Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Clinton/Mesvinsky Wedding, The Reform Movement, and it's Open Season on Eligible Jews

This month’s marriage between Chelsea Clinton, heir to the moderate-Democrat Clinton dynasty, and investor tycoon (and son of a disgraced congressman) Marc Mesvinsky has a variety of implications. One observer lamented, what he termed, the “spiritual holocaust” that wide spread American intermarriage is causing and that this marriage represents. Indeed, for most of the 20th century intermarriage in the Jewish community was taboo, in the 21st century this is no longer the case. This marriage signals that the taboo of intermarriage has been “overcome” by the liberal Jewish community. How the Liberal-Jewish community overcame this taboo, can be viewed as a case study in social-psychology: how taboos are challenged and refuted. Or it can shed light on a major flaw in liberal-Jewish thinking.

Either way my observations.

In the 1960’s the Reform movement was beginning to experience a drop in membership. They responded by amplifying their belief in accepting and being open to all and actively sought and welcomed intermarried couples, who until then had, because of the aforementioned taboo experienced a sort of alienation, into their temples. Still while the reform movement accepted intermarried couples they also encouraged conversion, and drew the line by asking its member clergy to “avoid” presiding over interfaith marriages (though true to form many reform clergy disregarded this suggestion and routinely conducted interfaith weddings). The Reform movements primary objective was to foster a welcoming experience for any individual who wanted to convert and observe a selective Judaism, (something traditional Judaism objects to). But by simplifying the transition to Judaism for the non-Jewish spouse their policies had an unintended(?)effect it eroded the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships in the first place -after all conversion to Judaism was so “easy”.

Because of the outreach of the Reform the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships was eroded and many spouses didn’t feel the social pressure to convert. The ever liberal Reform movement not wanting to lose their new stream of paying members, began to encourage interfaith couples to raise their children in the Jewish faith. Why? Because the whole premise of accepting interfaith relationships was so that spouses would convert and halt assimilation, but now that spouses felt little taboo-pressure to convert, the movement had to still support their claim of halting intermarriage- the children should be raised Jewish. Never mind the confusion a child of two religions experiences, non-the-less it was at this stage that the Menorah, next to the Christmas tree emerged.

So the taboo against intermarriage devolved from only marrying a Jew, to only marrying a convert, to we will not conduct interfaith weddings, but you are keeping to the faith so long as you raise your children Jewish.

But there was still a remnant of the taboo: condoning interfaith marriage.

This particular marriage represents the predictable culmination of a 60 year Reform/liberal Judaism’s investment in expanding Jewish identity. While the Reform movement simplified conversion in expectation that many would convert, and in the long run halt assimilation.

The taboo of intermarriage was so undermined by a convenient-focused conversion process that now intermarriage itself is not only widespread (hovering around 50 percent) and accepted as normal, but also encouraged. As exemplified by Clinton/Mesvinsky marriage.

How did the Reform movement jump from easy conversion to outright intermarriage ? The answer is imbedded in the philosophy that underpins liberal Judaism. First the Reform espoused a cultural definition of Judaism, namely that Jewish is not a inherent designation, but a choice. Why? Because Judaism is first and foremost a religion of morality and not having a choice is immoral. This choice means that a person is not Jewish because of a soul (assuming a soul exists) but because they choose to be Jewish. So if we are to premise Judaism on choice, because choice is inherently moral, then it is immoral to advocate against the choice of intermarriage. This, by the way, explains why many Reform clergy never had a problem officiating at interfaith marriages as to not officiate is tantamount to inhibiting choice…

In other words the reform movement was eventually going to enable interfaith marriage, if they were to be consistent in their philosophy. It was only a matter of time before liberal/reform Judaism, transitioned from challenging the taboo of interfaith relationships, as long as there was conversion, to challenging the taboo of interfaith marriage without. Don’t be surprised if the Reform movement continues its slide from majority humanism mixed with a little cultural spirituality, to being indistinguishable from humanistic Judaism devoid of any conventional spiritual attachment.

The crumbling of a taboo and encouraged interfaith weddings culminated in a Jewish male with a kippa and tallit marrying the most eligible bachelorette in the nation: which probably means it’s open season on eligible Jews!

2 comments:

  1. Traditional tallit, modern tallit, kippa, and matching accessories.


    tallit

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very interesting, and nice how you laid out the way the reform philosophy played out over the past few generations.

    I think that this trend is just a continuation of the the founding of reform Judaism, which I believe was intended to adapt Judaism, and make it more comfortable and tolerable.

    It seems that this trend also spells out their eventual disintegration and disappearance. their philosophy will adapt and melt into that of the surrounding culture until the two are indistinguishable.

    ReplyDelete