PART THREE: JEWISH UNIVERSALISM TODAY

A. Jewish Universalism and Other Reasons for Welcoming Converts
     Converts are welcome into Jewish life for a variety of
reasons. While the religious foundations for such welcoming are
provided by Jewish universalism, it is important to note that
Jewish universalism is completely compatible with the wide
variety of other reasons for welcoming converts. In a crucial
sense, because Jewish universalism is by definition all-
embracing, it can find room within it for all these reasons. In
general, the major reasons, beyond the strictly religious, why
Jews welcome converts include to prevent intermarriage, for
demographic self-defense, and for social, educational, and
ethical reasons.
     





1.   Intermarriage and Conversion    
     Most of the current discussion about conversion takes place
in the context of a discussion of intermarriage, that is marriage
between a born Jew and an unconverted gentile. This is so because
intermarriage has emerged as a crucial challenge to American
Jewish life. Additionally, more than 90% of those converting have
a Jewish romantic partner, either in a marriage or other
relationship.
     In part, it is unfortunate that discussions of conversion
normally only accompany discussions of intermarriage. Such a
restriction distorts conversion's place in Jewish thought and in
Jewish history. Nevertheless, the fact of increased conversion
because of romantic motives has made the subject a vital one for
the Jewish community. While Jewish universalism sees conversion
as a subject logically independent of discussions of
intermarriage, it is important to point out that Jewish
universalism is compatible with the view that conversions are
valuable in preventing intermarriages.
     Jewish universalists believe that one of the ways to prevent
an intermarriage is to have the non-Jewish partner convert prior
to the marriage. This isn't the first defense against an
intermarriage, but it is one defense.   
     Intermarriage is one of the most obvious social problems
facing American Jewry. There are extremely wide variations even
among experts trying to determine how much intermarriage there
is. One authoritative recent estimate was made in the Council of
Jewish Federations 1990 National Jewish Population Survey,
released in June, 1991. The CJF Survey showed that 52% of Jews
who had married since 1985 took unconverted gentiles as their
spouses. This figure compares to 9% in 1964. Beyond the startling
increase, the additional troubling finding was that 41% of the
children of intermarriages were being raised as Christians and
31% raised with no religion.
     It is obviously vital for Jewish survival that Jewish
efforts to oppose interdating and intermarriage continue. Jewish
education, home observances, and family emphasis on preventing
interdating and intermarriage are crucial. Conversionary efforts
either after a couple plans to wed or after the wedding has taken
place are not substitutes for basic efforts to prevent an
intermarriage; on the contrary, conversionary efforts are made
when the traditional efforts to inhibit intermarriage have
failed.   When an intermarriage is about to occur, despite
educational and other efforts to prevent it, it is better for
Jewish communal survival for the non-Jewish spouse to convert
than not to convert. For example, in one recent study, 3 out of 4
children of a conversionary marriage (a marriage between a born
Jew and a born gentile who converted to Judaism) had a Jewish
identity. Such findings cohered with the research of Egon
Mayer's well-known study of the children of intermarriage.
While the range of participation in Jewish life varies, it is
clear that long-term communal survival is affected very
positively if the prospective partner in what would otherwise be
an intermarriage converts. 
     Some in the Jewish community believe that welcoming converts
actually encourages intermarriage. There is, however, empirical
evidence to show that this is not the case. It is very hard to
convert to Judaism in Great Britain and South Africa. The
Argentinean Jewish community has banned all conversions for the
past fifty years. Yet, there has been a rapid rise in mixed
marriages in all these countries. A more lenient attitude toward
conversions would not have increased or lowered the rate of mixed
marriage, but there would have been an increase in the number of
Jews and a decrease in the raw number of mixed marriages. In the
United States since 1985 the intermarriage rate has risen
dramatically while at the same time the conversion rate has
dropped dramatically.
     In the early 1980s, anywhere between 30-40% of gentiles
involved with a Jew converted, before or after marriage (often
before the birth of a first child). However, the CJF study
confirms other data that a conversion has taken place in only 5%
of marriages since 1985 between someone born Jewish and someone
born gentile.  The CJF study adds that there are 185,000 people
who are Jews by Choice (70% of whom have formally converted to
Judaism and 30% of whom follow Jewish practices but have not
formally converted), but 210,000 Jews who have converted to
another religion. Many of the reasons for the increase in
intermarriage were discussed in the previous section. For
example, intermarriage is widely accepted; the CJF study
confirmed that 87.5% of Jews would accept the marriage of their
child to a gentile.
     Conversions came about most often because the non-Jews
believed both their would-be or actual spouse and that spouse's
parents wanted such a conversion to take place. The fact is,
though, that only a small percentage of non-Jews marrying Jews
are requested by spouse, in-laws, a rabbi, or the Jewish
community to convert. Overcoming the shyness and reluctance to
discuss the issue by all concerned is evidently one major step
toward increasing the number of those who wish to convert. There
is a very large audience of potential converts. Efforts to reach
that audience will be crucial in determining the Jewish identity
of the future generations of many young people.    





2. Demographic Reasons

a. Welcoming converts will provide a demographic self-defense
stemming the Jewish population decline in the United States. 
   
     One main reason that intermarriage is so troubling is that
it is a major contributing factor to an overall demographic
decline. The Jewish population in the United States is declining
relative to the rest of the population. The highest percentage of
Jews compared to the general American population came in the
1930s. In 1937, Jews constituted 3.7% of the U.S. population. By
1977, that had dropped to 2.7%. By 1990, the estimated 5,981,000
American Jews constituted 2.4% of the population. The CJF study
was even more dire, estimating that there are only 4.3 million
religious Jews, making up 1.9% of the U.S. population. The CJF
study does point out, though, that if secular Jews are added, the
Jewish population jumps to 5.5 million (or about 2.2% of the
total American population) and if people of Jewish heritage (e.g.
converts to Christianity and others) are included, the number
goes to 6.6 million. When considering long-term Jewish survival,
though, the core Jewish community seems both small and shrinking. 
     Various reasons have been suggested to explain the shrinking
American Jewish population. The most cited reason, in addition to
intermarriage, is the declining Jewish birth rate.     
     There has been considerable debate among Jews about the
purported low Jewish birth rate. On one side of the debate are
those, the "pessimists," who claim that the Jewish birth rate is
about 1.5 children per American Jewish family, considerably below
the 2.1 children needed to replace the population. Adherents of
this view point to a variety of demographic studies in the 1960s
and 70s, especially the National Jewish Population Study (NJPS)
of 1970-71 to prove their point. They warn that the negative
Jewish population growth will have extremely serious and profound
consequences. 
     These pessimists see the low Jewish birth rate as only part
of a pattern of demographic danger that must be seen against the
backdrop of increased assimilation and intermarriage.
Additionally, American Jewry has a population that will continue
to decline proportionately to the general American population.
Such a decline will be accelerated by the fact that the median
age for American Jews (about 37) is higher than the median age
for American non-Jews (about 28) and by the fact that the Jewish
population is geographically dispersing and losing some of the
density that a population needs to grow. 
     Not only too few Jews, but too few Jews in one place,
imperils group survival. The result of this social confluence is
the diminishing of Jewish numbers. In 1930, for instance, 68% of
the American Jewish population was concentrated in the Northeast.
Only 12% lived in the South and West, with the remainder in the
Midwest. By 1990, 22% lived in the South while 23% lived in the
West. The concentration in the Northeast had dwindled down to
44%. The result of this has been increased mobility and decreased
Jewish identity. 
     The pessimists conclude that such a diminished population
imperils the communal infrastructure, making it more difficult,
for instance, to raise funds for needy institutions and
individuals, find volunteers for worthwhile activities, aid
Israel, aid captive Jews, fight anti-Semitism, maintain political
influence, provide a market for Jewish literature, art, and
music, and provide for all the other elements that make for a
community's survival. 
     For the pessimists, and others in the Jewish community, it
is a simple but overlooked truism that there can be no Jewish
community without a "critical mass" of people who identify as
Jews.
     The "pessimist" mentality has a survivalist dimension. This
mentality was molded by persecutions, forced conversions,
pogroms, torture, physical assault and murder. The survivalist
mentality was seared forever into the Jewish consciousness by the
Holocaust. The Holocaust showed how dangerous Jewish weakness
could be when it confronted a powerful evil. The antidote to such
weakness was seen to be national security in Israel and a united
Jewish community throughout the world. For those with a
survivalist mentality, the loss of six million Jews, two million
of whom were children, made the need for Jewish babies not only
necessary for survival, but a political act in direct defiance of
Hitler's physical genocide. Each new Jewish baby denied Hitler
his "posthumous victory." 
     The majority of Jews and Jewish leaders are demographic
pessimists. Their vision of despair has made them focus on
various ways to increase the Jewish population. There have been
frequent calls for an increase in Jewish births, but, so far,
Jewish families do not seem to have heeded that call. The reasons
that such a call has not been heeded are well-known: housing is
very expensive, double incomes are often required to maintain a
decent living standard and send students to college, and fewer
Jews seem to regard homemaking as uniquely central to the Jewish
woman's self-definition or as an acceptable life occupation.
Indeed, as many as 75% of American Jewish women between the ages
of 25 and 44 may be in the labor force.  
     There are professional Jewish demographers and social
analysts who disagree with this pessimistic view. The "optimists"
argue that the NJPS was flawed. Most crucially, they base their
case on the argument that Jewish women are having babies later in
life and that the real birth rate is about at the 2.1 replacement
level. Furthermore, they point out that many factors affecting
American Jewish demography are unknown. How many Jews will never
marry? How many Jews will intermarry? How much assimilation will
take place? How many non-Jews will convert to Judaism? How much
Jewish immigration will there be to the United States from such
places as the Soviet Union? 
     The most interesting aspect of this argument is that the
most optimistic view is that the Jewish population will remain
stable. The misleading aspect of such a conclusion is that it
ignores the relationship between the Jewish population and the
general population. That is, even if marriage rates are such that
birth rates are at replacement level, and even if the current
lackluster conversion efforts increase the number of conversions
to offset intermarriage, and immigrants replace an aging
population, Jews will still decline proportionately in the
general American population. 
     Jews are at worst losing numbers and at best replacing
themselves but decreasing compared to the rest of the population.
Communal survival calls for an increase in the Jewish population,
not a decrease or even merely a stability with a loss of
proportional equality. This is so not just because of the numbers
needed for a community but also because the proportion of the
Jewish population affects the way Jews form their identity as
part of a minority in America.
     A minority group is often understood as a small group within
a larger group that stands apart from the larger group.
Additionally, a minority group may be understood not merely from
a demographic but from a political point of view. A minority
group, in this political sense, is one that is subordinate to the
more powerful group (using such criteria as access to positions
of political and economic power). In addition, it is possible to
speak of an ideological minority, that is a group in a society
whose fundamental world view is, in some crucial way, at variance
with the world view of the majority.
     Jewish history in the Diaspora has been principally
characterized by minority status both in terms of being a small
minority and in terms of subordination and often in terms of
ideology as well. Worse yet, the minority status has continued
for so long that it has come to be considered historically
permanent both by the Jews (that is until the messiah comes) and
the non-Jews, many of whom saw the weakness and the dispersion as
divine punishment for the rejection of their own particular
religious beliefs. Finally, the minority status of the Jews not
only crossed time, but also space. The Jews were minorities in
all the countries of the Western world. The Jews were seen as
incapable of being integrated anywhere.
     Minority status is often used to explain the persecution of
the Jews. That is, majority groups used the small, subordinate,
ideologically different Jewish minority as scapegoats for the
real or imagined social, economic, and personal ills in the
society.  But a complete minority status theory includes the
psychological and social effects--independent of persecution--
that minority status has on its members. This is especially
important in the United States where subordination and
persecution are illegal, but minority status remains as a vital
defining factor of Jewish life.
     It is not only that a majority population can have negative
attitudes toward a minority that is important, but also that 
minority members can absorb, consciously or not, negative self-
images and uncertainty about their real value as humans or the
value of their religion. Some possible negative effects stemming
from minority status include alienation, a sense of marginality,
a confused self-image, and even self-hatred. 
     Integrating a Jewish identity and an American identity is a
difficult task. Any proportional increase in Jews will make such
integration easier. Absent a subordination or ideological
problem, the larger the percentage of the population a society's
members are, the more likely they are to feel secure in the
normality of their minority identity.
     There are several legitimate questions raised about that
need for an increased Jewish population.
     It is possible, for instance, to argue that quality is more
important than quantity. On one level, such an argument is
insufficient because without quantity there can be no quality;
without chicken there can be no chicken soup. For example,
without quantity there might be an insufficient number of
teachers for young Jews and insufficient audiences for Jewish
artists. On another level, there is some vitality to this
argument if it is taken to mean that the real battle is an
educational one. It is a battle against indifference, ignorance,
and assimilation, so that simply increasing births is an
insufficient response. Finally, though, even this argument is
inadequate. Education, however valuable, has not proved
sufficient to stem the tide of assimilation. It is not the root
solution because of its past failure and the dimness of its
future prospects for success. To assure quality means first to
assure the necessary quantity from which quality can be selected.

     Another argument for quality is that Jews have survived
through history without needing a population policy. Of course
"survival" as a concept has to have extraordinary elasticity to
describe Jewish history. Millions of Jews did not survive; a
remnant did. Put simply, communal efforts to increase the
population will only enhance communal preservation and are not in
conflict with the search for quality.
     An additional question about population growth concerns
Jewish women. Some might see the quest for a population increase
as, almost by definition, a call to restrict the role of women or
to define their worth strictly by biological standards. This,
however, need not and should not be the case.
     Any effort to increase the Jewish population must increase,
not decrease, choices for Jewish women. Any such effort must make
it easier for a Jewish woman to work and have children if she
chooses, or stay home and have children if she chooses to do
that. Unfortunately, many calls for an increased Jewish birth
rate are really thinly-veiled pleas for a return to a home and
family pattern that existed several decades ago, but is far from
the exclusive pattern now. That pattern put work and family at
odds for Jewish women, rather than giving them a choice. Any
effort now must recognize the right of Jewish women to work and
raise children. Similarly, any effort must recognize that Jewish
women who, of their own choice, do wish and can afford to stay
home and raise children should not be considered somehow inferior
in a society in which identity often overlaps occupation. Such
women must be supported in their own identity.
b. Welcoming converts is the best way to increase the American
Jewish population.
   
