathways and commitments.” I wondered if a partner from a different faith background could be considered a “Jewish citizen” under this framework.
  • A cute story in jweekly about a grandson in an interfaith family who decided at age fifteen that he wanted a b mitzvah and wanted his grandmother to have one with him.
  • A beautiful article in the Salt Lake Tribune about the many conversions to Judaism that are happening there.
  • A long, unfortunate story about children apparently refused admission to a day school in Canada because the standards of their mother’s conversion were not acceptable to the school.

June 2026 News: Worth-watching CASJE panel; day school, federation and Reform silence; lessons from eminent rabbis; Milwaukee study

|

I don’t need to tell you that there is an awful lot going on in the world that demands attention.

In the Jewish world, most of the attention understandably continues to focus on Israel/Iran/Palestine/Gaza and on antisemitism.

I can’t help but feel that in the Jewish world, almost no one wants to talk about engaging interfaith families. It may be lack of bandwidth – but I think there’s more to it. And it’s especially problematic at this time, when uncertainty about the ongoing status of 18Doors demands, in my opinion, a concerted effort to engage interfaith families.

This month there was one bright development, a panel discussion devoted to interfaith marriage offered by CASJE and co-sponsored by eJewishPhilanthropy.

But elsewhere – in the day school world, the federation world, and the Reform world – silence and missed opportunity.

CASJE Panel

Thank you to CASJE, the highly-regarded Collaborative for Applied Studies in Jewish Education, for sponsoring “Jewish–Interfaith Families and the Future of Jewish Life in the United States” with eJewishPhilanthropy on June 11. The last time there was a publicly advertised webinar on this subject was a long time ago.

The 200 people who registered for the program heard from Bruce Phillips and Ted Sasson on recent demographic shifts: Phillips said people with one Jewish parent will outnumber people with two Jewish parents by 2 to 1; Sasson said a high rate of interfaith marriage and a high retention rate (those who identify as Jews) result in a growing population. Keren McGinity spoke about the tenacity of gendered behavior and the need to integrate equal parenting into programming. Rabbi Shena Jaffe explained how Honeymoon Israel is having its deepest impact on partners from different faith backgrounds and those with one Jewish parent. Sophie Mortman described what 18Doors has learned about what drives interfaith family engagement. I encourage you to watch the complete program here, and to see the slides here.

Mortman said that 18Doors hoped to pivot to building a field of professionals, offering training and support, and helping to connect across organizations. In my closing remarks about next steps, which you can view separately here, I encouraged support for that effort, and renewed my call for a concerted effort to engage interfaith families.

But other than the CASJE program, as Bruce Philips said, interfaith marriage seems to have “dropped off the communal radar.”

The Day School World

Prizmah: Center for Jewish Day Schools issued a report, which JTA headlined as “Jewish day school enrollment is rising across denominations.” The increased enrollment was measured in community and Reform day schools, among others. I’m all in favor of day schools for those who chose them. But unless I missed it, the report said nothing at all about interfaith families sending their children to day schools – whether that accounted for any of the increase, or whether efforts have been made to increase representation from that population.

The Federation World

Shortly after the Prizmah study came out, eJP reported “Israeli government, JFNA partner on $66.7 million plan to boost Jewish day schools.” Gary Torgow, Jewish Federations of North America board chair, told eJP, “In recent years, formal Jewish education has become a growing focus for JFNA…. Jewish identity and Jewish education are key to the future of the Jewish people and combating antisemitism.” Torgow said October 7 and antisemitism “awakened something in the Jewish community” about the importance of Jewish education.

But my review of national and local Jewish community studies found that only 22% of interfaith families (compared to 51% of inmarried families) provide any K-12 Jewish education for their children. JFNA hasn’t said anything about any effort to increase that participation.

Around the same time, JFNA released “2026 LGBTQ+ Jewish Engagement Report.” eJP headlined this study as “JFNA survey finds LGBTQ+ Jews want more than just a Pride Shabbat dinner.” It’s a very interesting report, with findings about what LGBTQ+ Jews are looking for and respond to that are applicable to interfaith families as well.

But the report is silent about interfaith identities and relationships. The Executive Summary begins by referring to the post October 7 surge in Jewish engagement among “historically marginalized Jews, including LGBTQ+ Jews, Jews of Color, Jews with disabilities, and financially vulnerable Jews.” When JFNA preliminarily reported on surge data among historically marginalized groups, at the May 2025 Jewish Belonging Summit, it included data on interfaith families. Now they’ve stopped talking about it, not even mentioning it in this report.

The survey instrument shows that JFNA asked about racial and ethnic identity, and the report does talk about issues that LGBTQ+ Jews who are also Jews of color face. But the survey didn’t even ask respondents if they were in interfaith relationships. Bruce Phillips’ analysis of the 2020 Pew data shows that 77% of gay or lesbian Jews, compared to 43% of straight Jews, are in interfaith relationships. Doesn’t that huge intersectionality merit study and comment?

The Reform World

In April I wrote about an eJP essay by a URJ leader that referred to the “multiplicity of diverse Jewish identities” but did not mention diverse faith backgrounds. I said, “The leaders of the Reform movement seem to think that interfaith family inclusion is at the center of its work because it was pioneered by the movement, and that they have been successful at it, so they don’t need to talk about or prioritize doing anything about it.” That was also the case at the May 2026 Re-CHARGING Reform conference, where interfaith family engagement was not on the agenda, as I previously reported.

Now the URJ is holding a biennial in December. In February I submitted a proposal for a program session to be called, “Interfaith Marriage – Where Do We Stand?” with potential speakers including someone from 18Doors, myself, and someone on the URJ staff. This month I was told that my proposed session would not be included. I did not get a specific answer to my follow-up question, “is one of the 65 sessions going to be about interfaith family inclusion? Even in part?” I was told, “Interfaith families are the norm in Reform communities and inclusion of interfaith families is both a topic worthy of its own time and also part of every other conversation. It is fair to say that many sessions will be relevant.”

I am very glad that many interfaith families find welcoming and inclusive Reform congregations. I personally benefited from the movement making that happen, as have so many others. But I can’t agree that the movement doesn’t need to talk about or prioritize doing more about it. As I said in April, “only 13% of interfaith families belong to synagogues. I wouldn’t be satisfied with that level of success.” I agree that “inclusion of interfaith families is … a topic worthy of its own time,” but that discussion apparently will not happen.

* * * * *

All of this leaves me feeling like interfaith family engagement is being erased from the communal discussion, like it doesn’t matter. Over twenty-five years ago when I started InterfaithFamily, I spent a great deal of time debating with Jewish leaders who condemned interfaith marriage. Their policy response was to seek to discourage or reduce interfaith marriage, and not support any programming aimed to engage interfaith families. As a result, over those years, the concerted effort that I believe was necessary did not happen.

Today, thankfully, almost no one outside of the Orthodox world is condemning interfaith marriage. But there’s so much silence about it. And the result of the silence is the same as the result of the condemnation: engaging interfaith families is not prioritized.

