Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Split-Religion Marriages and Conversions
When I was a young teenager, my dad got pulled into the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults when a neighbor asked my dad to sponsor him through the process of conversion. The man’s wife was Catholic, so he was considering the Church’s beliefs with charitable patience. My father has participated in RCIA ever since, in varying capacities.
These days, one of his favorite TV programs is The Journey Home in which host Marcus Grodi interviews converts to Catholicism about their conversion experiences. Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, Jews, housewives, lawyers, scientists, preachers — The show is fascinating because of the endless variety of origin stories, which provide insights and nuances which cradle Catholics like myself often have never considered.
A common theme in conversion stories is marriage or courtship to someone of a different faith. My siblings all married individuals of different theological backgrounds. Thus far, these have not resulted in any conversions, one way or the other. Best I can estimate, that general scenario of an ongoing theological difference seems as common among marriages as are conversions of one spouse to the other’s faith… or abandonment of faith altogether (surrender).
There are certainly degrees of separation and pressure to convert in marriage. Lutherans and Catholics, for example, are not as far apart as Baptists and Catholics. But even spouses who generally agree might run into significant hurdles in regard to the raising of their children; such as in regard to the timing of baptism (infant or adult), the importance of worship with a community, the roles of priests and preachers, or the centrality of the Eucharist.
The Ricochet community includes many mixed-religion marriages and conversion-through-marriage stories. I would love to hear them. What factored into your decisions? On what were you willing or not willing to bend? How did the relationship with your spouse change your views? How did your religious beliefs shape your relationship?
I would also be interested to hear stories from individuals whose faith was strengthened, rather than altered, by marriage and similar relationships.
Published in General, Religion & Philosophy
Ray,
Yes, I knew you guys were married. I put it together when she sent me something in the mail.
Substance, study, and taking on the practices by definition includes joining the community that has sustains and is sustained by them. It cannot be done in isolation any more than declaring yourself a U.S. citizen can be valid without the affirmation of the U.S. Government—ultimately, the representatives of the People which is the source of the Government’s authority— that you have, in fact become a citizen.
There is one way in which Christianity’s Jewish roots are showing: The belief that in some manner the Creator of the Universe has chosen, as a part of establishing a relationship with humanity, to limit Himself in some way, but
The covenant with Noah, the engagement with Abraham over Sodom, lead up to the radical statement that in halachic argument, it’s the argument correctly elucidating the revealed principles that matters, not the permission or ability to do miracles:
In other words, God has agreed to limit himself in some manner, “constrained” not just by the laws of the natural world which He must deliberately suspend to bring about a miracle but by the laws revealed at Sinai, which include the delegation of authority to administer them to the ones who immerse themselves and transmit those laws.
OK, you “cannot accept” that. In essence that’s creating your own God, which is paganism, not Judaism or Christianity.
I would not go this far. I think Judaism is intensely personal. And I, once upon a time, believed that Judaism was possible outside of a formal recognized marriage and a community. I no longer believe that is true, either in Jewish Law or in the Torah.
I do not respect authority for its own sake, but both in a practical and a theoretical sense, one is not fully Jewish unless and until one’s Jewishness is accepted by other people. The perceptions of others is their reality, and is important on that basis.
By the way, the historical requirement is NOT to pass judgement on someone’s knowledge and level of observance. The classic requirement was for the convert to know something, and express the strong desire to continue to grow and change themselves. Conversion is not the end of the process; it was always supposed to be very near the beginning of that process.
It comes down to the relationship. One who seeks a marriage with G-d knows that the wedding, while a signpost, is not where the real work happens. But just as a wedding is supposed to be welcomed and acknowledged by the community, so, too, is a conversion. That gives it much more solidity, a foundation for all the growth that is to come.
If you were agreeing with me, that’s not what I was saying — in fact, just the opposite. There are many Jews who keep none of the commandments, but their belonging to the Jewish nation makes them Jewish. Just as someone can say, “I’m Icelandic” because he or she has Icelandic parents, someone can say “I’m Jewish” if he or she has a Jewish mother. Whether or not the person follows any commandments, that person belongs to the Jewish people.