     There have been efforts to increase the Jewish population
through means other than a carefully-conceived, sustained effort
to offer Judaism and welcome converts. 
     The most obvious way has been to argue for an increase in
Jewish births. Pronatalist efforts in the United States have
largely been educational instead of economic. Educational efforts
have included work in the Jewish media and among some rabbis and
communal leaders. Economic incentives, used more sparingly, have
included providing day care facilities, scholarship aid, and
alterations in dues structures and fees in some Jewish communal
institutions for large Jewish families.
     These efforts have resulted in identifying the problem
clearly. By now, everyone involved in Jewish life can recite the
list of reasons for the low birth rate: urbanization, education
(the more education in a family, the lower the birth rate),
wealth (as a family's income rises, fertility declines), women
working outside the home, sometimes because of the necessity of
having two incomes to survive, delayed marriage, delayed first
child, divorce, and so on.
     Despite knowing the factors that contribute to a lower birth
rate, Jewish communal leaders have been unsuccessful in
pronatalist efforts. This is so, in part, for the obvious reasons
that such leaders don't want to reduce Jewish education or
income, or reduce options for women. Even when they get
prescriptive, though, as in encouraging marriage and children,
their arguments go unheeded. This is so, in part, not because of
any inherent weakness in their argument, but because of the
general difficulty of developing a successful pronatalist policy.
     There have been many efforts world-wide by numerous
countries to increase their populations. After World War I,
France, Italy, and Germany provided financial incentives and
nationalistic enthusiasm for a fertility increase that, it turned
out, they could not effect. Many East European nations such as
Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Rumania developed pronatalist
policies in the 1960s that included paid maternity leaves, cash
bonuses for births, taxes on childless couples, and so on, but
there is no proof that such efforts led to a long-term increase. 
     In summary, there is no evidence that a concerted private
pronatalist effort to increase Jewish births will have a dramatic
effect. While some demographers argue that very large economic
incentives will work, the American Jewish community has, for now,
neither the resources nor the inclination to test that theory.
Pronatalist efforts to increase the Jewish population have been a
failure.
     There have also been other attempts to increase our numbers.
One of these efforts has been to welcome Jewish immigrants from
abroad, especially from nations where Jews suffered persecution.
The problem with relying on immigration is its uncertainty and
the fact that every non-U.S. Diaspora Jewish immigrant who comes
to the U.S. perforce does not go to Israel. From a world-wide
Jewish perspective, and most particularly from a Zionist
perspective, this does provide a short-term gain for the U.S.
Jewish population, but a reduction in the Israeli population in
the short-run and, because retaining a Jewish identity is more
likely in Israel than elsewhere, a reduction in the Jewish
population in the long-run.
     Another effort to increase the Jewish population has been to
re-define who is a Jew. As has been noted, in 1983 the Central
Conference of American Rabbis declared that children would be
considered Jewish if either parent, mother or father, were Jewish
and if the child publicly and formally identifies with the Jewish
faith and people. So far, it is unclear if patrilineality will
affect the Jewish population. First of all, the Reform principle
is more restrictive than it is popularly conceived to be. The
child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother is not
automatically Jewish. Rather the child must identify as a Jew,
get a Jewish education, and so forth. It is uncertain how many
such children will do that, or what exactly the status will be of
those children with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers when
the child does not receive a Jewish education or publicly
identify as a Jew. Also, it will take a generation to determine
if those children with a Jewish education retain a Jewish
identity and how widely they are accepted as Jews, for example as
acceptable marriage partners to Conservative Jews. Indeed,
especially if Conservative Jews continue denying the validity of
patrilineality, its potential as a way to increase the Jewish
population is greatly limited.
     Another way Jews have increased their population is by
adopting children who are not Jewish and raising them as Jews. Of
course, population increase is rarely if ever the reason for
adoption; most often it is the human desire to help a child in
need. Still, whatever the motive, adopting non-Jews and raising
them as Jews does increase the Jewish population. Actually, from
an Orthodox point of view, it is preferable for Jews to adopt
non-Jewish rather than Jewish children, though this preference
emerges from religious rather than demographic reasons. This is
so because, with a non-Jewish child, the legal status of the
child will not come into question. A Jewish child may be a result
of an illegal union. Also, an adopted non-Jewish child will not,
if the child eventually marries a Jew, face the possibility of
accidentally entering into a forbidden relationship. An adopted
Jewish child's origins might be unknown and so such a
relationship, even if unlikely, still possible.
     Adoption, however, is really a limited option as a means to
increase the Jewish population. There are many more people who
wish to adopt children than there are babies. Additionally,
relatively few children are adopted for the same economic and
social reasons that relatively few Jewish children are being
born. Finally, because the idea of increasing the number of Jews
by adoption presumes the adopted infant will be converted to
Judaism, adoption is really a species of another option for
increasing the number of Jews: converting non-Jews to Judaism.
     Because of the failure of these efforts to offset population
losses, other options have been considered. One of the ways that
has gained increased attention is to seek converts. As American
Jewish concerns about the consequences of declining numbers grew,
Jews were more willing to see conversion as a potential source
for the replenishing of their dwindling numbers.
     Welcoming converts is the best weapon in the demographic
war.
     First of all, conversions to Judaism have already been
increasing Jewish numbers. By the year 2000, there will more than
200,000 Jews by Choice in the United States. The expense and
difficulty in raising 200,000 Jews from birth gives some
indication of the raw value of a person not born Jewish choosing
to become Jewish. (Of course, this is not the central value of a
convert). In addition, the demographic effects go beyond the
200,000. The Talmudic dictum that whoever saves a single life, it
is as though a world is saved may be applicable to converts as
well. Whenever a person converts, all the person's progeny--the
person's world--may be Jewish. A single convert does not only add
one Jew to the world, but potentially many. The 200,000 will, in
time, yield millions of Jews.
     Such conversions come at a time when many born Jews remain
ambivalent about welcoming converts and the Orthodox movement
does not recognize those it believes to be non-halakhic converts.
Should Jewish hospitality increase, the chances are that even
more non-Jews will seek to convert.
     Indeed, it is this conversionary potential that is the
greatest argument for its consideration as a demographic
argument. The chances for increasing birth rates, or adoptions,
or getting increased immigration, or getting the non-Reform
movements to accept patrilineality are very limited. In contrast,
conversion remains unique and novel as a way to increase the
number of Jews precisely because the pool of potential converts
is enormous and current efforts to reach the potential converts
have been limited.       In addition, once Judaism is seen as an
open religion that welcomes newcomers, it might be embraced by
more American non-Jews who are on a spiritual search and who have
no marital motives.
     Several factors, then, will affect how much conversions can
increase the American Jewish population: (1) how Jewish movements 
develop their institutional policies concerning welcoming
converts; (2) how such movements make such policies known to both
the Jewish and non-Jewish public; (3) how such movements
integrate the non-Jews who do convert; (4) how such movements
react to intermarriage and those clergy who perform an
intermarriage; and (5) how other individuals and institutions in
the Jewish community organized to offer Judaism and welcome
converts.
     




c. Welcoming converts will help fight the demographic war in
Israel.