In fairness, parts of the community are promising. 18Doors’ Adam Pollack just posted on LinkedIn about a study it is doing with one camp, and other camp partnerships that involve training and helping camps build communities of belonging for mixed-heritage families. But so much more needs to be done.

Learning from Rabbi Matalon, and Rabbi Dreskin

Andy Silow-Carroll had a very interesting interview with Rabbi Rolando Matalon as he retired from Manhattan’s B’nai Jeshurun, “one of the most influential synagogues in American Jewish life.” The congregation decided in 2017 that its clergy could officiate at interfaith weddings despite doing so being forbidden by the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, which Rabbi Matalon left in 2018.

Rabbi Matalon’s explanation why he decided to officiate is well worth reading. He then describes his conditions:

If a couple commits to building a Jewish home, raising Jewish children, converting children when necessary through mikveh [ritual immersion] at an early age, and participating in Jewish community, then we would officiate. We would not perform a kiddushin, traditional ceremony, exactly as it had been done, but a modified ceremony. The couple also had to commit to a serious process of learning and engagement with the rabbi over nine months to a year, and at some point explicitly affirm their commitment to a Jewish home and Jewish child-rearing.

Rabbi Matalon is pleased with the decision because it “broadcast that BJ is a welcoming community that wants to engage people rather than push them away. At the same time, we didn’t eliminate standards or expectations altogether. We said: If you’re interested, come and let’s engage seriously.” I have to wonder if this could not be a solution for the Conservative movement as it continues to struggle with this issue.

Coincidentally, I only recently saw this October 2024 piece in which Rabbi Billy Dreskin, a senior Reform rabbi, explains why he changed a position in 2022. Previously, he would not officiate for a Jew and a person who practiced another religion and intended to in their home. Now he will; his explanation is well worth reading. He concludes, “I love Judaism. And I want it to continue to exist. The world needs it to continue to exist. But in this time of schism and toxic dissent, I love love even more so. And while I will always celebrate when two Jews marry, I won’t ever again stand in the way of two human beings promising to love and care for each other forever. In fact, I will respond to their request for officiation with a wholehearted and grateful, ‘Yes!’”

Milwaukee Jewish Community Study

A reminder that interfaith marriage isn’t going away: the Milwaukee Jewish Federation released its 2024-2025 community study, conducted by the Cohen Center at Brandeis. Consistent with our analysis of 26 other local community studies conducted since 2013, people in interfaith relationships feel less of a sense of belonging to the Jewish people or their local Jewish community than inmarried people.

  • 42% of intermarrieds (compared to 74% of inmarrieds) feel very much a sense of belonging to the Jewish people (p 61); the respective averages of 26 other communities are 25% and 47%.
  • 13% of intermarrieds (compared to 35% of inmarrieds) feel very much a sense of belonging to the Jewish community where they live (p 61); the respective averages of 26 other communities are 6% and 26%.
  • 17% of intermarrieds (compared to 35% of inmarrieds) feel very emotionally attached to Israel (a traditional measure of belonging) (p 94); the respective averages of 26 other communities are 20% and 40%.

With respect to Jewish behaviors, 22% of intermarrieds, compared to 49% of inmarrieds, were current members of Jewish congregations (p 47). The study does not report the percentage of intermarrieds compared to inmarrieds who provide Jewish education for their children.

People who participated in programs or were interested in participating were asked about barriers to participation; interestingly, 17% of inmarrieds listed feeling unwelcome as a barrier, higher than the 7% of intermarrieds who did the same (p 70).

The open-ended comments in the study include (p 145):

Synagogues, while being inclusive, still maintain policies related to marrying couples who include both a Jewish and non-Jewish member that are hurtful and tend to push those couples away. This limits synagogue membership and alienates these folks from the greater Jewish community. – male, 75

When I got married, many years ago, my non-Jewish husband was not welcomed into my family’s synagogue. Things have changed, but I think if he had been, we might have raised my children more in the Jewish faith than his[Christian] church. – female, 56

The study conclusions and recommendations include (p 151): “Evidence from both the quantitative findings shared throughout this report and the qualitative findings shared in Chapter 12 revealed that many intermarried individuals and their families feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in Milwaukee Jewish organizations.”

With respect to research, I missed the Cohen Center’s study of Northeast Florida, and the Cohen Center has recently announced that a synthesis of data from all of their 30 local community studies is now available in their Benchmark Report; I’ll comment on these in a future newsletter.

May 2026 News from the Center: June 11 CASJE/eJP panel, Re-CHARGING Reform, Hartman on Belonging

|

CASJE/eJP Panel June 11

I’m pleased to be making remarks at a panel discussion on “Jewish–Interfaith Families and the Future of Jewish Life in the United States” hosted by CASJE and eJP, on Zoom on June 11, 12 to 1:30 pm ET. The panel follows publication of CASJE’s research digest on children of intermarriage and includes Keren McGinity, Ted Sasson, Bruce Phillips, Rabbi Shena Jaffee and Sophie Mortman. To register and for more information, visit https://www.casje.org/jewish-interfaith-families-panel.

Re-CHARGING Reform, Particularism and Universalism

The Re-CHARGING Reform Judaism conference happened again on May 27-28. The program schedule indicates that engaging interfaith families was not on the agenda – another missed opportunity.

A write-up in eJP about Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch’s keynote, which primarily addressed the Reform movement and Zionism, describes him as favoring Jewish particularism over universalism. The context wasn’t about interfaith families – but talk about particularism always makes me a little nervous. That’s because some see interfaith marriage as decreasing love for the Jewish people – rather than as potentially expanding it.

Hirsch’s talk elicited a strong response from Andrew Rehfeld, president of HUC, and that elicited a response from Jonathan Tobin. I was pleased that none of them blamed interfaith marriage for anything, in particular Tobin, who is no friend of interfaith marriage. I was more pleased that he was critical of “some within the Orthodox movement” who are “triumphalist” and indifferent about the liberal denominations, and who “write off the importance of the mass of non-Orthodox Jews as essentially irrelevant,” and of the “many in Israel” who “mimic this disdain.” I completely agree with Tobin that it would be a “catastrophe” if most of those who are affiliated with liberal denominations or who are unaffiliated were “lost to the Jewish collective.”

The Hartman Institute and Belonging

The biggest development this month was the Shalom Hartman Institute’s release of an important white paper, “Building Communities of Belonging: Jewish Identity, Conversion, Intermarriage and Adjacency,” written by Hartman fellow Christine Hayes.

