Rabbis Adam Cutler and Baruch Frydman-Kohl
At the recently concluded annual United Synagogue Youth (USY) International Convention attended by 750 high school students in Atlanta, amendments were made to the standards of behaviour expected of a select group of international and regional officers. Rabbi Baruch Frydman-Kohl and Rabbi Adam Cutler discussed the changes and the media debate about the decision during services on Shabbat, January 3, at Beth Tzedec Congregation. Below is a pre-recorded précis of that conversation.
AC: USY played a significant role in my development as a Jewish young adult and ultimately my decision to become ordained as a Conservative rabbi. As a high schooler, I served in several leadership positions with the organization (although none that would have subjected me to the now much discussed rules of conduct). During this time I had the privilege of being a voting delegate to two USY international conventions. As a university student I spent three wonderful years as a USY staff member, serving as a chapter advisor. At the recently concluded annual USY International Convention attended by 750 high school students in Atlanta, amendments were made to the standards of behaviour expected of a select group of international and regional officers.
BFK: I have staffed USY conventions and recall them as times of fun, prayer, study and tikkun olam. This year, I know the convention met with leaders of the American civil rights movement, visited Ebineezer Baptist Church where Martin Luther King was the minister and celebrated hundreds of thousands of community service hours for tzedakah and ẖesed completed by the teens. Why did the amendment get such attention?
AC: Thanks to an inflammatory headline by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the ensuing viral spread of a story that, under normal circumstances, would have generated no press, the Jewish digital and print media is alight with commentaries and criticism, explanations and apologetics.
It’s important to understand what was changed. Previously the 100 or so individuals affected by the standards of conduct were expected to “refrain from relationships which can be construed as interdating”. The new language specifies that these officers “will strive to model healthy Jewish dating choices. These include recognizing the importance of dating within the Jewish community and treating each person with the recognition that they were created Betzelem Elohim (in the image of God).”
BFK: I thought the former language was a red line that clearly prohibited interfaith dating. The new language seems less definitive.
AC: For those who liked the old wording, a generous reading of the amendment would result in no practical change. Interdating was and continues to be forbidden to those in certain leadership positions. To those who want to parse the words like a page of Talmud, one could see the old language as more clear and definitive (“expected”, “will refrain”), while the new is aspirational (“strive to”, “recognizing the importance of”). Certainly both languages strongly support endogamy. Based on my understanding of the word-choices, the intent of the authors and several conversations with USY leaders, a subtle practical shift has in fact taken place. There was a time when a USY leader who interdated would immediately be expected to resign; however, in recent years, the extent to which this happened is negligible as the old language created a culture wherein the very few USY leaders who interdated simply hid their romantic relationships with non-Jews. The new language, it is hoped, will open up space for conversation. Ultimately, though, there would be no automatic expectation of resignation.
BFK: You are right. Over the years, the language of most secular educators has shifted from “don’t do X” to “it is good to do Y.” So has the style of most rabbis and Jewish educators. We want to encourage desired activity rather than to emphasize what people shouldn’t do. It is easier to simply say no than to engage in a more extensive discussion about what our ideals and aspirations are. Is that what has occurred here?
AC: The driving force behind the rules change was not to permit what was previously prohibited. Rather, it was to create a language that was positive (thou shalt) rather than negative (thou shalt not). These high schoolers are much more sensitive to the growing nature of religiously blended families and families in which one parent converted to Judaism. They reasonably felt the need to devise expectations that welcomed active, committed young Jews into leadership positions even when one of their parents is not Jewish or was not Jewish at the time when their parents started dating. If anything, our synagogues could learn from these teenagers - who decided to spend a week of their winter vacation at a confab rather than on the beach or the ski hill - about how to create a welcoming community without surrendering values that we hold dear. It is equally important to note that these expectations were adopted by youth for their own leaders, while similar sets of standards do not exist for the adult leadership of synagogues, federations, national denominational organizations or, indeed, it seems for almost all youth groups and Jewish organizations. USY is way ahead of the curve when it comes to what type of religious and ethical behaviour we expect of our leadership.
BFK: So, what was maintained and added?
AC: The other standards of conducts are the expectation that these USY leaders publicly observe Shabbat, keep kosher and commit to a minimum of three hours of weekly Jewish learning in addition to policies about drug and alcohol use, lashon harah (gossip) and bullying. Amendments were in fact offered to soften these requirements, to lessen the expectations of USY leaders. However, USYers themselves voted down these amendments. They expect, if not at times demand, their leadership to live up to the highest values and religious expectations of Conservative Judaism. That should be the real story.