The Jewish people have a religion, which we call the Jewish religion. We believe it applies to all Jewish people. Conversely, we don’t believe it applies to gentiles. We believe God wants all members of the Jewish people to keep kosher and keep Shabbat. We don’t believe that God hopes gentiles will keep kosher or keep Shabbat. We don’t think God wanted to deny everyone the pleasure of bacon.
The children you describe have Jewish heritage, but they are following commandments that don’t apply to them. At some point, they will discover that they are not formally accepted as Jewish, and they may decide to formalize it.
We talk of “conversion”, but the Hebrew word is instructive. It comes from the word “stranger” or “foreigner”. One who becomes Jewish is not changing religions. He or she joins the Jewish people, and as a consequence, agrees to follow the commandments that have been given to us. Because such a move is viewed as irrevocable, it is important that someone who joins the Jewish people understand what he’s getting himself into. In fact, there are Talmudic rabbis who would impress upon “converts” the Jewish people’s history of oppression.
My personal views on conversion standards — particularly in the kinds of cases you describe — is more lenient than the tradition. But unless there is some formal standard, you end up with no way of knowing who the commandments apply to, and who they don’t.
By the way, for a Jewish wedding to be binding, there must be witnesses. The same is true for conversion; they are analogous steps in building and growing a relationship, and both require some degree of external validation.
May I just interject here to say that as someone who doesn’t have a dog within several time zones of this fight, this conversation is fascinating. I keep saying “Wow, that’s a really good point!” to myself after every comment.
Painter Jean: #86 “I say this as a person who made her way to the Catholic Church by way of determined study: by reading, by researching the questions and objections I had; learning why the Church taught what she did and what the basis of her claims of authority were; lots of Aquinas, lots of apologetics…. My point is that no nasty nun, silly dissident priest, or even a pope that I think speaks too carelessly, is able to affect my belief. I did experience, years after my return to the Church, a really regrettable and painful falling-out with our priest, whom we had regarded as a good friend. It was very upsetting, but I know the reason my faith wasn’t shaken was that I had a firm intellectual foundation that was able to withstand the emotional turmoil.”
Brilliantly said. The Church is the Church, often enough despite of her children.
Paris Paramus: #89 “Considering that someone who is raised Jewish and/or accepts Judaism but who does not go through a formal conversion is not Jewish makes no sense.”
On my way out of evangelical Pentecostalism to Roman Catholicism I discovered what should never have been a secret. Who ever is in charge makes the rules.
For instance, when I examined the Latter-Day Saints (LDS), they had added a snippet of text to Genesis affirming the prophet Joseph Smith. This was accepted by all Mormons. They also added other books of scripture. If one is to be a Mormon, one accepts those additions.
If one is to be a good Pentecostal, one accepts the fact that they tie the charismatic gifts to salvation. No expression of the charismatic gifts? Good luck on being saved.
I also noted an American characteristic for religion in general in this country. We are into individualism, heavily. More than once I have heard a person note that he did not believe everything that even his own religion held. (This, I believe, also can be tied back to Protestantism, which in the broad sense encourages the individual to arrive at a place which he or she is willing to arrive at.
It is what I believe the scriptures is saying that is the touchstone here. Sola scriptura is an exact description of religion for many people, and the residue for many others.)
When I arrived at Catholicism, catechetically, scripturally, and historically, I arrived at a place where I was not the authority, a place where I was not invited to make the rules. Since what I found corresponded in part to what I already believed (and one might take a good guess on where the original truth came from), and found good answers for disputed questions, I surrendered. I was no longer the arbiter of truth.
This leads me to a conclusion: If the rabbis have made a determination, then that stands. The alternative, conflicting and antagonistic beliefs, is best seen in the Yellow Pages under Church. That is anarchy.