     An increased Jewish population in Israel is important to
provide more personnel for the military, increase Israel's
ability to absorb more immigrants, and offset the number of non-
Jews to Jews in the population, a number that is rapidly
increasing due to high Arab birth rates. The Israeli population
is currently increasing because of a large Soviet aliyah.
Nevertheless, the Hebrew University demographer Sergio
DellaPergola estimates that if aliyah over the next several
decades reaches one million, then, assuming a steady Jewish birth
rate, there will be approximately 6.5 million Jews in Israel in
the year 2020. But if the aliyah equals 500,000 and Israel
retains the administered territories, there will be more Arabs
than Jews under Israeli control in the year 2020. DellaPergola
believes that for every 100,000 immigrants above the half-million
mark, the Jewish population will retain its majority for one
year. The crucial point is that the increase in Soviet Jewish
immigration should not be considered the only long-term solution
to Israel's demographic problems.
     Zionist theory has always been concerned with demography,
though such concern was often couched in the language of
persecution and security. On one level, Zionist theorists
identified the persecution resulting from Jewish minority status
as a core reason for the need to evacuate the Diaspora. Zionists
concluded that minority persecution was an inevitable component
of Jewish social life in a gentile environment.
     It was a central Zionist insight to recognize the dangers of
being a small, but recognizable, part of a population that
considered Jews foreign. One response to the problem other than
Zionism might have been a call for increasing the European Jewish
population to rough parity with the non-Jewish population. The
Zionist contribution, beyond the general recognition of the
difficulty of such an undertaking, was precisely its national
emphasis, which allowed it to see the problems of minorities as a
national problem with the only solution to seek a nation with a
Jewish majority, and to recognize that any genuine attempt to
increase the population could only be successful in a secure
Jewish nation where no persecution would accompany population
increase and where national purpose would propel such increases.
It was this analysis of minority persecution that was grafted on
to the traditional Jewish longing for the land of Israel to
produce Zionism. 
     It is important not to omit traditional Judaism in
understanding the goal of population increase. The Jewish longing
included a specifically religious Zionist impulse. For religious
Zionists, Zion was the required but hitherto unavailable national
home for those people who believed Judaism expressed the central
truths about God, the universe, and humanity. Such a national
home was needed, for those truths would go forth from there to
the world and help bring about the world's redemption. For
religious Zionists, then, Jewish population increase in Israel
was a central part of the plot of the general redemptive drama,
for as Jews increased in Israel and fulfilled the religious
commandments, their message would be heard by the world.
     Even after focusing on attaining a Jewish majority in a
legally-secured nation founded in the spirit of Judaism, Zionism
did not lose sight of demography. For to attain that majority, it
was required to direct Jewish migrants to the land. Aliyah,
therefore, became and remains a central goal of the World Zionist
Organization and the Israeli government.
     But aliyah is only one method of achieving the wider goal of
increasing the Jewish population in Israel. Other methods of
increase are needed to supplement aliyah. In part, this is so
because, while there are large numbers of current immigrants, the
realities of aliyah (the possibility of their being a cut-off in
aliyah and the finite supply of Jews willing and able to make
aliyah, for example) dictate seeking supplementary methods of
population increase. Even with the miraculous and huge increase
of Soviet Jewish emigration, the numbers of Soviet Jews who
choose not to settle in Israel, and the relatively low birthrates
of Soviet Jewish immigrants combine with the historic lack of
aliyah from the United States to make aliyah an undependable
source of population growth for the long term. Therefore, while
aliyah should be the source of eternal hope and unending efforts,
it should not be the only method used to increase the Jewish
population in Israel.
     In general, there are two other methods of population
increase to consider: birth encouragement and the conversion of
non-Jews to Judaism.
     Israelis have always recognized the need for population
growth and have included pronatalist as well as immigration
policies in their effort, although the stress has always been on
aliyah. Pronatalist policies have been relatively modest. There
is the famous case of David Ben-Gurion proposing that the Israeli
government pay a cash bonus to every Israeli woman who gave birth
to a tenth child. Since too many of those who collected were
Arabs--the government being obliged to give equal treatment--the
plan was discontinued. Ben-Gurion, always urging the Jews in
Israel to perform their "demographic duty," established an ad hoc
committee on Jewish birth questions. The Committee recommended in
its 1966 report that there be established a Demographic Center in
the Prime Minister's office and, in general proposed that
psychological (i.e. educational) and economic incentives be
created to have a pronatalist program.
     The argument between those favoring pronatalism and those
favoring immigration forms the ideological boundaries of the
demographic argument in Israel. Private groups favoring
pronatalist policies, in effect, urge reductions in funds spent
on seeking (and subsidizing) new immigrants, so that the funds
can instead provide for the welfare (and therefore encouragement)
of large, native Jewish families. Those who favor immigration
argue that pronatalist policies, as made evident by the Ben-
Gurion plan, can backfire if run by the government and not some
independent Jewish body. Additionally, those favoring immigration
argue that pronatalism has not been shown to work anywhere,
whereas it has been immigration that has so dramatically
increased the size of the Israeli Jewish population, so that such
a policy deserves the continued economic and political support it
needs. Additionally, as in the case of Soviet Jews there is a
moral imperative to rescue Jews facing persecution.
     There is, no doubt, some truth in both sides of the
argument, but there also considerable weaknesses in both. The
fluctuations and uncertainties of aliyah as the sole cornerstone
of a long-term population increase policy have already been
mentioned. But, as previously discussed, there is no empirical
proof that a pronatalist policy and efforts lead to any long-term
increase, especially because any program with a prospect for
success would have to provide very large incentives.
     Thus Zionists argued back and forth without adequately
considering the possibility of additional inexpensive and
dependable ways to increase the Jewish population. One of those
ways is to increase the Jewish population by converting non-Jews
to Judaism.
     Conversionary efforts in Israel have been minimal. While
there are conversions, they are fewer in number than in the
United States and far fewer than they could be with even a
minimal additional effort. Between 1948 and 1968 there were only
2,288 converts, even though 4,010 individuals applied for
conversion. The most recent statistics indicate that there are
between 5,000-6,000 applicants for conversion each year, although
the number is probably currently much higher because of
conversions among Soviet and Ethiopian immigrants. It is fair to
say that no coordinated effort comparable to seeking immigrants
or to creating a pronatalist program has been made in the area of
seeking potential converts. (In 1955, Dr. Israel Ben-Zeev, a
professor at Bar-Ilan University, established the World Union for
the Propagation of Judaism. The Union published a brochure, but
received little official encouragement). A major source for
increasing the Jewish population is being neglected.
     Is there a potential for converts in Israel? Yes, from four
sources: non-Israeli, non-Jewish workers, students, and visitors
who come to the country, new immigrants who are not Jewish but
have some Jewish background or have a Jewish family member,
converts from other countries, most especially the U.S., and the
indigenous non-Jewish population.
     Ever since the Six-Day War, Israel has seen a steady flow of
non-Jews who go to kibbutzim and elsewhere to volunteer their
time and efforts. Some of these non-Jews become romantically
involved with native Jews, while others become attached to Israel
itself. In both instances, some of these non-Jews want to
consider converting, and more would consider doing so if it were
known to them how welcome they would be as new Jews.
     Converts who have been converted by non-Orthodox rabbis
outside Israel have faced a difficult time in seeking to become
immigrants. A very few have done so, though more would in a more
receptive immigrant climate. Currently, the Orthodox authorities
remain opposed to accepting such converts as genuine Jews, and
even more secular Israelis, unfamiliar with the Reform and
Conservative streams of Judaism, don't always see non-Orthodox
converts as genuine Jews. American Jews will need to continue
their efforts to make non-Orthodox converts be accepted as Jews.
In part, their argument should include the potential for aliyah.
     Non-Jewish immigrants want to integrate into Israeli society
and will form a natural audience for conversion. Tolerance and
understanding must accompany efforts to educate them about
Judaism and oversee their conversion.
     Arabs as well are a natural source of potential converts.
Not all of the 900,000 non-Jews living inside the pre-1967
borders are hostile to Judaism and Israel. Many are well-
integrated into Israeli society and have an acquaintance with
Jewish customs, and speak excellent Hebrew. Indeed, the very
minority group pressures that work on Jews in the Diaspora work
in a comparable way on non-Jews in Israel. There may not be
widespread conversion among the Arabs, especially while the Arab-
Israeli dispute remains politically unsolved, and there will no
doubt be a few Arabs who would consider conversion for dubious
motives (e.g. non-Israeli Palestinian Arabs who might wish to
return to the land by becoming Jewish, instead of really having a
commitment to Judaism and the Jewish people), but these
limitations should not prevent Israeli Jews from welcoming
sincere Arab and other non-Jewish converts in Israel.
3. Social Reasons

a. Welcoming converts weakens the arguments of the anti-Semites
that Judaism is particularist or exclusive or uses the notion of
Jews as "the chosen people" in an exclusionary way.

     There is a peculiar irony in some Jews' reluctance to
welcome converts. They believe conversions to Judaism engender
hostility in the Christian community. The irony is that it is the
refusal to accept converts that is seen as a hostile act because
such a refusal emphasizes what appears (falsely) to be Jewish
exclusivity. If Jews think of themselves as "chosen"--and refuse
to welcome others who wish to be Jewish--it is precisely the
refusal that engenders misunderstanding and mistrust. American
Christians, in particular, understand the notion of changing
religion; for most of them it does not have the religious and
historical resonance that it does for Jews. Jews believe that
Christians would react as Jews would react, but they would not.
     It is important to eliminate the incorrect view that the
Jewish concept of chosenness means that Jews consider themselves
somehow intrinsically superior to non-Jews. If, after all, in
principle, any non-Jew can become a Jew, then intrinsic
superiority is not tenable, but if Jews restrict conversions,
such an incorrect view of chosenness might be inferred from the
restriction. Similarly, it is less likely for non-Jews to
misunderstand chosenness as meaning that Jews consider themselves
ethically better, more in God's favor, and so on, if converts are
welcome. In fact, the concept of chosenness to perform a mission
is rendered clear by welcoming converts. If all can choose to
take part in that mission, by choosing to become Jewish, the
charge of exclusivity is robbed of its potency.


b. Welcoming converts builds understanding between the Jewish and
the non-Jewish communities, enhancing sympathy for Judaism and
reducing anti-Semitism.

    Each convert has parents, other relatives, friends,
acquaintances, and business associates who might, for the first
time, have a close connection with the Jewish community. Knowing
someone who is Jewish might make such contacts generally more
sympathetic toward Jews and Israel, and remove some of their
possible prejudice toward Jews. That is, seeking converts has the
real potential to reduce anti-Semitism because non-Jews who know
a convert will feel they now have a real contact to the Jewish
community and an emotional stake in the general communal attitude
and behavior toward Jews. 
     There are many theories about prejudice toward Jews. Some
believe that prejudice and discrimination flourish only when
there is distance from Jews and that actual and potential
hostility is weakened when someone close is suddenly a new member
of a group previously considered distant. This scapegoat theory
of prejudice holds that a prejudiced person has some hostility or
feelings of aggression and reduces the hostility by redirecting
it on to the members of particular minority groups in the form of
prejudiced behavior. A further distinction is important. Some
prejudiced people are hostile toward Jews because such hostility
conforms to the social norms they are familiar with and the
perceived social norms of the majority group, even though the
hostility still is, in part, a psychological defense against
anxiety. There are other anti-Semites with personality structure
distortions. Both types blame Jews (and others) rather than
themselves so that if they internalized their hate they would
have no reason to externalize their hatred onto Jews or others.
     The reason that converts reduce anti-Semitism better than
born Jews is that converts are seen as equals in social status
and as having an overall sense of commonality with gentiles,
including gentiles who are prejudiced. Contacts between
prejudiced gentiles and born Jews, that is, will not reduce
hostility as much as contacts between prejudiced gentiles and
converts. The social circle shared by converts might, in fact,
include many people who don't normally associate with Jews, but
did associate with the convert prior to the conversion and thus,
without intending to, have a friend or relative or associate who
is Jewish. They may never have expected to know someone Jewish so
well, but the very relationship forces them to re-think their
attitudes toward Jews and Judaism.

4. Educational Reasons

a. Teaching non-Jews about Judaism will help Jews learn more
about Judaism.

     One of the best ways for Jews to learn more about Judaism is
for them to teach it to others, both Jews and non-Jews. Because
non-Jews often have a minimal familiarity with Jewish religious
ideas, language, and practices, the necessity of providing a
clear and coherent explanation forces the Jews teaching them to
prepare carefully and offer concise explanations. Rabbis,
spouses, friends, or others who teach converts will find
questions raised they many not have thought of or may have
hitherto considered obvious or self-evident. Teaching others
forces the teacher to learn.
     Teaching others also arouses enthusiasm for the subject in
the teacher. The teacher sees that others are interested in the
subject and eager to learn it. The act of teaching itself implies
careful preparation. Books and articles must be read, and lessons
must be prepared. Beyond the pre-class preparation, though, the
religious dialogue and questions during the class can lead the
Jew doing the teaching to learn more. When instruction is less
formal, say by a friend, the dialogue, like an all-night college
dormitory discussion, can lead Jews to discover new depths to
their own Judaism. A potential Jewish spouse, for instance, might
be asked by the non-Jewish partner to explain the story of how
Israel came to be established. If the potential Jewish spouse has
only a hazy or inexact answer, the question can become a prompt
for both to explore Israel's history.


b. Teaching non-Jews about Judaism will help marginal Jews become
more Jewish.

     Just as Jewish teachers learn about Judaism as they teach it
to others, so, too, is their morale strengthened. All people need
a purpose and justification for their lives. Jews, as Jews, need
to feel they are a people commissioned to perform a divine
activity, which may, in part at least, be conceived as
educational--teaching non-Jews about Judaism. A common purpose
emerges for Jews from such teaching. Many marginal Jews who, by
force of circumstance, are asked to teach or help non-Jews (such
as their prospective spouses), will feel more Jewish as they
teach. The lack of Jewish pride and self-esteem combined with a
lack of Jewish knowledge is what makes Jews awkward about asking
others to join their faith or to become suspicious or surprised
when others wish to convert. Ironically, it is in the acts of
inviting others to join, of welcoming them and teaching them
about Judaism, that such Jews can often find their own Jewish
selves as well. Even Jews more rooted in their Judaism will find
new pride in offering that religion to others. They will learn
that they love their religion enough to offer it to others.
5. Ethical Reasons
     The ethical reasons for offering Judaism are: (1) if Jews
believe Judaism to be the world view that most coheres with truth
they have an intellectual obligation to offer that world view
without forcing anyone to accept it; and (2) Jews have no moral
right to prevent any sincere person who wishes to convert to
Judaism from doing so.
      Jews affirm the validity of their own religious beliefs.
The theological core of Judaism is that it explains God, the
natural world, and humanity with greater depth than alternative
explanations, such as other religions or secularism. The Jewish
universalist argument in the first part was that those beliefs
had an applicability for all people, not just Jews. Additionally,
a crucial part of Judaism's moral argument is that it provides a
much-needed tolerance to religion. Jews affirm Judaism but don't
suggest that accepting it is mandatory for salvation. Such a
tolerance marks an ethical advance over competing world views
that affirm they are the only paths to salvation. 
     Jewish universalism's ethical point is that if Jews believe
they have a valid belief system but that it is only for Jews,
they are denying the universality of the belief system, a
universality which is at the core of the system. Indeed, without
a universalist core, without the idea that Judaism was applicable
to all people, it would not be ethical to make it available to
all. With that core, it becomes unethical not to make it
available.     
     Even without Jewish universalism, however, it is hard to
justify refusing sincere gentiles who wish to convert. Refusing
to allow non-Jews to enter the covenant or creating so many
barriers to conversion that the barriers become tantamount to
refusal renders Jews subject to the charge of exclusivity,
believing themselves better than non-Jews so that non-Jews cannot
become Jews.
     The construction of barriers has been direct (as by
counseling applicants for conversion not to convert) and indirect
(as by not providing information to the community about how a
person goes about converting to Judaism). An ethical approach
includes providing information for those who wish to learn about
Judaism and welcoming and integrating those who do choose to
convert.







B. Arguments Against Jewish Universalism
     
1. People who believe that Judaism should welcome converts do so
for widely different reasons, not only as "Jewish Universalists."
     
     As discussed above, many who embrace the notion that the
Jewish people should offer Judaism and integrate converts do so
for widely different reasons. Some embrace converts in order to
decrease the intermarriage rate, or to increase the Jewish
population, or for other non-religious reasons. Sometimes, of
course, these "secular" motives are complemented by religious
reasons, but even those religious reasons may or may not be
identified with Jewish universalism. Not all who embrace
converts, that is, embrace Jewish universalism.
     Yet two things are clear. First, the addition of converts is
a goal of Jewish universalism, whether converts are welcomed for
that purpose or for another. Second, there is no competing Jewish
ideology which interprets conversionary activities as coherently
as does Jewish universalism. Those who engage in pro-
conversionary activities do not need to accept Jewish
universalism as their ideology, but Jewish universalism does
include all those activities, locate them in the logical
geography of Jewish thought, and provide the activities a place
in Jewish history. Additionally, Jewish universalism does not
contradict any other explanations for seeking converts. Rather,
it supplements (and deepens) those explanations.
     Jewish universalism remains a useful term for these reasons.
Indeed, because Jewish universalism as a theory seeks to advance
Judaism, it has room within it for any activity that enhances
Judaism or enhances the security of Jews to advance Judaism. Such
activities include, for example, pro-Israel political and
economic activities, increasing the number of Jews in the world,
and fighting for endangered Jewish communities.
     Therefore, Jewish universalism recognizes that there are
positive effects of welcoming converts independent of purely
advancing Judaism's spiritual goals. Welcoming converts provides
Jews with, for example, positive psychological and social effects
as well as the more obvious economic, demographic, and political
effects of an increased Jewish population. For instance, one
positive psychological effect on Jews is a sense of validation.
The idea of Jewishness is enhanced if those not born into it
choose to claim it for themselves. That others want what Jews
have enhances Jewish self-esteem.
     While there are many reasons to welcome converts, none of
these is incompatible with Jewish universalism, none in
competition as a theory of Judaism to explain the reasons why
there should be a welcoming attitude. All of these reasons need
such a theory of Judaism, and Jewish universalism is the one most
coherent with Jewish tradition.


     
2. The message of Jewish universalism is open to interpretation.

     Another problem with Jewish universalism is that its message
is open to interpretation. The long-lasting consensus in Jewish
religious life has dissolved in the last two hundred years,
leaving the question of message much more problematic. In a
sense, the finding of such a common message is itself the center
of the crisis in modern Judaism and may even be understood as a
prerequisite, in importance as well as sequence, to transmitting
the message. On this reading, Jews need to decide what they have
before they can agree on what to offer to the world.
     However, it is in the very act of offering their
interpretations of Judaism to the world that Jews will, perforce,
be obligated to ask the questions which might promote their own
internal unity. The teacher frequently learns more about the
subject than the student.
     Additionally, despite the differences, the different
interpretations are centrally over commonly-shared values and,
perhaps more pointedly, a commonly-shared history and destiny.
The mysteries of Jewish survival unite the diverse elements
within Judaism.
     There are central, unique beliefs that Judaism can offer. In
brief, such unique beliefs include: (1) Judaism's stressing deeds
rather than the acceptance of a particular ideological creed; (2)
the view that sin is not inherent, that humans can be redeemed by
their own moral activism, and that redemption for human sins
against other humans can't be given by God but only by those
wronged; (3) core values, such as the centrality of the family,
the understanding that learning is a form of worship, and that
the center of worship is the performance of good deeds; and, of
course, (4) the unity of God as opposed, for example, to
trinitarianism or other understandings of monotheism.
     There is also a focus in Judaism on the purpose of life:
working with God to make the world as good as it can be. While
different Jews might interpret that purpose in different ways, in
broad terms such a purpose includes education, helping others,
and similar activities. 
     The assertion of these beliefs and purpose and related
Jewish views and values must be combined with the message that
Judaism accepts sincere converts. Without a willingness to accept
converts, the message itself cannot be universal and therefore
cannot meet the covenantal definition.


C. Arguments Against Welcoming Converts
     A variety of arguments against welcoming converts remain in
Jewish life. Some of these are trivial, some unsound, and some
with a reasonable basis, but still unconvincing. Each well-known
argument needs to be considered.                                 

   

1. Conversions by Reform and Conservative rabbis are causing
basic, perhaps irreparable, divisions within the Jewish
community.

     The split between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox is not only
about conversion, but also about marriage, divorce and much else
in Jewish life. (It should be understood that the term "Orthodox"
here, like the terms "Conservative" and "Reform," is used in a
general way to designate a widely-held position within the
movement. Not all Orthodox Jews subscribe to the general Orthodox
position described here, and the same goes for Conservative and
Reform Jews). 
     Determining the cause of the split is difficult because each
side has its own point of view. From an Orthodox view, the split
was caused when some Jews claimed the halakhah was no longer
binding, or that the halakhah was inherently susceptible to
evolution, or that the written Torah was written over time by
more than one person rather than given by God to Moses at Sinai,
or that the oral Torah was not given at Sinai. Disagreements
about such specific practices as keeping kosher, riding on the
Sabbath, the ordination of women and others exacerbated the
split. From a non-Orthodox point of view, the split was caused
because the Orthodox refuse to recognize the non-Orthodox as
religiously legitimate Jews, unable, to cite just one important
example, to serve as witnesses (and therefore legally unable,
say, to witness a conversion).  
     Conversions, therefore, are a sign of the rift, not the
cause of it. If all non-Orthodox conversions stopped today, the
rift would continue but be fought over a wide variety of other
issues, such as marriage and divorce procedures, the question of
whether the child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother who
has been raised as a Jew should be considered Jewish, and other
questions.
     That is not to say that non-Orthodox Jewry should ignore the
Orthodox arguments, which are serious and substantial, or not
seek a common understanding that would allow non-Orthodox
converts to be acceptable to all of Jewry.
     Non-Orthodox Jewry needs to consider the halakhic arguments
made by the Orthodox as well as the options available to solve
the problem.
     The halakhic argument by the Orthodox is that a conversion
is valid according to Jewish law only if it is performed by a
proper Bet Din, that is by people with a full knowledge of Jewish
law, observant of that law in its entirety, and ordained to act
as a rabbi and religious judge. Because the Orthodox don't
believe non-Orthodox rabbis comply with these requirements, the
Orthodox don't accept any non-Orthodox members of a Bet Din. This
is important for several reasons. First, it reduces the
likelihood of a joint Bet Din and second it means that even if
non-Orthodox rabbis follow precise Orthodox procedures during the
conversion ceremony, the Orthodox would still consider the
conversion invalid.  The procedure itself, then, is only part of
the problem.
     According to the Orthodox view, a potential convert must
accept all the practices and teachings of Judaism and these must
be accepted without any other motive, such as marriage. That is,
conversion for any reason other than sincere belief renders the
conversion illegal. Additionally, the convert must agree to
observe all the 613 commandments, such as keeping kosher,
maintaining the Sabbath, and so on. Unless the prospective
convert makes such a promise, no conversion can take place. Even
if an Orthodox rabbi conducts the conversion ceremony, if the
motive was for marriage or if a promise to keep all the
commandments was not made, the Orthodox legal authorities will
not recognize the validity of the conversion.
     There have been many disputes about this Orthodox position.
Non-Orthodox rabbis claim that the desire for monopoly over
conversions is a matter of politics, not Jewish law. Conservative
Jews argue, for instance, that they are as committed to the
halakhah as the Orthodox. Some non-Orthodox also believe that if
the Orthodox attain a veto over conversions, they may seek and
get a comparable veto in other areas of religious life, such as
marriages and divorces.
     In the area of conversionary motivation, some non-Orthodox
proponents of conversion have suggested that since a couple about
to be married could in fact be married without a conversion
taking place, the act of conversion is indeed a free choice and
is not directly contingent upon the marriage. So far, this
argument has not swayed the Orthodox.
     Neither have the Orthodox accepted the idea that any
increases of non-Orthodox Jews by conversion makes more Jews
available to accept the intense commitment to religious law that
the Orthodox seek. 
     These arguments that take place in the United States also
take place in Israel, where the debate over who is a Jew has
given the issue international prominence and simultaneously
raised the stakes for both sides. Although in Israel the argument
is played out in a political arena, the central arguments are the
same: the Orthodox wish the Law of Return amended so that
immigrants would be considered Jewish only if born of a Jewish
mother or if they are converted "according to halakhah." The
addition of such a phrase to the law would, as Israelis
understand it, render all non-Orthodox conversions invalid in
those cases in which non-Orthodox converts making aliyah seek
automatic citizenship as a Jew under the Law of Return.     
     There have been many attempts at compromise in the United
States. So far, none of these has proved workable.
     It seems likely that any dialogue will have to begin on
halakhic grounds and then expand to includes political and other
questions. There is a basis for such a dialogue. 
     Because biblical revelation gave way to Rabbinic
interpretation, the Rabbis in the Talmudic period had frequent
disagreements precisely because interpretation implied
differences of opinion. The process of discussion was machloket
le-Shem shamayim, or arguments for truth--literally arguments for
the sake of heaven. As Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United
Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth, notes, there is
an ethic for such an argument. This ethic "...involves a respect
for the integrity of opposing positions. It means exposing one's
own positions to critical scrutiny. It leads to a sense of the
pull of conflicting values. It is Judaism's great public domain
of debate. It is the vehicle through which tradition handled
conflict."
     There have been well-known religious arguments for the sake
of heaven in Jewish history. There are first the disputes in the
Talmud. Famous disputes took place, for instance, between the
Hillelites and the Shammaites, between Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi
Eliezer, between Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Ishmail, between Rab and
Samuel, between Raba and Abaye, and between Rabbi Johanan and
Resh Lakesh. When contradictory positions appeared with both
sides citing and accepting halakhic authorities, both positions,
despite their differences, could be understood as the "words of
the living God." (Eruvin, 13b). Religious disputes continued in
Jewish history, as, for example, between the Rabbanites and
Karaites, the Maimonadeans and their opponents, the Kabbalists
with theirs, and the Hasidim with the Mitnaggedim.
     While questions of conversion may, in the view of some, be
subject to the majority rule of Orthodox experts in Jewish law
and thus not subject to argument for the sake of heaven, a useful
dialogue can only begin with the presupposition that the halakhah
is vital. 
     One aspect of that vitality is its continuing to be subject
to different interpretations. That is, current arguments about
conversion should be seen as in the tradition of an argument for
the sake of heaven. From the starting point that there can be
more than one halakhic position, it could then be argued that
there are two equally justifiable halakhic positions about
conversion, with each being accepted as halakhically valid. One
position in this argument is a strict one, as outlined above. The
other halakhic position about conversion is more tolerant and
understanding of converts. It is a tradition that includes
Hillel, Rashi, the tosafists and others. Rabbi Akiva Eger, for
example, argued that no religious training need occur prior to
conversion. Rather, the would-be convert is informed about some
aspects of Judaism, so that the would-be convert can make a
sincere commitment. Rabbi Benzion Meir Hai Uziel argued that a
conversion is halakhically valid even if is for the sake of
marriage. 
     It is especially important that these positions not be seen
as a confrontation between Orthodox and non-Orthodox positions,
but as arguments within a halakhic framework. As Marc Angel has
pointed out, for instance, there are two Orthodox viewpoints on
conversion, one stricter and the other more tolerant.
Discussion can focus on how both of these viewpoints can be
allowed within Jewish life.
     The optimists believe a compromise can be reached. The
pessimists believe the problem stems from an initial inherent
struggle between tradition and modernity and therefore has been
building over several centuries until it has reached this
difficult point. 
     Surely, the debate should go on, the search for solutions
should go on, despite the difficulties and possibility of
failure. But, during all this, Jewish universalists believe the
conversions, too, should continue for several reasons. First,
stopping conversions wouldn't end the Orthodox--non-Orthodox
rift. Second, because Jewish universalism sees welcoming converts
as part of the covenantal obligation, efforts to welcome those
converts need to continue even if some friction is caused by such
efforts.