BFK: I think that the impetus for the headlines is the renewed debate in North America about the future of Jewish life here. The Pew Report last October painted a challenging picture about what people view as important to Jewish identity. In-marriage was down and inter-marriage was up. I am one of the people who is not sanguine about our future. We have to articulate more clearly what Judaism is, why it is important and why people should marry and continue Jewish life. Our philanthropists should invest in synagogues, camps and informal Jewish education. These will be the carriers of future Jewish life. This weekend is the yahrtzeit of my teacher, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. In one of his last public remarks, he spoke about the future: "Young people are waiting, craving, searching for spiritual meaning. And our leadership is unable to respond, to guide, to illumine. With Zion as evidence and inspiration, as witness and example, a renewal of our people should come about.” We have to make it happen.
AC: Should there be a red line beyond which youth or adult lay leaders may not tread?
BFK: I agree that it is less likely that those who observe kashrut and Shabbat are less likely to date outside the Jewish community. But I know committed adults who have done so. The expectations articulated do set high standards for teens and others. In some Conservative communities, it is understood that someone who is intermarried may not serve as a synagogue leader. I don’t know about the Reform movement. JCCs and Federations are not philosophically or religiously driven. They seek the broadest possible base of Jewish support, so they should include as many people as possible.
Here is one for you. Some of the updated USY requirements are framed as prohibitions. Does that mean that the red lines against bullying, drug and alcohol use and gossip are more clear than those regarding interfaith dating?
AC: The language pertaining to bullying refers specifically to a “zero tolerance policy”. The language about alcohol, drugs, gossip and other issues is also more clearly set forth.
What does this debate say to you about the changing worldview and home life of today’s young Conservative Jews? Is inclusion an ultimate value or is it counterbalanced by behavioural expectations?
BFK: Bridges are important, but there also have to be borders. For years I have spoken about a three-part approach to interfaith dating and marriage. We have to teach the value of marrying within "the tribe”, emphasizing the importance of continuity of our covenant with God, cultural behaviour and religious belief. Just before his death, Heschel asked rhetorically, "Who is a Jew?” He responded to his own question: "A person who knows how to recall and to keep alive what is holy in our people's past, and to cherish the promise and the vision of redemption in the days to come.”
Second, we should encourage non-Jews in love with Jews to consider conversion to Judaism. We have a tradition of great spiritual depth and moral grandeur. Often the Jew-by-choice motivates the Jewish partner and his or her family to grow. It has certainly brought more Jews of colour into our community, enriching us with their ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Finally, when there is no conversion, we should create welcoming spaces in our synagogues to encourage interfaith families to raise their children as Jews. Even as we seek inclusion, there have to be standards.
AC: What about the future?
BFK: Conservative Judaism provides an historically authentic approach to belief, behaviour and belonging. We have a balanced understanding of how our received traditions engage and interact with the larger world around us. Our communities are often very engaged in Jewish social ethics, but less knowledgeable or observant of the specifically ritual elements of Jewish life.
More than the debate about dating, we have to ask ourselves what will build a Jewish future. I look at the young people who are involved in USY, Ramah and other youth programs as the future leaders of our community. The pull of Israel is very important, because it gives a real example of a Jewish society. But our Diaspora synagogues and schools, our home life and the action within the Jewish community has to excite and draw them. There are lots of exciting developments in synagogue life. There are many powerful home experiences. I hope that their message will be heard by young Jews.
Rabbi Heschel once observed, “Judaism is not a matter of blood or race, but a spiritual dimension of existence, a dimension of holiness. We are messengers; let us not forget our message."
You will be around longer than I. What is your hope for the future?
AC: My hope is that our organizations – those dedicated to youth and to adults – are able to inspire Jews to live committed Jewish lives. I hope that such inspiration is predicated on the understanding that Judaism provides meaning to one’s life. As Jewish leaders, we must be able to convey not that Jews should be Jewish in order that there be more Jews, but rather that Jews should be Jewish because Judaism has something substantive to add to the lives of its adherents and the world at large. Additionally, I want our organizations to reclaim the idea of mitzvah not as a good deed, but as a sacred obligation. It is through the lived experience of commitment to community, to ritual and to God that one comes to see the power of Judaism. It is my hope for the future that our organizations and families work together to inspire more and more Jews to live caring, thoughtful and passionate Jewish lives.
