2 min read
BySimon Rocker, Simon rocker
Liberal Judaism’s decision to allow mixed-faith blessings under the chupah confirms its boundary-pushing reputation. But where the Liberals have boldly gone before, Reform have usually followed
October 15, 2020 10:42Liberal Judaism’s decision last week to allow mixed-faith couples to enjoy a blessing beneath a chupah will confirm its reputation as a movement that likes to push boundaries.
A chupah is the most visible feature of a Jewish marriage, symbolic of a Jewish home. So the message the movement is giving to a couple is that even if one of you may be of another faith, or none, together you can still build a Jewish home.
As yet, unlike in the USA, a mixed faith couple can still not have a fully-fledged Jewish wedding in the UK. Because according to a law dating back to Victorian times, a rabbi is legally permitted only to marry two persons of the Jewish faith. One or two rabbis in the Liberal fold may well think it time for the law to be repealed.
The chupah move might seem to put clear blue water between the Liberals and their fellow Progressives, the Reform. But it may be more significant in terms of popular perception than religious substance since rabbis of both movements have already been performing blessings for mixed-faith couples for some years. The Liberals were first to permit this back in 2003, with the Reform following a few years after.
Generally, where the Liberals have boldly gone, Reform have come round to later. The Liberals were also the first to introduce ceremonies for same-sex couples.
One Reform rabbi professed surprise at the Liberal go-ahead for chupot at mixed-faith blessings but only because “I thought they were already doing it.” Up to now, some couples have made do with a kind of surrogate chupah such as a floral arch.
The chupah was “not hugely radical”, I was told by one Liberal rabbi, who saw it as a step that might encourage more mixed-faith couples to feel accepted as part of a Jewish community.
The Reform and Liberals are certainly closer than they were when they held merger talks in the 1980s: at that time, they were critically divided over Jewish status. The Liberals already accepted the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother who was raised in the Jewish community as Jewish, while the Reform stuck by matrilineal recognition.
It was not until five years ago that Reform relaxed their position and were prepared to recognise the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother as Jewish without conversion — though some of their more conservative communities would not adopt the policy.
Six years ago the Reform and Liberals did announce a closer alliance, which has led to no great change, although there has been more co-operation over student chaplaincy.
Rabbis from both movements agree there is little or nothing to separate them theologically, differences lie in history and culture. As one layman familiar with both movements put it, “the Reform are more likely to look over their right shoulders at what their Orthodox neighbours might think of them”. The Liberals are more willing to be pathfinders outside the mainstream consensus.
The Liberals also cultivate a stronger sense of movement identity. Over the past few years, they have ventured out into the country, nurturing small regional communities in places such as Gloucestershire or York, which has made them geographically more diverse.
Reform, by contrast, are tied more to the suburban Jewish heartlands in Edgware or Finchley, for example, consolidating around some large synagogues rather than trying to seed new communities. Indeed, some see the central Reform body as weaker than before and perhaps it is significant that whereas its website once referred to the Movement for Reform Judaism, it now calls itself simply Reform Judaism.
Yet there are some who wonder if the economic aftershock from the pandemic may yet force the two movements to come closely together out of sheer practical necessity. One Reform rabbi, not averse to merger, considers the Liberal chupah “window-dressing” and certainly “ not a deal-breaker” if unification returned to the agenda.
But another Reform rabbi thought that Reform synagogues first needed to work out their relationship to their own central organisation before they could even think of joining forces with another.