2. Jews are forbidden to teach the Torah to non-Jews.
     One argument against offering Judaism to non-Jews is that it
is forbidden to teach the Torah to gentiles. It is important to
note that under certain circumstances, teaching Torah is
permitted.
     Many traditional Jews favored letting non-Jews know about
Judaism. In the Talmud, Maharsha allowed a prospective convert to
be taught the Torah (Shabbat 31a) and is supported in this view
by Me'iri (Sanhedrin, 59a). Additionally, the Sfat Emet (Hagigah,
13a), for instance, includes the suggestion that any prohibition
of teaching Torah to the gentiles might have been abolished after
the Torah was translated into Greek to produce the Septuagint.
     In modern times, when hayyim Sofer, the Orthodox Rabbi of
Pest in Hungary, was asked whether a prospective convert could
study Torah, Rabbi Sofer asked the precisely correct question: if
Jews were not permitted to teach Torah to gentiles even when
gentiles wished to convert, how had it ever been possible to
convert gentiles to Judaism, because the gentiles would have
remained ignorant of Jewish teachings. Rabbi Sofer therefore
allows teaching Torah to prospective converts. 

3. Non-Jews will get angry at Jews seeking gentile converts. This
will lead to an increase in anti-Semitism.

     The fear inherent in this objection is based on the
historical treatment of Jews by non-Jews who felt threatened by
Jews even though such a threat did not exist in reality.
     The response to such apprehension requires a review of non-
Jewish responses to already-existing Jewish conversionary
overtures. The person making this objection should examine
responses to Rabbi Schindler's 1978 proposal. There were no
reported overt anti-Semitic acts in response to that proposal
(even though it was widely noted, including in a front-page story
in the New York Times). Nor were there any reactions to the
subsequent efforts by the Reform and the Conservative movements
to welcome converts.
     Additionally, specific responses by non-Jewish theologians
and writers were generally very positive. Most conservative
Christians consider missionary work as central to their
conception of faith. They would not be upset by comparable Jewish
efforts. Indeed, conservative Christians are actually surprised
that Jews do not proselytize precisely because such Christians
conceive of proselytizing as a natural, normative part of
religious faith. While all indications are that current efforts
have engendered no hostility, this is not to say that under
different circumstances hostilities might arise. If they became
serious, of course, conversionary efforts could always cease. It
remains doubtful, though, that such serious hostility will arise.
     This is so, in part, because Jewish conversionary efforts
have not involved intrusive proselytizing. That is, Jews have
specifically refrained from such behaviors as door-to-door
solicitation, stopping non-Jews on the street or in malls, random
telephone calling and so on. Efforts have been low-key (most
especially they have involved running Introduction to Judaism
classes) and targeted so far especially to the gentile spouse in
an intermarriage. Such targeting and low-key practices combined
with a climate of pluralistic receptivity leads to the conclusion
that hostility will not arise, as, indeed, it hasn't. 
     Still, out of deference to the undisputed historical record,
Jews should proceed carefully.

4. Welcoming converts imperils the non-proselytizing religious
agreement and encourages Christian efforts to convert Jews.
     This argument is that a renewed Jewish effort to welcome
converts will end the unwritten agreement among Jews and at least
some Christians not to seek converts. This will, it is claimed,
lead to a conversion competition, and that, because there are so
many more non-Jews than Jews, a conversionary battle would result
in more Jewish conversions to non-Jewish religions than the
reverse.
     Mainline, or liberal, Protestants and Catholics, by and
large, do not actively seek Jewish converts. Evangelicals (a term
used loosely to cover fundamentalists and charismatics as well)
do actively seek Jewish and all other converts. In this sense, a
competition between Jews and Evangelicals is taking place now,
but is currently one-sided with the Evangelicals doing almost all
of the competing. In an effort to justify their activity,
Evangelicals state that it is equally acceptable for Jews to seek
to convert them. In the case of mainline Protestants and
Catholics, it is true that they do not actively seek converts,
but, nevertheless, American Jews do live as a tiny minority in a
country with an overwhelming Christian population. This
demographic and social fact means that Jews are naturally subject
to the assimilatory pressures inherent in such a population
ratio. Thus, even without necessarily intending so, liberal
Protestantism and, to a lesser extent, Catholicism, lure Jews. A
Jewish conversionary effort would in fact constitute a self-
defense as long as that effort did not include intrusive
proselytizing activities. Only a vigorous, intrusive,
confrontational missionary effort by Jews would upset the
religious balance currently existing between Jews and non-
Evangelical Christians. The religious demography of America also
explains why Christians are not upset by current Jewish
conversionary efforts; their numbers are so large that converts
do not in any way threaten their community the way they would in
the Jewish community. 
     Also, why is the assumption made in this argument that in a
conversion competition Jews would lose? Adherents of Judaism
should believe just the opposite, that their faith and way of
life are so appealing that when others learn about it, they would
naturally be attracted to Judaism. If Jews can withstand current
conversionary pressures by Christian groups, they would withstand
future pressures even more if they had an active conversionary
program themselves.

5. Converts aren't "real" Jews.
     Those who make this objection usually believe that only a
person born Jewish can be genuinely Jewish while a convert can
never fully understand what it means to be Jewish.
     Theologically, all movements in Judaism disagree with this
objection, at least in principle. All religious movements within
Jewry agree that sincere converts--at least as defined by that
movement--are full and complete Jews, even while these movements
have disagreements about conversionary issues. 
     Some who make this objection simply don't understand why a
person would want to become Jewish; their own sense of Jewish
self-esteem is so low that they find it difficult to believe a
person would freely choose to become Jewish. Converts are
examined for an explanation outside of a natural desire to become
Jewish. "Real" Jews in this sense are those without a choice;
they are trapped inside a Jewish life. Outsiders can't be sane,
it is almost unintentionally implied, if they wish to convert.
For such objectors, Judaism is a natural condition, not a
voluntary faith choice.
     Others who make this sort of objection believe that those
born non-Jewish come from a specific gentile background, and that
it is difficult if not impossible to transform a person who comes
from a non-Jewish background into a genuine Jew. Such a view,
however, precludes the central religious experience of spiritual
growth. Many people born Jewish who were highly assimilated into
American culture chose to return to their religious roots. This
spiritual passage mirrors the convert's. To preclude the
possibility of becoming genuinely Jewish for someone not raised
Jewish is to deny spiritual growth and change, to deny the power
of God and the Jewish faith to transform a human being.
     But can non-Jews feel Jewish, say at Christmas and Easter?
How would they react emotionally to Christian anti-Semitism. If
Judaism allows for the possibility of a transforming spiritual
growth, does it allow for the transforming of emotions as well?
It is inherent in a spiritual re-birth to see the world in an
entirely new way. Lingering memories, however strong, are only
that: memories. What is important about Jews by Choice is not
their memories about Christmas trees, but their actions as Jews.
The problem is not whether or not converts remember Christian
holidays fondly (no doubt many do), but whether or not they
celebrate those holidays and what they teach their children about
them.
     
