These are strange times we live in and getting progressively stranger. This month’s flavor of strangeness is a JTA op-ed by leading American Jewish sociologist Steven M. Cohen and intermarriage advocate Kerry Olitzky addressing a pressing problem: that “many would-be members of the Jewish People have no possibility of engaging in a course of study and socialization that would lead to public recognition of their having joined the Jewish People.”

Cohen and Olitzky are talking about non-Jews who don’t want to undergo religious conversion because they feel that “would be an insincere affirmation of religious faith. Perhaps they are agnostic or atheist or secular or even committed to another faith tradition.” Yes that will definitely scotch the conversion thing.

Also they write some may feel “conversion requires abandonment of … holidays like Christmas.” Now where’d they get an outlandish notion like that? They obviously don’t read this column or they’d know all about the people from Pew and their Boro Park evergreen tree sightings.

They note that “[e]ven though significant numbers of Jews are secular [and] atheist … holding such positions … presents prospective converts with insurmountable barriers to conversion” in an apparent attempt to highlight what they see as the logical inconsistency of having different criteria for existing members of an exclusive club and for those looking to join it. But that’s a distinction that ought to be familiar to Cohen and Olitzky as American citizens. While espousing the violent overthrow of American democracy won’t cause them to lose their citizenship it will thankfully prevent Marxist revolutionaries from ever gaining that prized status along with its manifold privileges.

And the authors’ remedy for these unfortunate souls these wannabe would-be sorta kinda quasi-honorary Jews?

To provide a viable alternative to religious route to becoming a Jew we propose a second explicitly cultural pathway to join the Jewish People …. which we call Jewish Cultural Affirmation [and] would be clearly distinguished from Jewish religious conversion.

This pathway they contend gives “broader access to Judaism beyond that already offered by rabbis congregations and religious movements [and] could result in more non-Jews in Jewish families and friendship circles building Jewish homes.” No need to go back and read that again; it says what you think it says. Step right this way please for Alice in Wonderland the American Jewish version.

But have no fear because the authors hasten to add that “[r]eligious conversion would remain a rabbinic prerogative and Jewish Cultural Affirmation would not assume an anti-religious ethos.” And knowing what we do about heterodox conversions what a relief that is indeed.

A friend who was chozeres b’teshuvah once related at our Shabbos table the Reform conversion experience of the Romanian gentile to whom she had once been married. After taking a series of classes that included such weighty topics as Jewish cuisine and movies the prospective convert was invited to the supervising clergyman’s office to finalize the entry into G-d’s covenant with the Chosen People. After some light conversation the clergyman got a serious look on his face and said: “Okay here’s the final question. You’re in a tree and it comes time to say the Shema; must you descend from the tree before saying it?” To which the hapless Romanian replied “What’s the Shema?”

Of course that’s just one anecdote. I’m sure there are Reform conversions that do indeed require the aspiring Jew to have heard of the Shema although given its theme of kabbalas ol Shamayim u’mitzvos it’s not quite clear why. Is there another Torah passage that creates greater cognitive dissonance than does the Shema for a Reform movement premised squarely on the notion of radical personal autonomy?

Given the nature of heterodox “conversions” and the mutations of Judaism into which they initiate their graduates Cohen and Olitzky’s proposal for creating an alternative Jewish Cultural Affirmation (JCA) may be good for a laugh and fodder for a magazine column but isn’t really much of a change for the worse. “Cohen and Olitzky” — sounds like a Jewish deli serving up cultural Jewishness hold the religion with a side of social action and celery soda. And they are after all looking to create a new brand of Hebrew nationals decidedly unkosher and full of baloney.

Might JCA actually be a turn for the better? With their alternative “cultural pathway” perhaps Cohen and Olitzky are unwitting emissaries to help keep non-Jews clearly marked as such and thus to minimize the horrendous cholent that heterodox conversions and patrilineal descent have made of Jewish lineage. On the other hand JCA could help facilitate intermarriages between Jews and non-Jews who won’t take the “big step” of converting but are fine with culturally “joining” the Jewish People much as one joins Costco although they may want to know whether membership comes with a decoder ring and discounts on kasha varnishkes.

While the JCA proposal could be a mixed bag for us this much seems certain: The folks who run the Reform movement’s front office must be panicked over the JCA proposal’s potential to drastically reduce the padding of Reform’s membership rolls and ultimately its bottom line. I can hear the wailing now: “First the recession and now this?! It’s enough to make a Jew go Reconstructionist!”

FREE ADMISSION

 Encounters with spiritual nobility like one I had recently sometimes involve the exchange of only a few words. The possibility had arisen that I would interview and write about a great personage in the Torah world but upon further inquiry it seemed that this person a self-effacing and private individual was rather uncomfortable being the focus of an article and had only most grudgingly agreed to it.
Some may think that in the world of journalism even of the Torah-loyal variety sensitivities must ineluctably give way to the scoop principles must always bow before profit. But that’s not quite so not for this writer nor for this publication.
I have no illusions: Conflicts of interest certainly arise and there are situations that require one to balance spiritual sensitivities with responsibilities to one’s employer and readership and others. There are successes and failures and regrets and resolutions to do better. It’s a picture with black and white and lots of gray. It’s called life. But this recent episode was a clear instance of victory for the kind of journalism to which Jews should aspire.
I had only heard of this rav’s discomfort secondhand and there were those who felt such a piece would be important for various reasons so I decided to call his home and speak with him directly. The rebbetzin answered and after I explained the purpose of my call she said she would discuss it with him and that I should call the next day to hear his response.
The next day I called back and when the rebbetzin came to the phone the first thing she said was “Oy I must be modeh al ha’emes I forgot to speak with my husband about this. Can you please call back this afternoon?” I did so and she told me with regrets that her husband indeed felt too uncomfortable about the article to permit him to participate. She thanked me for the sensitivity shown and we hung up.
But it was her spontaneous unsolicited exclamation “I must be modeh al ha’emes ” that struck me. She didn’t have to say that; a simple “I’m sorry but I forgot” would have sufficed. And indeed that’s what many perhaps most people in that situation would have said.
But not someone who is a modeh one in whom the midah of hoda’ah is deeply implanted. Such a person doesn’t look for ways to minimize his indebtedness or however subtly avoid apology to the other so as to get by with the minimum necessary compression of ego that doing so requires. Such a person embraces the opportunity to apologize to acknowledge his debt to come face-to-face with his limitations for it is in those things that he finds his fulfillment. For such person saying forthrightly “I must be modeh al ha’emes” is cathartic a statement of his essence.
Each morning a Jew begins his day with a statement of hoda’ah — Modeh Ani — for that is so intrinsic to being a Yehudi which derives from the word hoda’ah. It has occurred to me in the past that it is phrased Modeh Ani rather than ani modeh so that the first word one utters at the all-crucial beginning of his day will be modeh rather than ani. But perhaps the word order is also teaching the Jew to begin each day by declaring his identity at least aspirationally: What am I? Modeh ani.