Hartman is a preeminent Jewish leadership educational institution. So it’s noteworthy that it makes a series of positive statements about interfaith families and about interfaith family inclusion:

  • “While intermarriage has increased steadily over the past half-decade, its effect on personal Jewish identity, on the creation of Jewish families, and on organized Jewish life has not followed demographers’ predictions.” Intermarried Jews are raising Jewish children, and partners from different faith backgrounds often play a significant or sometime lead role in creating Jewish households. (pp. 21-22)
  • “[E]volving realities of Jewish identity, Jewish status, and communal belonging” prompt “many local Jewish communities and organizations to question whether they are actually as welcoming and inclusive as they want to be and to turn a critical eye toward their policies and practices around” intermarriage (and conversion and Jewish adjacency). (p. 2, 4) Some of those policies and practices “were not designed for their community or organization as it is currently constituted,” that is, with active involvement of people in interfaith relationships. (p. 22) Further, some policies and practices can “hinder belonging” (p. 2); some communities and organizations may be motivated by “a desire to grow … by developing policies and practices that extend Jewish status, or membership in good standing, to a larger number of interested individuals.” (p. 15)

The strength of the paper is its review of historical approaches to Jewish identity, status and standing. “While most community leaders are familiar with the general halakhah on these topics, they are often unaware of the way halakhah has played out in different historical circumstances over the centuries.” (p. 4) It reviews Jewish status based on patrilineal, double, and matrilineal descent (pp. 16-17), as well as Jewish status based on “the incorporation of foreigners” into the community or by religious conversion. (pp. 17-18) I learned a lot. For example, it’s confusing that  the term ger in the Torah refers to “stranger” or “resident alien,” but in later texts refers to converts; the paper explains very clearly how that linguistic change happened, and its serious implications.

The paper’s questions for discussion include, “How does an awareness of multiple approaches to intermarriage affect your community’s attitudes, aspirations, and options around intermarriage?” (p. 23) That is the key usefulness of the paper, and I recommend it highly. It certainly could be helpful, for communities and organizations that want to be welcoming and inclusive to interfaith families and partners from different faith backgrounds, to understand the historical approaches to intermarriage that are so clearly spelled out in the paper, that resulted in their current policies and practices, and that could be returned to, or turned away from, as new approaches are considered.

While the consideration of historical approaches is important, I believe that Jewish leaders and Jewish communities and organizations who want to be welcoming and inclusive also need to consider the attitudes they express about interfaith marriage and partners from different faith backgrounds, either in their statements or through their policies, and how those attitudes and policies can enhance or discourage feelings of belonging.

The paper does suggest good discussion questions that would surface those attitudes and what influences them: “does your community or organization view intermarriage as a problem or an opportunity?” “How has the presence (or absence) of intermarried people affected your community?” But the term “tribalism” does not appear in the paper. Social science data that some partners from different faith backgrounds feel “other,” like “outsiders” or “less desirable alternatives,” is not mentioned.

In the section devoted to people who are Jewish adjacent “without marital ties to the community,” the paper refers to “the fear that Jewish adjacency will dilute or negatively impact the character of Jewish communities persists.” (p. 29) The same fear persists with respect to the impact of interfaith marriage. That is a fundamental attitude that needs to be addressed. Some would say that in the more liberal denominations in the Jewish community, fundamental attitudes are the last remaining obstacle to inclusion, with the acceptance of interfaith marriage only a reluctant concession to social reality, instead of the affirmatively positive that is needed.

The paper expressly does not recommend any particular policies or practices, and recognizes “the legitimacy of multiple pathways and practices grounded in Jewish tradition.” (p. 2) As a result, it does not directly address the constraints that current understandings of halakhah with respect to matrilineal descent and rabbinic officiation at weddings of interfaith couples impose on Conservative-affiliated communities and organization who might want to change their policies and practices to be more inclusive. (Questions of status under halakhah loom large in a discussion of the white paper on the Canadian Jewish News’ “Not in Heaven” podcast.)

All in all, though, it’s very positive that the Hartman Institute wants to support communities and organizations that want to be welcoming and inclusive of interfaith families, and the white paper is a very helpful resource toward that end.

Israel

There’s not-good news from Israel on issues related to inclusion of interfaith families. Proposed legislation is pending that would change the Law of Return so as to allow citizenship only to converts according to Orthodox standards (criticized in the article by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch) and to give control to Orthodox authorities over religious practices at the Western Wall. An influential Israeli writer and speaker also said that Jews who do not immigrate to Israel are “traitors” (criticized by Rabbi Josh Weinberg).

Canada

The Canadian Jewish News’ North Star podcast discussed “Canadian Jews trending toward more newcomers, intermarriage and aging.” Panelists said that of all households with marriages and at least one Jewish person, half are in-marriages and half are intermarriages; that there are “an increasing number of Jewish children who are living in mixed households;” that the federation “could have events for mixed families;” and that “day schools can think about how they want to cater to those families.”

In other news:

  • In “Reading a Pakistani author’s 30-year-old novel helped me understand my parents’ views on intermarriage,” a young Jewish woman who reads a novel about a Zoroastrian community in Pakistan. Unlike liberal Jewish communities, the Zoroastrian community excommunicates those who intermarry, which calls into question the usefulness of drawing any lessons about interfaith marriage from them.
  • An interesting article about a ledger kept by a Polish mohel from 1883 to 1920 recording circumcisions including of children of intermarried mothers who were not Jewish.
  • Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi offers “Great TV: ‘Boston Blue’ & Its Shabbat Tradition,” reviewing a show about an interfaith, interracial family.
  • I’m not on Instagram, but a friend told me that influencer Amy Albertson, @theamyalbertson, posted “Here’s to all the non-Jewish moms raising Jewish kids. Thank you for opening your lives to a huge legacy, history and culture.”

April 2026 News: Will 18Doors Crisis Be Opportunity for Funders To Do the Right Thing?

|

A Personal Note

In this newsletter I recap the month’s developments and news related to inclusion of interfaith families in Jewish life.

A lot happened this month, starting with something personal – with a big interfaith family inclusion angle – my granddaughter’s bat mitzvah this month at Mishkan Chicago.

I’m still glowing from the overwhelming joy I felt. My granddaughter is a beautiful person, inside and out. She did a wonderful job that made her loving family very proud.

Tazria Metzora may be the most dreaded b mitzvah Torah portion. It’s about how people with skin afflictions (translated as leprosy) are treated, and the text is pretty gross. My granddaughter declined my offers to help her with her d’var Torah. She decided to speak about how we treat people who are different or other.

You’ll understand how I was so deeply moved when she said, “often people who aren’t Jewish and who are raising kids within the Jewish community feel othered or judged. My mom has supported me in my Jewish upbringing to get me here today. So we need to appreciate everyone in the community and make room for all of us.”

I was also deeply grateful to my daughter-in-law’s supportive family – her Quaker mother, who I overheard proudly presenting my granddaughter with a book about Jewish women, and her sisters, who opened and closed the Ark, and a nephew who was able to attend.

Rabbis Lizzi Heydemann and Steven Philp are models of inclusivity. My son mentioned the Quaker faith when speaking to my granddaughter. I think many rabbis would have cringed at even the mention of a different faith. But R’Lizzi a few minutes later ran towards it, commenting that we were about to say a prayer, the Amidah, which involved an opportunity for silence like what is common in Quaker services.