Donald Todd, you have a point re anarchy, and one, arguably already has that given the massive rift between the Orthodox/Traditional and everyone else in Judaism.
For what it’s worth, notwithstanding my rejection of the strict Orthodox laws on who is a Jew, I am even less comfortable with the path the liberal branches of Judaism have taken. So both houses have a pox on me ;-)
You are in extremely good company in this respect. PLEASE read my book, when it comes out! It is at the printers now, and should be available via Amazon in 6-8 weeks.
Hey, iWc, make sure to give us a heads-up again when it comes out.
Son of Spengler: #95 “We don’t think God wanted to deny everyone the pleasure of bacon.”
I am not sure if that is a winning message, but it does have some resonance with me.
One idea that has been rattling around in my head for years came from someone whom I generally find problematic, Rabbi Moshe Meiselman. In a 1978 book discussing the role of women in Jewish law, he asked why there is so much formal education for (Orthodox) Jewish women today, when in the past there tended not to be much if any even though it is women who literally transmit Jewishness.
His answer was that it is important for that very reason for a young woman to have an education in Judaism and Jewish thought at least as extensive and of similar and preferably better quality as her secular education.
That secular education actually was often not that secular, but if not formally Christian, tended to be heavily tinged with the civic religion, which was Christianity. At least until the Left’s long march through the institutions. Nowadays, the Left-multiculti indoctrination that runs through preschool, k-12 schooling, and then 2-10+ years of post secondary today is in many ways even worse. That makes an even more compelling case that one’s religious education ought to provide a sufficient countercultural force to one’s “secular” indoctrination than Meiselman anticipated nearly 40 years ago.
That makes the cost of non-charter school public education high indeed for Jews and Christians who are committed doing their best to have Jewish or Christian descendants. Yes, there are secular Jews who feel strongly about being Jewish. Except for an incredibly stubborn few, secular Jews generation after generation tend to be increasingly ignorant of Judaism and correspondingly less attached to Judaism and the Jewish people.
With what your’s saying, it’s not surprising you found your way to Catholicism. IIUC, Judaism’s continuous tradition of textual interpretation in light of the Oral Tradition and it’s idea of the nature of ‘am Yisrael have, despite teeny tiny theological differences, direct structural counterparts in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium and the idea of the Church as the mystical Body of Christ.
Speaking of textual interpretation, the “Old Testament” text simply cannot be understood without the Jewish Oral Tradition which has transmitted the otherwise impenetrable meaning of much of the text. Sola scriptura seems to me to be a fantasy. As far as I know, every Jewish or Christian group that has tried to live according to that ideal has accreted its own interpretive apparatus and oral tradition, often while denying that that is the case.
Ontheleftcoast: #104 “Rabbi Moshe Meiselman. In a 1978 book discussing the role of women in Jewish law, he asked why there is so much formal education for (Orthodox) Jewish women today, when in the past there tended not to be much if any even though it is women who literally transmit Jewishness.”
When I read this, I was not sure which side of the argument the rabbi was holding to. I do know however from reading some of iWc’s stuff and from some of the Ricocheti who have shared the Shabbat meal at his table, that (in the iWc household) both parents appear to be involved in the raising of their children, and given the Shabbat meal, raising them to be Jewish in thought, word, and deed.
This is what we did in our home. We shared the desire to turn our kids into Catholics, so we used each other and Catholic resources to do so. (Of note, some of the Catholic resources were invested in fighting fights which had long ago ceased, so some of the arguments were wasted, even if the history was not.)
The Catholic baptismal rite sees the parents as the first and best of teachers (hopefully teaching the right things) and held us as parents responsible for inculcating Catholic belief and practice into our children. While the sacrament has an effect of its own, the efforts of the parents would promote or denigrate the success of baptism on the individual recipient.
