By Ben Sales

(JTA) – Responding to a rising number of interfaith families, Conservative synagogues will be voting on a measure from their umbrella body that would allow congregations to admit non-Jews as members.

Currently, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism’s (USCJ) Standards for Congregation Practice  restrict synagogue membership to Jews. But the new language of “Standard V – Membership,” which congregations will vote on in March, would allow individual congregations to decide whether to grant membership to non-Jews.

“USCJ supports every affiliated kehillah in developing its own criteria for membership,” the proposed language reads, using a Hebrew word for “congregation.”

The proposed resolution grew out of a commission set up last March to explore ways to engage intermarried couples.

The official description of the new by-law reads, “We celebrate the diversity among and within our kehillot and encourage the engagement of all those who seek a spiritual and communal home in an authentic and dynamic Jewish setting. We call on all of our kehillot to open their doors wide to all who want to enter.”

Rabbi Steven Wernick, United Synagogue’s CEO, told JTA that the current standards don’t make sense in a world where many intermarried couples are active participants in Conservative congregations.

The proposed change to synagogue membership policy is considered “long overdue” by Rabbi Rachel Safman of Congregation Beth El in New London.

“We know empirically that three-quarters of our member congregations already embrace non-Jewish family members as members of their kehillot in some way, shape, or form,” she says. “This, to my mind, defines the Conservative movement policy.”

For example, Temple Sholom in Greenwich offers a household membership for any individual/s who wish to formally belong to the congregation, according to Senior Rabbi Mitchell Hurvitz. “Anyone not of the Jewish faith who supports being meaningfully engaged with the Temple and the Jewish community is equally valued along with those who are of the Jewish faith,” he says.

Wernick agreed, saying that many non-Jews are already de facto members of Conservative synagogues because their families have paid dues for family memberships.

According to Wernick, the new by-law is meant to separate between the communal matter of synagogue membership and the Jewish legal question of who is a Jew. This does not change the Conservative definition of who counts as Jewish, he said. That matter remains the purview of the movement’s Jewish legal authorities, including the Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Currently, the Conservative movement considers only someone who was born of a Jewish mother or who has converted to be Jewish.

“I believe that the USCJ subcommittee proposal is a very exciting step forward for the Conservative movement,” Safman says. “I think that it is opening the door for our member kehillot to assess the situations in which they find themselves and develop a definition of membership that appropriately reflects their respective congregations’ needs, views, and understanding of the boundaries of their communities.

“As I see it, based on the communities I have served or belonged to, they are taking a very important step in fully embracing and welcoming individuals who are vital members of and contributors to our community, as members of their respective congregational communities.”

The proposed by-law is the latest way in which the Conservative movement, which strives to remain loyal to Jewish law while embracing change, is grappling with rising rates of intermarriage among American Jews. The more liberal Reform movement welcomes intermarried couples in its congregations, while the Orthodox movement, citing Jewish law, does not.

The Conservative movement prohibits its rabbis from attending or officiating at the wedding ceremonies of interfaith couples, though some of its synagogues celebrate intermarriages before they occur and welcome the couples afterward. In recent years, several Conservative rabbis have protested the intermarriage prohibition.

“I understand and I’m very sensitive and respectful to the anxiety about the domino effect,” Wernick said. “We’re living in a moment when paradigms are shifting, so the anxiety is very real, and the questions that come out of these paradigm shifts are also very real. Our job is to frame the questions and help our network navigate through this moment in history.”

He dismissed the idea that this change would open the door to non-Jewish presidents of congregations, as it wouldn’t make sense for a non-Jew to want to lead a synagogue. But there are no plans, as of now, to pass a by-law formally restricting synagogue leadership positions to Jews.

The change has been endorsed by the major Conservative institutions in the United States, including the Rabbinical Assembly, the Jewish Theological Seminary, and the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies.

And what if the proposed amendment to Standard V does not pass?

Replies Safman: “Do you think the synagogues who now have non-Jewish members are suddenly going to say, ‘Oh gosh, we didn’t realize we were in violation of USCJ policy – we need to write to all our families with non-Jewish members and revoke their family memberships’? It’s not going to happen.”

She points to a rabbinic principle that elucidates the matter.

“You don’t adjudicate a law or interpret a legal text in such a way that you’re going to place a significant portion of those for whom you’re adjudicating in violation of the law,” she says. “So, for example, if there’s one brand of flour that can be readily purchased in your local markets and for some reason, you have a concern about the supplier’s mill – you don’t declare the flour un-kosher. That’s not to say you give a green light to everything. If the flour is made with pig’s blood, then of course you declare it un-kosher. But if it’s something where you really feel that the decision should go X, but in point of fact everybody is living Y, you either don’t rule on it or you rule in favor of allowing Y because otherwise, all you’ve done is flout the whole legal system by declaring a significant portion of your population to immediately be transgressive. That serves nobody’s interest.”

Safman would like to see the March referendum reflect the reality already on the ground.

“My hope is that there will be enough of us in the quieter majority, who actually understand the importance of this issue and who step forward to express our opinion as a concrete vote, that it carries,” she says.

Cindy Mindell contributed to this report.