On the personal, individual level, there is so much reason for hope: interfaith families that find living Jewishly compelling; families from different faith backgrounds who are supportive; rabbis who “get it.”

On the organizational, institutional level this month, not so much reason for hope, sadly.

18Doors and the Funding Community

On April 7 JTA broke the story, “National support group for interfaith Jewish families guts staff amid funding crisis,” that was reprinted widely in the Forward, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, and Jweekly. 18Doors, the organization I founded as InterfaithFamily, laid off more than two-thirds of its staff due to a funding shortfall.

I have no formal connection to the organization. My understanding is that there are discussions about finding homes in other organizations for some of 18Doors’ programs, and about possibly continuing as a smaller organization focused on field building; at this writing, the future is not clear.

On April 10 eJP published my op-ed, “From crisis to opportunity: Now is the time for a serious effort to engage interfaith families.” I said the news was personally devastating, and a loss to the thousands of interfaith families the organization serves and the many Jewish leaders who benefit from its resources and training.

(Coincidentally, at my granddaughter’s bat mitzvah, Rabbi Heydemann told the congregation that InterfaithFamily had helped to change the climate around interfaith families finding rabbis to officiate at their weddings, and Rabbi Philp told me that his participation in 18Doors’ Rukin Fellowship that trains rabbis to be inclusive was very helpful to him.)

I also wrote that the news was an indictment of the funding community which has never adequately funded efforts to engage interfaith families Jewishly.

I’m proud of the work InterfaithFamily and then 18Doors did over the years. We moved the needle towards more interfaith families being more Jewishly engaged to a degree – but not far enough.

As JTA reported, while the rate of interfaith marriage has increased since 2001, most children from these marriages are being raised Jewish, with participation in synagogues and Jewish institutions common. Two seminaries now admit students in interfaith relationships, and the Conservative movement seeks to be more inclusive. For the most part, Jewish leaders, at least in America, are not railing against interfaith marriage.

But far fewer interfaith than inmarried couples are synagogue members, or provide their children with Jewish education. My recent review of a dozen years of national and local Jewish community studies shows that interfaith families feel much less of a sense of belonging to the Jewish people or their local Jewish communities, and some number of interfaith couples still feel like “outsiders” and “other.” Helping interfaith couples and the partners from different faith backgrounds to feel that sense of belonging, essential to their Jewish engagement, remains the challenge of our time.

At least five federations in their recent community studies have stated that it is essential to engage interfaith families [which] requires a strong investment…. So far, that investment has not been forthcoming. Today, only one community, Cleveland, has a robust local program, jHub, that explicitly serves interfaith families with a broad array of services. Every sizeable community should have a similar program, and they should be networked together with a central national organization that also provides resources and training to professionals and lay leaders who want to be inclusive.

I hope that 18Doors can be or play an important role in the kind of national network that is needed — and that the funding community will take the opportunity presented by 18Doors’ crisis to finally fund a serious effort to engage interfaith families. It’s nearly 20 years overdue, but it’s not too late.

Just today, the Cleveland Jewish News has a story about diversity that in part highlights jHub. It quotes a local Jewish professional and says, “the growth of interfaith families and their participation in Jewish life shows the continued celebration of diversity in the community. That said, challenges come along with that, such as being more welcoming to interfaith families in synagogues or religious spaces…. [That’s a challenge that the legacy organizations and the community have to think about.”

Missed Opportunity 1: The Reform movement

Rabbi Esther Lederman, the new head of the URJ’s new Jewish Life & Leadership department, wrote a very nice essay for eJP, “‘I Will Be What I Will Be’: A Futuring Stance.” At one point she says, “The multiplicity of diverse Jewish identities, from racial and ethnic backgrounds to sexual orientation, gender identities, economic backgrounds and neurodiversity, is astounding and beautiful. It is a future that will be richer for encompassing the lived experiences of a greater number of individuals of diverse backgrounds and unique perspectives.”

This was a missed opportunity, perhaps inadvertent, to mention diverse faith backgrounds – which actually is by far the largest diversity in the American Jewish community, and the Reform community in particular. The leaders of the Reform movement seem to think that interfaith family inclusion is at the center of its work because it was pioneered by the movement, and that they have been successful at it, so they don’t need to talk about or prioritize doing anything about it.

But only 13% of interfaith families belong to synagogues. I wouldn’t be satisfied with that level of success.

MIssed Opportunity 2: PJ Library

Lara Knuettel, chief philanthropy officer of PJ Library, wrote a very nice essay for eJP, “It’s On All of Us To Share the Stories of the Jewish People.” She describes a recent PJ Library event where “children could choose books with characters who reflected a full range of Jewish identities and histories” including books in or including Spanish, Russian, Hebrew, Yiddish, and Ladino, and showing Shabbat celebrated in different ways, but with no mention of children in interfaith families.

I agree 100% with what Kneuttel says:

[T]he stories we tell shape how our children see themselves, who they become, and how they engage with the world. The stories we elevate signal who belongs, whose voices matter, and how children come to understand both their own identities and those of others…. [S]upporting the stories children have access to is one way to ensure that Jewish life, in all its variety, continues to be celebrated, shared and passed on from generation to generation.

That’s why I wish she had explicitly mentioned children in interfaith families as among those whose stories PJ Library wants to support. Don’t get me wrong: PJ Library is a great organization, and has made efforts to offer books highlighting interfaith families. But my recent review of local Jewish community studies showed that only 28% of eligible interfaith families received PJ Library books compared to 50% of inmarried families. To change that, they need to talk about and market to interfaith families explicitly, like they have for ethnic and gender diversities.

Missed Opportunity 3: Israel

Zvika Klein, the editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, wrote there about how Israel should “speak to people who stand close to the Jewish story, sometimes very close, but do not fit neatly into one box.”

Klein says there are almost nine million people who are eligible to move to Israel under the Law of Return (presumably because they have a Jewish grandparent) plus “millions” who “seek some form of connection to the Jewish people and the Jewish state.” He says “Israel needs future citizens, loyal friends, serious allies, informed advocates, students, and fellow travelers” and should “open the door wider” with routes and methods to build attachment with these people: “A country that was built to gather exiles should be better at recognizing the people standing near the edge of the camp, waiting to see whether anyone inside is ready to speak to them.”

Yet another missed opportunity: nothing said about the partners from different faith backgrounds married to Jews. Is it unreasonable to expect “one of the world’s top journalists specializing in Jewish Diaspora affairs,” as the Post describes Klein, to say something explicit about that very large group?

Inclusion Is Hard Work

People will engage in a group if they feel that they belong. Being helped to feel belonging is hard – it means being received for who you are, not who the group wants you to become. In Clal’s Wisdom Daily, Reverend Jill Harman explained:

There are spaces that open their doors and make me feel received, and then there are spaces that open their doors but already have a shape in mind for who I should become once I step inside. That difference isn’t always obvious at first. Sometimes a place feels warm and generous and full of good people, and sometimes it really is all of those things. And still, over time, something in me begins to notice that the welcome is leaning somewhere. It has a direction to it, a quiet belief that closeness will eventually soften you into someone easier to claim.

That’s where the ache begins: Even when that pressure is gentle, it changes the feeling of the room. Something in me stops being able to rest, because I’m no longer sure whether the kindness is meant for who I am or for who someone hopes I’ll become. That makes it very hard to stay.

I loved that Conservative Rabbi Ben Herman, coincidentally a current 18Doors Rukin Fellow, made a similar point in “Why We Changed the Rules So Non-Jews Can Be Members of Our Synagogue.” Rabbi Herman describes the distinction between being diverse and being inclusive (citing Verna Myers, who coincidentally I used to work with long ago when I was a lawyer): “‘Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance.’ Being invited is wonderful, but without agency in the congregation’s decision-making processes, one is not truly included.”

The article relates that, with Rabbi Herman’s support, 75% of the congregation were in favor of adopting changed by-laws under which “Non-Jews in interfaith relationships are now considered full members of the congregation, and patrilineal Jews may serve on the Board of Trustees.” That’s progress.

But 25% against even being considered members – that’s still a lot of opposition. It clearly signals that many in the congregation are hoping that partners from different faith backgrounds will become something else.

Traditional Attitudes in Canada

The same attitude seems prevalent in Canada. The Canadian Jewish News asks “how important is marrying within the faith to singles today?” and reports on new research based on interviews of fifty-one single Canadian Jews about attitudes towards marriage partners. The singles interviewed, and their parents as described by them, all still seem to be coming from a place where what matters in a partner is their being Jewish – not that what matters is a couple and their family engaging in Jewish life regardless of the religious identity of the partner. There’s an assumption that intermarrying will be disappointing to the parents and problematic to the individual.

Along with those traditional attitudes, there is less interfaith marriage in Canada than in the US, but it is steadily increasing. Fern Chertok and Matthew Brookner from the Cohen Center did a study, cited in this research, that showed increasing acceptance of interfaith marriage, but “many of the couples that were interviewed indicate that they feel not fully accepted by the community,” particularly couples with mothers who were not Jewish. Several couples also reported pressure for conversion. One interviewee said, “in some congregations, it feels like if you’re not Jewish, you can come but you can’t really be part of things.”

The Canadian Jewish News also summarizes a new study of intermarriage in Canada, which says, “Our research suggests that, if the Jewish community can recruit more Jewish children to Jewish day schools and summer camps and attract more Jewish immigrants to Canada, the increasing rate of Jewish intermarriage may slow.” The researchers clearly seem to be coming from a perspective that interfaith marriage is undesirable, something to be discouraged if not prevented. They even suggest that increasing antisemitism may slow the intermarriage rate. Increasing antisemitism can’t be a good thing.

In Other News

  • Noah Wyle, star of The Pitt, talks with the British Jewish press about his Jewish background
  • It’s now clear that Season 3 of “Nobody Wants This” will be about conversion – with Sarah Silverman playing the rabbi who leads Joanne’s conversion class.

*****

A sad note: Jim Ball, one of the original board members of InterfaithFamily, died this month. I met Jim nearly forty years ago when we were both involved in the Reform movement’s northeast region outreach committee. A convert himself, he understood the importance of interfaith family inclusion and was always a kind, interesting and helpful board member. Sincere condolences to his wife Anita Diamant and daughter Emilia Diamant.

March 2026 News: How Interested Are Jewish Leaders in Engaging Interfaith Families? Some Talk, and Research Support, But Little Action

|

I was busy this month with three presentations on what’s necessary for interfaith families and partners from different faith backgrounds to feel belonging in Jewish settings: with Cohort 5 of the 18Doors Rukin Fellows on March 10, with students and faculty at a lunch & learn at the Hebrew College Rabbinical School on March 17, and at an Academy for Jewish Religion/CA colloquium of students and alumni on March 30.

But I can’t say, based on this small sample, that Jewish leaders are becoming more interested in engaging interfaith families.

Talk

There is some discussion going on. There was an interesting commentary in the British Jewish press on the US Conservative movement’s recent report on intermarriage, which we’ve discussed at length in previous newsletters. I learned that the European branch of the movement, the International Rabbinical Assembly, is “studying the impact of intermarriage on our communities and assessing whether our traditional responses are achieving their goals or whether different approaches are necessary.”

At the Jewish Funders Network’s conference this month, according to eJP, “the theme of new voices in the philanthropic world was a topic,” and Jonah Platt talked about the opportunity to “start to create new institutions, or reprioritize our current ones in the way that they’re operating, and bring in all these other people who have not been engaged and want to be and don’t necessarily know how or what to do, but want to do it.” But if there was specific talk about engaging interfaith families, it wasn’t reported.

In early March there was an “unconference” in Miami to talk about the renewal of American Jewry. eJP reported that “Many issues already firmly in the Jewish communal zeitgeist came up repeatedly during panels,” including “the importance of better welcoming interfaith families.” An attendee confirmed to me that there appeared to be much interest in interfaith families. But shouldn’t representatives from organizations that work with and advocate for inclusion of interfaith families be included in gatherings of this type if the goal is real progress?

Research

I was pleased to see that the March 25 issue of the CASJE (Collaborative for Applied Studies in Jewish Education) Research Digest featured studies about interfaith families and their children, and that it mentioned our paper, What Recent Studies Reveal About Interfaith Family Inclusion.

The digest points to “a clear trajectory: in the years ahead, a growing share of Jews in the US will have only one Jewish parent;” that “more children of intermarried couples are identifying as Jewish because Jewish institutions became significantly more welcoming and inclusive toward intermarried families starting in the 1980s and 1990s;” and that “participation in Jewish educational opportunities can play a critical role in supporting children of intermarriage growing into adults who identify as Jewish and participate actively in Jewish life.”

These kinds of research results should support more programmatic efforts to be inclusive of interfaith families and to engage their children in Jewish educational activities. Whether they will – not clear.

Inaction/Action

Data in the appendix of a new study by the Cohen Center of 2025 Birthright Israel trips shows that the percentage of trip applicants who indicated that their parents were intermarried (those who did not say “all parents Jewish”) ranged between 33% and 37% between 2017 and 2020, reached a high of 41% in 2021, then declined to 32% in 2022, 29% in 2023, 24% in 2024, and a low of 19% in 2025. Given the trajectory of more Jews having one Jewish parent, it’s clear that Birthright needs to attract more applicants from that category, not fewer.

The study notes that the impact of trip participation appears to be greater among political liberals and on those who come from less engaged Jewish backgrounds, and states that attracting liberal Jews and those with less exposure to Jewish education is key to Birthright’s continued success. But it doesn’t say anything similar, that attracting children from interfaith families is key to Birthright’s continued success.

One concrete positive development this month was “Creating Belonging for Multiheritage Families,” an article by Michelle Barton and 18Doors’ Miriam Wajnberg in the journal of Prizmah, the network of Jewish day schools. The article relates the process by which the Shlenker School in Houston, with help from 18Doors, addressed the question parents raising children in interfaith families can ask: whether their family fully belongs.

“As family structures and Jewish journeys diversify, schools are called to examine whether their policies, cultures, language and rituals truly foster belonging or simply allow participation without full inclusion. Belonging is not synonymous with enrollment or participation. It reflects whether families feel seen, valued and confident that their full identities fit within the life of the school.”

The authors describe three obstacles that interfaith families face to belonging in Jewish communities and day schools: (1) an insider/outsider element; (2) a stigma against those who marry someone from another background; (3) “The belief in matrilineal descent creates barriers for multiheritage families to fully feel a sense of belonging in Jewish communities and schools.” “Even when a child from a multiheritage family may be fully accepted in one denomination or setting, that acceptance may not extend to all Jewish settings, resulting in ‘othering.’”

It is very heartening to see day schools focusing on interfaith family belonging. Almost twenty years ago, in 2007, for the tenth anniversary of the Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education (which became part of Prizmah in 2016), I wrote “Interfaith Families and the Future of Jewish Day Schools.” I said:

“Schools can make themselves more accessible to these [intermarried] parents by making explicit statements of welcome, couching their specifically Jewish values in universal terms, and providing extra explanatory information on Jewish holidays, rituals and culture.” “Day schools could become laboratories that attempt to resolve the thorny issues of recognition. Every participant in a Jewish day school community could be considered – in some way – part of the Jewish community and people.”

It’s almost twenty years since I said, “Imagine how radically different the future of Jewish day schools would be if even ten percent of this growing population [of interfaith families] chose Jewish day schools.” We’re not even close to that yet – the recent Boston 2025 study found that 1% of children of interfaith families attended day schools compared to 23% of children of inmarried families. Efforts to foster belonging could lead to more enrollment. The many funders who support day schools might consider directing some of their funding to those efforts.

In other news 

I think Mira Fox was too dismissive of something in “Is Goy a Slur, an Antisemitic Dogwhistle or a Word for Non-Jews?” She says “goy” “simply means ‘non-Jew,’ or foreign nation which isn’t inherently insulting; Jews are far from the only group to have a term for outsider – think gringo in Spanish or farang in Thai. This can, of course, be exclusionary. There is certainly the sense that outsiders cannot understand or participate in certain activities of an in-group – an idea that is not limited to Jews. And sometimes that is used to discriminate or insult.”

I say that for people in interfaith relationships, any use of “goy” by Jews not just can be exclusionary, it is exclusionary and makes the partners from different faith backgrounds feel like outsiders. Even if the word has innocent meanings, I think any use of it by Jews is a bad idea.

Also noted:

February 2026 News: the 2025 Boston Study; A Message for Funders; How We Talk About Conversion; A Message for Rabbis; Honeymoon Israel Fosters Belonging

|

Boston 2025 CJP Survey

CJP released the 2025 Greater Boston Jewish Community Study on February 12. As readers of this newsletter know, I am most interested in what research reveals about interfaith families’ feelings of belonging in Jewish communities (see What Recent Studies Reveal About Interfaith Family Inclusion). That’s because for liberal Judaism to thrive, more interfaith families need to be more Jewishly engaged, and for people to engage, they need to feel belonging.

Most of the data relevant to interfaith families’ feelings of belonging is not reported in the thirteen individual reports that make up the Boston study. My understanding is that CJP is planning to make available a tool that will enable anyone to make inquiries about the data. So we need to be patient.

You can find what I have to say about the study in  Review and Analysis of the Interfaith Marriage Data in the 2025 Greater Boston Jewish Community Study. I will update the review when more data is available. In the meantime, some highlights:

  • The Boston Jewish community is heavily and increasingly intermarried – 50% of married/partnered Jewish adults are in interfaith relationships; of marriages since 2020, 58% were interfaith.
  • 69% of children in interfaith families are being raised Jewish in some way (the breakdown of Jewish only, Jewish and something else, etc. is not currently reported). Fewer children of interfaith families have Jewish education – 16% are in part-time K-8 programs compared to 61% of children of inmarried families.
  • CJP states that “interfaith households… are an integral part of the Greater Boston Jewish Community.” As mentioned above, data on how interfaith families feel about their connection to the Jewish community is not currently available, although it is for LGBTQIA+ Jews, Jews of color, Jews with disabilities, Russian-speaking Jews, Israeli Jews, and Jews of Sephardic or Mizrahi heritage.
  • There are indications in what’s been reported that interfaith families are less connected to the local Jewish community, which would be consistent with national and other local studies. The study says that “While most Jews in interfaith homes say they feel welcome, they are significantly less likely to participate in Jewish communal life.” The report says that those who feel connected and part of the local Jewish community are more Jewishly engaged. But only 22% of those who feel part of the local Jewish community are intermarried; 78% are inmarried.
  • There were follow-up interviews and focus groups with community members that gave “more insight on their feelings of inclusion and belonging.” But “most” of these community members “are avid synagogue participants who generally feel welcome in the spaces they choose to be in.” Apparently the insights do not reflect input from less engaged community members.

There is a lot of good news in the study. It’s great that a high percentage of children of interfaith families are being raised Jewish, but it’s worrisome that relatively few are getting Jewish education. It’s great that interfaith families generally feel welcome, but it’s worrisome that that doesn’t translate into feelings of connection that foster engagement. I hope a major part of CJP’s implementation efforts following the study will focus on fostering interfaith families’ feelings of belonging and providing Jewish education for their children. We look forward to what further data shows when it becomes available. 

A Message for Funders

The Jewish Funders Network International Conference is coming up. I’m not aware that interfaith family inclusion will be a topic of discussion. But there was a great essay by Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi about how Jewish disability inclusion efforts grew that suggests what funders have the power to do. I’m replacing “disabilities” with “interfaith” in the following quote to illustrate what I hope they will do:

[A] small group of Jewish philanthropists and foundations began asking a simple but transformative question: What would it take for people [in interfaith relationships] to be fully included in Jewish life? A group of people active in Jewish philanthropy who had found that their families were not welcome in Jewish life due to [interfaith family inclusion] issues connected through the Jewish Funders Network. Together, they helped bring [interfaith family] inclusion into the philanthropic spotlight, and other philanthropists joined as allies.

Coincidentally, an essay about the JCC movement’s approach to disability inclusion expressed the importance of a comprehensive approach that is relevant to all inclusion efforts: “What we’ve learned is simple: inclusion is possible when shared, systematized and woven into the fabric of an entire movement. … With centralized leadership and shared language, frameworks and responsibility, we all can expand inclusion efforts and empower each other to join in this vitally important work.”

How We Talk About Conversion

Mijal Bitton wrote a beautiful essay about conversion. As I read it, though, I couldn’t help but think that it implied that partners from different faith backgrounds who do not convert remain outsiders. That is not an inclusive message that encourages interfaith families to be Jewishly engaged. How can we talk about conversion without doing that?