Since I taught baptismal prep for parents who wanted their young children baptized, I regularly found that split-religion marriages, especially to people with no attachment to any religion, were difficult. It was difficult for the believing spouse, and for the kids who would grow up under those circumstances; although occasionally a man would step up and out of love for his spouse and children would convert. What a gift to that family!
There was one other alternative, both parents practiced their own religion and the kid/s would be confused. This was a Catholic/Methodist couple, and she owned the emotional end of the agreement. (Personally I thought it unfair to the child.)
Sorry. Duplicate entry. dt
I think ideological/philosophical/theological disagreements between parents are more significant before kids’ teenage years. It’s tempting to say one’s children can choose their own beliefs, but young kids aren’t ready for that. Children need a firm foundation before they can consider life’s difficult questions independently and deliberate without unmooring their moral securities.
Teenagers explore and experiment. They are more apt to do that without harming themselves or others if they have a general direction and reasonable limits.
Perhaps the reason you were not sure what the argument about is that I was unclear. Rabbi Meiselman was referring to an era in which Jews tended to live separate from Christians except in the marketplace not of ideas but chickens and vegetables. Under those circumstances, where there was little or no secular education, one could live a fully Jewish life and hand it on without that much formal education. It was ideal that boys in particular should be educated to the extent that their parents could afford, and in better off or scholarly homes the girls often got an education as well.
A major change in Jewish culture began with the Enlightenment, but the Jewish world’s organic response to it was cut short by the murder of almost half the Jews in the world and the shattering of many venerable Jewish cultures from Lithuania to Thessaloniki, and from Western Europe east to the old Pale of Settlement.
Rabbi Haym Soloveitchik’s important essay, Rupture and Reconstruction, (introduced in one anthology as follows)
was an attempt to grapple with the subsequent changes.
iWc’s home, and virtually any committed Jewish home a member of Ricochet is likely to encounter, is one in which the question of how much Jewish education for men and women is answered with “a lot.”
The point I was trying to make was that Jewish (and Christian) commitment is highly countercultural these days, and requires a good deal of intentional activity. It one has to work to bring the underlying assumptions of the Left-multiculti cult to one’s awareness, and find ways to counter those assumptions in ways appropriate to each child as they grow, while providing a vigorous and engaging alternative. It has to include an intellectual engagement with and challenge to the multiculti assumptions, which takes well stocked intellectual toolbox.
Aaron, I’m not so sure about the young kid/teenage distinction you make. The need for a moral foundation grows exponentially as one gets older precisely because one experiments more.
The other distinction your comment brings to mind is that between a moral code and the origin of the code, the former being more important than the latter. If, hypothetically, a mixed marriage concerns two people with a common morality but a disagreement as to its precise source, that seems viable, even for kids.
The problem is that no two moral codes are the same. The Torah is profoundly distinct from Christianity.
The other part of the problem is that moral codes do not exist in free floating form. They need to be learned and lived inside a cultural and ritual soup in order to really take hold. That soup is also unique to any specific religious tradition.
One can read about playing the violin and understand the theory, but unless and until one actually spend the time and effort, the violin does not become more than an abstraction.
i was speaking of morality and values, not customs, practices, etc. I was attempting to identify the root oroblem/challenge. I don’t recommend two people of different faiths making a go at it.
Yes, teenagers rely on a moral code more than younger kids. What I meant is that it is in those younger years that core values must be deeply ingrained, so that the teenager will be more reluctant to push them aside whenever temptations and errant philosophies strike. Also, instincts aid us when there is no time for prolonged contemplation.
Teenagers need instincts as well as arguments. Strong instincts can lead to stronger arguments because they require more effort, and so more thought, to abandon. Beliefs should be challenged, but they shouldn’t be casually interchanged.
To paraphrase G K Chesterton, the point of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to eventually shut it again on something solid.
Again, I find it difficult to comprehend a comparison between a national and a religious identity but I appreciate your clarification of Jewish law.
I have another one for you: recently, a close family friend who was born of Jewish parents and practiced Conservative Judaism his entire life was widowed. He remarried several years later to a Protestant woman and converted to Methodism at her request. What does this make him now? (Don’t say meshugana!) Is he still a Jew?
