David M. Elcott
Testimonies from a Multifaith Hearing on Conversion, Lariano (Italy), May 12-16, 2006
The irony of a discussion concerning conversion is that Judaism approaches conversion from a very different place than most religious communities. Biblical Israel knew no conversion – patrilineal descent determined tribe affiliation and, therefore, one’s relationship to the Israelite community. In spite of later rabbinic exegesis, there are no converts. Ruth remains a Moabite; her children are Israelite by virtue of their paternity. In fact, the move to matrilineal Jewish inheritance is first seen in the story of Ezra following the return from exile. He forces the Jewish men to give up their foreign wives, thus demanding absolute endogamy – essentially both parents must be Israelite. One can only surmise that this shift, coming from the priestly clan, fully protects Israel – only inherits tribal affiliation (or, at this point, priesthood, Levite and Israelite) from the father and Judaism from the mother.
There is a place for non-Israelites in the system. Standing at Mt. Sinai, as recorded in Exodus 19, were all the Israelites and the erev rav, the non-Israelite masses. Our reading of Deuteronomy 29 is that all those who will ever be Jewish, including all converts from the future, stood at Mt. Sinai and experienced the covenant with God. The Mishkan and later the Temple allows for sacrifice by Gentiles in their own section and the Bible values the ger tzedek- the righteous Gentile – as a non-Israelite who is good and just. But there is no case of a move from Gentile to Israelite in the Bible.
Rabbinic Judaism provides for conversion and retrojects its rules concerning both conversion and matrilineal descent to explain Ruth’s inclusion as a Jewess and ger tzedek as a foreigner who becomes Jewish. However, this tells us more about the Rabbis than about Bible. For the Rabbis of the early centuries of the Common Era, their experience of conversion turned sour. Clearly during this religiously tumultuous period, there was a wide range of Jews and even of those who associated with Judaism: those who kept the Sabbath, those who followed the God of Israel but (males) were not circumcised, those who called themselves Jewish and accepted Jesus as messiah. The Rabbis could not abide by this diversity and moved to apply many of the rules they had initially developed exclusively for their own exclusive Chevra – the rabbinic community. We now see mitzvoth (sacred rituals and rules of behavior) as normative for all those who are Jewish. In this system, one who is willing to accept ol hamitzvot and ol shamayim (the yoke of law and of heaven) could become a Jew. In counter-distinction to Christianity, the path to conversion was purposely onerous and not encouraged. Following the destruction of the Temple during the rebellion against Rome in 70 CE, conversion becomes – for all practical purposes - irrelevant.
One may also assume that the rabbis developed an aversion for conversion due to their experience on both sides of coercion. Under the Hasmoneans, especially John Hyrcanus, Gentiles in the Galilee and in Idumea were forcibly converted much as Jews were forcibly circumcised during the Maccabean revolt. Not only did these forced conversions result in Herod as king, but the rabbis concluded – as Ezra had before and perhaps influenced by the Dead Sea sects and other purists – that such additions to the people of Israel “dilute” the community and undermine its sense of wholeness and purpose. On the other side, centuries of battling those who used force to convert Jews certainly extinguished any rabbinic interest in conversion. Jews were a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh – a kingdom of priests and a sacred nation – and also the remnant through whom redemption would come. Whether by conscious religious choice or as a response to their political circumstances, the rabbis and Medieval Jews decided that the other peoples and faiths of the world could have power and numbers; Jews had God and Torah and the true covenant and viewed power and coercion as Gentile values.
For biblical Israel as for rabbinic Judaism, entry into the covenant with God allowed no exit. Simply, once a Jew, always a Jew: “Israel, even in sin, is still Israel.” There is no conversion out of Judaism. The child of a woman who converted from Judaism to Christianity or Islam, even if that child was brought up in another faith, is still considered Jewish. Since I cannot leave, I do not expect others can leave either. Hence, there is no pressure or even desire toward developing an ethic or program for conversion.
One note: it is clear from multiple rabbinic sources that a God-fearing, righteous Gentile gained his or her place in the world to come. One did not need to be Jewish to achieve salvation. In fact, goodness was all non-Jews needed to enter heaven while for Jews, observance was demanded along with goodness. In this sense, God hears the prayers of all human beings, acknowledges righteousness, and gives eternal merit for all human beings whether or not they are of the covenant of Abraham and Sarah. Once again, this militates against seeking converts.
Until the last decade of the 20th century, with increased intermarriage and Jewish interaction with those who are not Jewish, little alters in the Jewish view of conversion: we do not need nor want converts; coercion of any form invalidates a conversion, and attempted conversion for another purpose (such as marriage or access to Jewish professions) is prohibited. Two things have changed: Liberal (Reform and some Conservative) Jews have begun to promote conversion to Judaism for the “unchurched” and certainly for those planning to marry a Jew. This comes with other changes, such as the acceptance of patrilineal descent as valid along with matrilineal, a willingness to offer conversion for the sake of marriage, and the reality of millions of Jewish homes in which there are Jews, children of Jews, non-Jewish spouses of Jews and extended families that are not Jewish. Many synagogues are trying to find a place for the non-Jewish member of a synagogue family – without conversion. And certainly, conversion is offered even to those who are not prepared to take on the traditional rituals and behaviors of rabbinic Judaism. This has provoked a crisis in the Jewish community where there is great debate over who is to be considered Jewish, especially in Israel where State religious courts make these determinations.
Since the rise of modernity in the 18th century, Jews became players in a global market community – of ideas as well as capital. Jews vigorously presented, defended and critiqued ideas – think about socialism, communism, liberalism, neo-conservatism. With the Jewish reentry into history and reengagement with political, economic and social affairs, we have been forced to sort out our issues of uniqueness and separation. As a community, we continue to invest in explaining Judaism to others, advocating for a Judaism that fits well into the modern world even as we became players on the national and international scenes. The reestablishment of the Jewish state allows for the experiment of a Jewish polity as a model for nation building. In this environment, Judaism must and is prepared to compete with other religions regarding our theology, meaning and exegeses. I generally views such competition as a healthy sign because the danger for a small religion is that it can be overwhelmed by acceptance and love. We are uncomfortable with terms such as Judeo-Christian heritage since, in a Europe or United States that is essentially Christian dominated, Judeo-Christian obscures the uniqueness of Judaism. So it may be better to keep the distinctiveness and allow for competition.
The problem of conversion for Jews is not a fear of Christians or Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists approaching Jews to proclaim their faith. Rather, there are two issues that have soured the openness that Jews would accept. One is the use of power or coercion, both overt and subtle, to promote conversion. The second is surreptitious methods and non-transparent behavior as a form of religious seduction.
Christian and Muslim expansion as religious communities paralleled imperial conquests of nations and peoples throughout the world. Even today, the missionary maps of many churches reflect the different areas and periods of colonization by imperial European powers. There was nothing benign here – populations were murdered and others forcibly baptized. Clearly, coercion of that magnitude is a source of shame for any religious community and has been rightfully repudiated by most.
But coercion comes in other forms. Mahler’s conversion to become conductor in Vienna is one example of many where the only means of advancement was to convert into the dominant religion. The same could be said of gaining admission to a high school or university or purchasing property where religion is weighed as a factor that influences the decision. In countries where religious institutions wield power over the political system or join with those in control of nation, that influence can be a factor in creating a push toward conversion. Obviously, this is more subtle – no one “forces” an individual to join the majority and gain access to otherwise unattainable positions. We will have to consider whether these pressures are residual in today’s Christian societies.
I am not sure how to respond to the coercion that comes from missionaries who provide food and health clinics and housing for the indigent and needy of the world and use these settings to promote their religious beliefs. On one hand, doing good that saves lives models the righteousness of that religious community. However, where the intent is to couple the benefits provided the needy with opportunities to proclaim the faith and promote conversion, one could argue that a pernicious form of coercion is at play. A lack of transparency, where helping the desperate needy through acts of goodness as a subterfuge for missionary work, seems ugly and profane. In the United States, this issue can be found in the debate over Charitable Choice where government funding goes to overtly religious institutions to be used in settings that merge religious activity with social services. If the government funds a food pantry where the only way to receive the food is beneath a cross and with a Christian blessing, I see a problem. If a family clinic or social service agency accepts government funding but refuses to offer services that are legal (distributing birth control or counseling the availability of abortion), a form of coercion is being applied. Of course, these agencies need not accept government funding and then should be absolutely free to promote or discourage behavior and beliefs within their settings according to the principles of their faith.
The issue of transparency looms large. Recently, a synagogue was established in Philadelphia with all the trappings of Judaism – a Torah, tallitot (prayer shawls), a rabbi and prayer books. Yet this was a messianic Protestant group with the clear goal of luring Jews into a warm and inviting “Jewish” setting for the sole purpose of conversion to Christianity. To try to convert by using deceit or subterfuge of any kind should be a transgression for any truly religious community. It is a form of shady marketing and advertising that we all abhor. It must be unequivocally rejected.
So that I am clear – the right of proclaiming the faith in an open society should be protected. It reflects the rich market of ideas that make up a free society. The terms of an open society are honesty with a principle of truth in that which we promote, be it religion or cars. It is unwise in a world of freedom to think that we can or should forbid conversion – whether in Russia or India, in Israel or Pakistan. To prohibit debate about faith is a form of suppression; to block access to new or different religious experiences to those seeking faith in their lives, is a political sin. Our religious communities must be at the forefront of protecting each individual’s right to seek God and, frankly, we should be delighted when those who are in need find in a sister religion the faith that heals their souls. Paths to holiness are everywhere – it is hubris and ultimately a form of idolatry to believe that God can only reside in my own religious tradition, that God is limited to the terms my faith has set for that which is infinite. If the religious paths we offer are controlled by coercion and force, if one walks them with deceit and guile, then we model a false God. Our job as religious leaders is to be a guide for those seeking God. In our speech and our behavior, we must model, as images of God, ways to be a partner with God in healing the hemorrhaging in our world. As Jewish scripture teaches, “God’s ways are ways of goodness, and all God’s paths lead to peace.”
-----------------------------------
Dr. David M. Elcott is the former Executive Director of Israel Policy Forum (IPF), the organization that advocates active American engagement in producing Israeli-Arab peace. Before joining the Israel Policy Forum, Dr. Elcott was Director of U.S. Interreligious Affairs for the American-Jewish Committee.
Dr. Elcott was a lecturer and organizational consultant, helping communities in the U.S. and Canada create leadership institutes and community-wide projects grounded in the Jewish principles of Tikkun Olam improving (literally, "repairing") the world. He previously served as Vice-President of the National Center for Learning and Leadership (CLAL). Dr. Elcott has lectured on the Middle East, Arab politics and Muslim-Western cultural conflict to corporate leaders and House members on Capitol Hill, and to Christian and Muslim religious leaders and heads of major Jewish organizations. He earned a doctorate in political psychology and Middle East studies with a specialty in Islam and Arab culture from Columbia University, and is the author of The Jewish Quest for a Perfect World, as well as numerous articles and monographs.