Bitton says that after the mikveh, “Someone who stood at the edge now stands inside;” that those “who bind their fate to the Jewish people by choice, are not meant to remain at the edges. They are meant to be received as insiders, with standing and responsibility.” She refers to the “rabbinic claim that converts are said to have been present at Sinai” and says that “to have stood at Sinai, whether by birth or by choice, is … to accept responsibility for a covenant that is still being made.”

But there are other textual claims that it was a mixed multitude that stood at Sinai, including the strangers in the camp, who can be understood to have accepted responsibility for a covenant to be Jewishly engaged.

This kind of messaging by Jewish leaders about the standing of partners from different faith backgrounds matters. I was struck by a comment in a very different context, a New York Times opinion piece about the conflict in Minneapolis, that expressed the importance of recognition by others:

“[W]ho we are is not just the idea we have of ourselves. It is also how others see us. The German philosopher Hegel elucidated this truth: The essence of our identity is not something we make on our own – it requires the recognition of others to be real. How we are perceived by others doesn’t just reflect who we are. It constitutes it.”

A Message for Rabbis

The CCAR convention is coming up. I’m not aware that interfaith family inclusion will be a topic of discussion. I urge Reform rabbis to read this very beautiful “Prayer for a Community of Belonging” by Rabbi Fred Greene. It sends the kind of inclusive message of recognition that we need to send. Do the partners from different faith backgrounds in your congregations feel noticed, named, known, needed and nurtured?

Honeymoon Israel Fosters Belonging

“‘It’s Complicated’ to Connected: Honeymoon Israel and Jewish Belonging Post 10/7” is a beautiful article by Honeymoon Israel staffer Emma Dunn. It describes how Honeymoon Israel fosters a sense of belonging among partners from different faith backgrounds. Dunn relates how Avraham Infeld speaks to trip participants about Jewish peoplehood as a shared sense of responsibility that “Jews by birth, Jews by choice, and partners who had come to Jewish life through love and relationship” (my emphasis) can develop. Infeld asks, “If you are choosing to build your life connected to the Jewish people, how will you show up for one another now and into the future?”

Dunn writes that “Honeymoon Israel offers a space where Jewish and mixed-heritage couples can explore their place in the Jewish people with honesty and care…. [C]ouples experience a broad and generous welcome into Jewish peoplehood. When they return home, they carry that sense of belonging with them and continue building Jewish life together.”

Left Out

There were several instances this month where the issue of engaging interfaith families could have been mentioned but wasn’t. Moment Magazine listed fifty Jewish innovators over the past fifty years; there was just one explicit reference to engaging interfaith families, a mention of Paul and Rachel Cowan’s 1989 book, Mixed Blessings. The Sapir journal published a conversation between Joshua Foer and William Foster on “What Makes a Moonshot?” and Charles Bronfman and Jeffrey Solomon offered “We Backed Birthright Israel. Now It’s Time for More Big Ideas for a Post-Oct. 7 World;” efforts to engage interfaith families weren’t mentioned as potential moonshots or big ideas.

Should the Jewish Press Survey Whether Intermarriage Is a Threat to Jewish Continuity?

The Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle polled its readers, asking “Is intermarriage a threat to Jewish continuity?” 52% said yes, 48% said no. Asking that question and publicizing that result sends a message to interfaith couples that their marriage is viewed negatively by many Jews, discouraging couples who might be potentially Jewishly involved.

The paper published some of the comments it received. Some were positive about interfaith marriages resulting in children being raised as Jews; some were negative – “Of course it’s a threat. You can pretend it’s not and do a bunch of interfaith stuff but it’s not authentic Jewish identity.” My favorite: “Intermarriage will continue regardless of the opinions of rabbis or families. Either the Jewish community finds a way to embrace these marriages or lose members of the community. One thing is certain, we lose if we don’t welcome them.”

In Other News

  • In the outright hostile to interfaith marriage department, an article on the Aish website says that the greatest threat facing the Jewish people isn’t antisemitism, it’s interfaith marriage (or the assimilation that is the result of interfaith marriage), and an ultra-Orthodox authority in Israel told followers not to go to the very wonderful ANU Museum of the Jewish People in Tel Aviv because, he says, it promotes interfaith marriage.
  • Israeli political parties are advancing legislation that would extend control over the entire Western Wall to the Orthodox rabbinate, which would result in Reform and Conservative Jews not being able to have prayer services there, and even criminalizing their egalitarian prayer at the Wall. (Forward, Times of Israel, JTA)
  • Jack and Quinn Hughes, whose parents are an interfaith couple, are featured in a JTA story as Jewish Team USA hockey stars; the very sad news about Savannah Guthrie’s mother generated a story about her interfaith marriage.
  • I happily stumbled on the website of Mosaic Law Congregation, a Conservative synagogue in Sacramento, that has a vibrating banner on its home page that reads “We Welcome Interfaith Families.”

January 2026 News: What’s Changed In Twenty-five Years; Important New Research; Making Jewish Camp Accessible; More Conservative News

|

How Times Have Changed

On January 11 I spoke at Congregation B’nai B’rith in Santa Barbara CA for the second time – the first was in December 2005. I took the opportunity to reflect on what’s changed about interfaith family inclusion over the past twenty years – and what work remains to be done. You can see the presentation on this video; the powerpoint slides are visible, and I’d be glad to share them.

One thing that’s changed is the fading away of the explicit hostility to interfaith marriage that was prevalent among Jewish leaders in 2005. In 2001, Sylvia Barack Fishman had done a study which concluded that interfaith families who say they are raising their children as Jews “incorporate Christian holiday festivities” into their lives such that Jewish identity is not transmitted to their children, even though they say that these festivities have no religious significance to them. I described this back then as “simply ridiculous,” based on surveys and an essay contest conducted by InterfaithFamily (now 18Doors).

After Fishman turned the study into a 2004 book, Double or Nothing?: Jewish Families and Mixed Marriage, I expressed fear that Jewish leaders would say that the “latest research” showed that “interfaith couples who were trying to raise their children as Jews shouldn’t bother because they won’t succeed,” and that “the Jewish community shouldn’t waste resources on outreach to mixed-married families, since the vast majority are not ‘really’ raising their children as Jews.”

I expressed hope that responsible Jewish leaders would insist on more conclusive social science research “before writing off the new families of the half of all young Jews who are intermarrying, thereby alienating their Jewish parents and relatives as well.”

I’m feeling vindicated all these years later. The Cohen Center at Brandeis just announced a new study which I think provides that more conclusive social science research. It notes:

Other work [citing Fishman’s 2004 book] has suggested that Jewish families who celebrate Christian holidays, or use Christian holiday decorations such as Christmas trees, struggle to instill Jewish identity in their children – even if these families do not treat these holiday activities as religious.