(As an aside, my Presbyterian parents were shocked by this decision and nearly accused the man of betraying his roots.)
Aaron, thanks for providing the forum for such an interesting thread. (I agree with Charlotte.) The topic of religion is one I generally avoid, but couldn’t resist the conversation here.
By Jewish Law, he remains a Jew. He might not be given certain ceremonial honors as a result of his choices (depending on the community), but it is clear that he would always have the option of returning.
Thanks for your comment.
My father’s and my wife’s experiences and reactions thereto speak to the lack of depth of commitment to the physical church and not to any lack of actual faith.
ET, there’s no “comparison”. Judaism is primarily a national or ethnic identity, and secondarily a religious identity. You seem intent to deny any identity beyond the religious one, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s not only Jewish law — it’s a matter of culture and sociology too. Unless and until you broaden your understanding, much about Judaism will not make sense.
OTOH, questions like this become very straightforward in the framework I’ve presented. From the perspective of Jewish law, your friend is Jewish — forever. His Jewish identity is not contingent on religious practice. His Christian religious practice constitutes a grave sin, but he doesn’t lose his membership in the Jewish people.
FWIW, this has implications for me as a practicing Jew. Consider work on Shabbat. Jews are not allowed to do work, and as a logical extension, we are not allowed to benefit from violations by other Jews. Under ordinary circumstances, we are also not permitted to ask gentiles to do work that is forbidden to us. However, a gentile is under no obligation to observe Shabbat, so if a gentile does work for himself or herself, there is no violation and we do not need to go out of our way to avoid it. If I knew your friend, I would have to take care to avoid benefiting from his Shabbat violations.
Such a wonderful, affirming thread.
I just want to weigh in on a few points that struck me. I, like Belt #23, was raised a Dutch Calvinist. I ended up, with my husband, an Anglican, which has been a very difficult road considering the disintegration of orthodox faith in the Episcopal Church. One of the reasons I remain Anglican is that it is consciously catholic, as in one holy catholic church. Universal is close to the meaning of that word, but a fuller meaning of kata holos is “the whole taken together.” From that place there is room for both the must-do’s and the may-do’s of various denominational preferences and beliefs and grace for the errors.
Second, when I became Anglican, and read the 39 Articles of Religion, I saw nothing that contradicted the faith of my grandmother. Calvinism as represented by today’s evangelicals doesn’t resemble that faith as much and so I had to conclude that perhaps Calvin’s teaching had been distorted in the relay. In fact, when I read the Reformed Church histories on my mother’s shelf, I found a lot of very catholic notions attributed to Jean Calvin. So I’ve made my peace with that upbringing and don’t believe that it contradicts the faith once delivered to the saints.
Third, sola scriptura does not necessarily lead a believer to error and contradiction. Solo scriptura does and yes, they are 2 different concepts. Ecclesial authority is important to the body and preserving the faith, but the only infallible ecclesial authority is Scripture. Bishops, presbyters and any teachers in the church must reconcile with the whole of Scripture or their teaching is not true. No other source is inherently reliable. And as Belt indicated in his post, that is the main reason I haven’t traveled all the way to the Roman church. There is One King and the bishops of the church are more likely to serve Him rightly if they are confirming and correcting one another in a conciliar way. That is how the Church remains in one, holy and apostolic faith without giving errors the weight of authority equal to Scripture.
Finally, the reason I adhere to Anglican worship tradition is that no other denomination, no matter the theology, has as satisfying and beautiful a liturgy. And liturgy is a profound teaching tool as well as a greased pathway to worship. I have tried to leave the Anglican church for Lutheran and Roman churches at different times, but missed the liturgy. To come back around to the original post, that liturgy was the first thing we could point to that brought my husband and I both into the same faith tradition. Those words and the sacraments spoke to both of us and gave us common language of faith.