6. Welcoming converts gives born Jews a signal to marry those not
born Jewish.
     There is a legitimate concern among some Jews that any
efforts that accept conversion to Judaism will, in some way, give
conversion a stamp of approval and undermine efforts to inhibit
interdating and intermarriage. This is, in part, an educational
concern: Jewish children will see that marrying someone born not
Jewish is acceptable.
     Firstly, it is important to re-emphasize that for Jewish
survival it is better for born Jews to marry born Jews. No doubt
some pundit somewhere can look at the argument for seeking to
convert a prospective spouse and suggest that one good way for
jews to increase their numbers is to marry people not born Jewish
provide the prospective spouse converts first. The defects in
such a mock-serious argument are that we do not know the effects
over several generations of a conversionary marriage on the
future Jewish identity of the children of such a marriage and,
because conversion applies only to the non-Jewish spouse, not
that spouse's extended family, the religious environment for the
family, including the children, remains, at least in some sense,
mixed. 
     It is also necessary to consider the alternative to
welcoming converts. The Jewish people could, if it wished, ignore
the hundreds of thousands of Jews who have intermarried and whose
partner and children have not converted. Instead, the Jewish
people could continue to emphasize the importance of marrying
born Jews but also reach out to those who have intermarried in
order to welcome new converts. In making the first choice, the
Jewish people writes off a large number of Jews. In making the
second choice, the Jewish people gives itself a tougher
educational task in making its young understand the enduring
value of marrying someone born Jewish, but does not abandon any
Jew. 

7. Money and time should be allocated to keeping born Jews
Jewish, not in welcoming converts.
     Some who oppose extensive efforts to welcome converts argue
that the time and money spent on outreach to non-Jews could be
spent instead on reaching out to unaffiliated born Jews and on
educational efforts to prevent interdating and intermarriage.
     It must first be said that there is no contradiction between
outreach to non-Jews and outreach to born Jews. Both are needed
and can occur simultaneously. Indeed, it is possible to argue
that a successful effort to interest those outside Judaism will
enhance the attractiveness of Judaism for those born Jews who are
unaffiliated.
     The argument remains however that, even if both are
legitimate, one (giving money to born Jews) is more legitimate
than the other, given the reality of the Jewish community's scant
resources.
     Part of the power of this argument can be deflected in two
ways. First, there are many people in the Jewish community who do
not currently engage in extensive volunteer work, but would do a
large amount of volunteer work to welcome converts. That is,
volunteerism would be increased rather than being moved from one
activity to another. Such volunteers would come from converts,
their families and friends, the intermarried and their families
and friends, and other people in the Jewish community.
     Secondly, in order not to compete for limited financial
resources, it would be helpful in welcoming converts to establish
programs using monies donated by those in the groups mentioned
above who do not normally donate to other Jewish causes or who
would voluntarily supplement (not substitute) their regular
giving for this cause. 
     It is vital that those who seek to welcome converts find
ways to implement programs to avoid a competition for time and
money so that all significant Jewish tasks can be accomplished. 


8. Jews form a unique gene pool of which converts can never be
part.
     
     This objection can be posed in one of at least two ways. The
first way presupposes that Jews form a biologically pure human
group. In a literal sense this is, of course, untrue. A simple
look at the citizenry of Israel or the Jewish population around
the world is enough to show the wide biological variations among
Jews. An objector might then narrow down the notion of that group
so that the argument would be that Ashkenazic Jewry has a unique
and superior gene pool. Of course, the logic of such an argument
would then compel the objector to conclude that the Ashkenzic Jew
should not then marry not only non-Jews but also non-Ashkenazic
Jews, which is a religiously untenable position. 
     Even if the genetic argument is taken seriously, it is
possible to argue that new genes will contribute new dimensions
to an already excellent gene pool. 
     The other way the objection is stated is by citing Biblical
verses that refer to the "seed" or "descendants" of Abraham as
being given the land of Israel, or in other contexts.
"Descendants," however, designates all of Abraham's people, not
only his literal children. Abraham's acts of "gathering souls"
shows his essentially missionary spirit. He would not have sought
to make such outsiders part of his people if he understood the
godly promises to have been purely biological. 

D. How the Jewish People Can Welcome Converts
     Making Judaism available for all who might wish to learn
about it starts with the ethical premise that people have a right
to spiritual privacy, that people with belief in another faith
should not be confronted or challenged, but that any sincere non-
Jew should be allowed to search out the jewish alternative as a
way of life.
     Any plan to welcome converts should specifically exclude
non-Jews who do not voluntarily express an interest in learning
more about Judaism. That is, a conversionary effort should not,
for example, target members of a church for conversion or
approach them with conversionary plans.
     Any conversionary plans also need to define appropriate
welcoming behaviors, which, in general, must be uncoercive and
non-intrusive.
     The synagogue is the central institution that determines the
success or failure of welcoming converts. There is much the
synagogues can do to welcome converts. They can, for example: (1)
establish an outreach committee to oversee efforts in conjunction
with the rabbi; J(2) develop an institutional structure for
handling converts from the first exploratory call to the
synagogue through education and formal conversion to complete
integration into synagogue life; (3) find host families to
provide how-to services, such as how to keep a kosher home; (4)
develop support groups for the different conversionary groups,
such as those considering conversion, those undergoing
preparation, and those already converted; (5) offer adult
education "Introduction to Judaism" courses advertised in general
community media and specifically offered to general community
members, both Jewish and non-Jewish, as well as to synagogue
members; (6) have public conversion ceremonies; (7) have sermons
favoring the welcoming of converts; (8) have programs with
speakers on the subject; (9) establish a section in the library
and Judaica shop of books and materials on and for converts; (10)
have pertinent articles in synagogue publications; (11) have
Beginner's Shabbat services with guides for those who are
studying to become Jews or others who need them; and (12) include
discussions of conversion in the religious school curriculum.
     Other institutional efforts are also vital. Rabbinic and
religious lay organizations can publish materials, hold
conferences, and, in general, promote the idea of welcoming
converts among their congregations.
     Rabbinic seminaries can establish curricula and courses and
train future rabbis to welcome converts.
     Jewish "defense" organizations can collect data about
conversions, publish materials, and hold conferences.
     Jewish schools can incorporate material about conversion
into their curricula aimed at all students and provide
appropriate materials specifically aimed at children who have
converted.
     The individual religious movements can consider efforts
appropriate to their particular movement. All movements can
develop or expand and advertise Introduction to Judaism programs.
They might assign rabbis whose sole duty is to run such a program
and seek funding for such a program from local communities.
     The Jewish media can also help to welcome converts. They can
run articles and stories about converts who have made
contributions to Jewish life, about how Jews can welcome
converts, about the need for converts, about encouraging couples
who are about to be or who are actually intermarried to consider
conversion for the non-Jewish partner, as well as articles on the
general subject of conversion, such as the history of conversion
in Jewish life.
     Jewish family service agencies have been effective in
running support groups for the many intermarried couples that are
not affiliated with synagogues. Such efforts need to be expanded.
     Local federations have, in some communities, been leaders in
organizing a community-wide outreach effort. Successful local
programs need to be studied by all federations.   
     Jewish Community Centers and Ys are excellent institutions
for reaching the unaffiliated intermarried. Any outreach programs
offered by the Centers would have several important purposes. A
crucial part of such programs will be to provide education about
Judaism. Local rabbis, cantors, and other religious leaders can
speak to groups to provide basic information and dispel any
misinformation. 
     Various Jewish communal organizations can play a crucial and
unifying role. Such communal organizations can, for instance, run
advertisements in local Jewish and non-Jewish publications. The
advertisements would indicate where information about
Introduction to Judaism classes and conversion to Judaism could
be obtained. 
     Individual Jews have a place in this effort as well. They
need to become involved personally in welcoming converts and in
encouraging the Jewish institutions of which they are members to
be similarly welcoming. These individuals need to speak out on
behalf of Jews by Choice.
     What is the future of Jewish universalism? that future
depends on the Jewish ability to overcome the traumas that
persecution has given them. The Jewish people has managed to
stretch back over two millennia to recover the political will
needed for the Zionist enterprise. Such a heroic reaction to
their unsought historical trials provides hope that they can now
reach back to reclaim the complete obligations of their covenant
and resume their role as a light unto the nations.