However, the results presented here suggest that at least some of the families who celebrate Christmas expose their children to more Jewish experiences than other families that had no Christian experiences at all…. [E]xposure to some non-Jewish religious-cultural experiences during childhood does not necessarily preclude high levels of involvement in Jewish life. (page 22)

The study (you can read a more detailed review here) even finds that children who celebrated Christmas and Easter (presumably in interfaith families) but were otherwise Jewishly involved “were more likely to have had a bar or bat mitzvah, to have attended Jewish supplementary school, and to have attended Jewish camp” than children who celebrated Hanukkah and Passover and had no other Jewish or Christian experiences (presumably these are inmarried families). (page 21)

Think of it – research confirms that some interfaith families are more Jewishly engaged than some inmarried families! Twenty years ago, we used to say that interfaith marriage didn’t determine the Jewish engagement of a family, the family’s choices did; we used to say that the Jewish partners in interfaith families couldn’t take their Jewish engagement for granted, they had to work harder at it. The new study seems to confirm that we were right.

Coincidentally, with all this looking back, in early January JTA published an article about the long-ago (1926) interfaith marriage of songwriter Irving Berlin that described issues around interfaith marriage as long-standing and continuing.

Even back then there were enlightened views. The editor of a Jewish newspaper actually said, “Mazel tov, Mr. and Mrs. Berlin!” Irving Berlin said, “It never struck me that I would be sacrificing a parcel of my Jewishness by marrying Ellin, and I suppose Ellin felt the same way about her religion. I am proud of my Jewishness, but you will never convince me that intermarriage is anti-anything.”

Jewish Camp

“For multifaith families, Jewish camp doesn’t have to feel awkward anymore” is a very promising report about the Foundation for Jewish Camp partnering with 18Doors to increase participation of children from interfaith families in overnight camp.

Noting that only about 22% of overnight campers come from interfaith families, 18Doors’ Adam Pollack says “That gap [with the high rate of interfaith marriage] tells us camps are not yet representative of the Jewish population today. We’re trying to find ways to make Jewish overnight camp accessible and appealing to families who already consider themselves part of the Jewish community but may not feel certain that camp is for them…. We know how transformative camp can be. We want all Jewish kids – including those from multi-heritage families – to have access to that experience.”

Conservative News

The main point of my Santa Barbara talk was that we still need to adapt attitudes and policies so as to help interfaith families and partners from different faith backgrounds feel that they belong in Jewish communities. The tension between including interfaith families and maintaining traditional understandings of Judaism as a boundaried system just for Jews continues to manifest in the ongoing turmoil in the Conservative movement.

As reported last month, the movement’s Joint Working Group issued a report with a goal to “engage intermarried couples more fully” but retaining the movement’s ban on their rabbis officiating at weddings of interfaith couples.

The report says that the Working Group “commissioned thirteen informal position papers from historians, social scientists, and rabbis.” I was invited to make a submission to the Working Group, and with their permission it is now public, on our new resource that chronicles related developments in the movement since 2014.

There was a lot of discussion about the report this month. 18Doors’ Adam Pollack offered a very interesting and positive response. I hope he’s right that “By ‘acknowledging and healing hurt,’ the movement has set a new course toward belonging” for interfaith couples. I hope 18Doors can help the movement in implementing the report’s recommendations. But I also hope the movement will address and change its position on officiation as I believe it must to truly be a place of belonging for interfaith families.

Conservative Rabbi Ari Yehuda Saks explained why, despite the movement easing its stance on interfaith marriage, he is quitting the Rabbinical Assembly:

I could not in good conscience remain a member while being prohibited from co-officiating intermarriages — ceremonies that I, from deep study and pastoral experience, have come to believe are not only possible within the halakhic, or Jewish legal, tradition, but are also vital for the future of American Judaism.

On the other end of the spectrum, Conservative Rabbi Amy Walk defended the movement’s approach. While pleased that the movement apologized for its past rejections of interfaith families, she says criticism of not allowing Conservative rabbis to officiate is short-sighted, binary, sloppy thinking.

Rabbi Walk said these critics “abandon ideas about commandment and covenant.” But the movement adapted halacha to allow women to be rabbis, and to allow wedding officiation for gay and lesbian couples – was that abandonment of commandment? And if the rationale for not officiating is Judaism’s traditional view that interfaith marriage is wrong, doesn’t maintaining the ban on officiating undermine the report’s efforts not to disapprove of and reject interfaith couples?

Even further out on the spectrum, Conservative Rabbi Daniel Gordis in a substack post says he was “stunned” at the Conservative movement’s apology; he “would argue that the policy against intermarriage has been a central pillar of maintaining Judaism’s tribal nature.” Gordis recognizes that defending the tribal dimension of Jewish life “has becoming increasingly difficult in a world in which young people, Jews definitely among them, find tribal sentiments either foreign, or outright objectionable.”

Gordis’ attitude is a prime example of what still needs to change. Thinking of Judaism as a tribe of Jews, instead of as a community of Jewishly-engaged people, is a huge obstacle to engaging interfaith families.

And finally, from the Orthodox perspective, Rabbi Emanuel Feldman says that by “’welcoming people as they are,’ the Conservative movement is declaring that they accept intermarriage.”

Also in the News

  • On January 27 the Jewish Grandparents Network hosted a virtual Grandparents Learning Fest that included a session led by Rabbi Samuel Klein, the director of Jewish engagement at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, titled “Doing Jewish, Feeling Jewish, Being Jewish: Grandparents as Guides in Mixed-Heritage and Multifaith Families.” The session was to “share practical insights and provide inspiration for grandparents to nurture Jewish identity in diverse families.”
  • “Talking to Children About Jewish Identity in an Interfaith Family” is a new offering on the Reform Judaism website.
  • A lovely story in The Free Press, “I’m Christian. My Wife Is Jewish. Our Marriage Is an Act of Faith,” by a Catholic editor who says his marriage to a Jewish woman brought him closer to God. I loved this part:

One day when our children were small, I was playing with them in our living room. Our 3-year-old son was keen to put things in their proper categories. Attempting a slightly more advanced version of the ‘square pegs in square holes’ game, he observed, ‘I’m Jewish and Rachel is Jewish and Mommy is Jewish.’ His brow furrowed, and he looked at me with a compassion that still causes my heart to ache. ‘Don’t worry, Daddy; Toby is an Episcopalian.’ Toby was our dog at the time.

* * * * *

Congregation B’nai B’rith in Santa Barbara is a warm and thriving synagogue with a very popular monthly Sunday morning breakfast and speaker series. The audience of about 120 was very engaged, with questions during and after the presentation. Rabbi Daniel Brenner told me they had great feedback, with one person inspired to restart their interfaith family conversation series. I’m very interested in speaking elsewhere.

One last point about the Cohen Center’s new study shows that interventions can increase feelings of belonging: it found that for those who were Jewishly involved but celebrated Christmas and Easter, the percent that reported feeling “very much” part of a worldwide Jewish community after participating in a Birthright Israel trip increased from 27% to 37%. (page 19)

Finally, thank you to all who made a year-end contribution to the Center. Support is always welcomed, at www.cfrij.com/donate.