Institutions live not only with the realities that inform their decisions but also with the consequences. Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion’s recent announcement that it will now admit students seeking rabbinic ordination who are in a relationship with non-Jewish partners most assuredly points to the complexities facing seminaries in this age.

Seminaries are unique institutions. On the one hand, they need to represent and model a specific religious tradition; on the other, they must be mindful of shifting cultural and social trends. This careful and essential balance between the preservation and integrity of Jewish practice is offset by the pressures to be relevant and engaged with contemporary generational norms.

Classroom building on the campus of HUC-JIR in Cincinnati. Courtesy

HUC’s decision follows a long and complex period of engaging key stakeholders, and it is not the first time that HUC implemented significant changes in its admission policies and practices. The ordination in June of 1972 of Sally Priesand would open the door to women, prompting other liberal Jewish seminaries to welcome women applicants. In 1990, HUC declared that it would not discriminate against gay and lesbian applicants. In a letter to the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) Ad Hoc Committee on Homosexuality and the Rabbinate, HUC President Alfred Gottschalk announced:

“HUC-JIR considers sexual orientation of an applicant only within the context of a candidate’s overall suitability for the rabbinate, his or her qualifications to serve the Jewish community effectively, and his or her capacity to find personal fulfillment within the rabbinate.”

Now LGBTQ rabbis, cantors and educators not only serve throughout the Reform movement, but the other liberal Jewish movements have also followed suit.

Among the competing forces involved in HUC’s decision on interfaith couples are the changing composition of the Jewish marketplace and shifting demographic realities. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, for example, nearly 37% of Americans are married to someone of a different faith. The Jewish community reflects these same patterns: About two-thirds of U.S. Jewish adults are either married (59%) or living with a partner (7%), and 42% of all currently married Jewish respondents indicated they have a non-Jewish spouse. Among those who have gotten married since 2010, 61% are intermarried.

Even if HUC’s policy change reflects acknowledgment of this shifting demographic reality, that doesn’t mean the reality is unconditionally embraced. Context becomes instructive here. Take HUC President Andrew Rehfeld’s statement introducing the policy change: 

“While we recognize that clergy are role models, and that marrying within the Jewish community is highly predictive of future Jewish engagement, we also recognize that many Jewish individuals with non-Jewish partners maintain a Jewish family and home in which Judaism exclusively is practiced and are deeply engaged with Jewish communal life and peoplehood.”

In this same statement, he reaffirms HUC’s expectations of its clergy graduates. HUC continues to set high standards for its applicants, as articulated in the admissions Policies and Expectations originally published in 2014, encompassing these areas:

• Torah: Habits of the mind and striving for wisdom
• Avodah: Habits of the heart and searching for God
• K’lal Yisrael: Israel and the global Jewish community
• Menschlichkeit: Ethical living and righteous deeds
• Am Yisrael: Representing the Jewish people, working for all people

At a time when there is a renewed attention being placed on boundaries, HUC is seeking to reshape such constrictions by expanding its reach while also reinforcing its core expectations of its graduates. The school conveys the expectations it has of its graduates, reinforcing the distinctive and essential roles that clergy perform and represent.

Some who are critical of how this decision has been framed point to a perceived lack of enthusiasm, noting the school’s expectations that students will demonstrate a commitment to “exclusive Jewish practice.” I for one do not see this decision as being based, as one of the HUC’s critics has argued, “in fear, control and frankly, despair.” I think the policy shift was prompted by people taking note of demographic and generational realities, and HUC remains fully committed to the proposition of its clergy demonstrating serious personal Jewish engagement

I also push back against the critique that the language of the announcement reflects a failure to embrace “the joy of living in an interfaith family,” something the author deems necessary for interfaith couples to feel welcome in Jewish spaces and see their clergy as role models. While some hold that only rabbis and cantors who are themselves in an interfaith relationship can particularly connect and serve as inspiring role models for other interfaith couples, I maintain that our clergy, regardless of their personal marital status, can effectively relate and connect with the diverse set of constituencies that they are being prepared to serve. 

Rehfeld was quoted by JTA as saying that HUC is “not backing down from the statement that Jewish endogamy [in-marriage] is a value.” Historically, until the middle decades of the 20th century, Jewish intermarriage rates in this country were around 3%. Over the past 50 years, rigorous debate has ensued concerning the impact of intermarriage on Jewish identity and continuity. Elements of that debate are most certainly evident in connection with the HUC decision.

The training of clergy involves multiple layers of preparation and education. Elements of this process are deeply rooted within Jewish tradition and culture, and parts of a candidate’s maturation will be driven by that individual’s own personal connection to Judaism, one’s journey of religious and spiritual discovery and the experience of being a part of a rigorous and demanding learning experience.

The American rabbinate and cantorate today reflect both the imprint of the broader demographic and cultural characteristics of our society and the personalized experiences of each clergy member. The real challenge here involves our collective responsibility for producing a new generation of committed and well-qualified rabbis and cantors who will be able to inspire and lead the Jewish people at this most extraordinary moment in our history.

Steven Windmueller is a professor emeritus of Jewish communal studies at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles.