I am not usually paranoid, suspicious or skeptical. I tend to rejoice at good news and consider myself reasonably optimistic. So why is it when I read the news emanating from Boston of a recent study that found that 60 percent of the children of intermarried couples there were being raised Jewish, I did not feel a sense of joy or relief?

Some leaders in the Jewish community have credited the outreach programs promoted by the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston for this surprisingly high number.

My skepticism stems from the questions I have in response to the data presented. To start with, how was “being Jewish” defined in the study? What is the level of Jewish life referred to in the study? Are we talking about the presence of a Chanukah menorah in a home that also has a Christmas tree, or are we talking about a level of knowledge concerning the Jewish tradition expressed in routine rituals pertaining to Jewish life? Is Sabbath observed? What are the odds that these children will in turn intermarry later?

Obviously we need to define what passes for Jewish identity and measure the scope and depth of that identity before drawing conclusions that may not only be misleading and unwarranted but actually potentially dangerous to the continuity of the Jewish community.

The tone in the newspaper reports suggests that the outreach efforts in the Boston experiment demonstrate a major positive approach in response to the problem of a shrinking Jewish community. The reports indicate a growth in the Jewish population in the Boston area due to this approach. This trend is obviously radically different from the one we are familiar with in the rest of the country, where shrinking is the norm.

The recommendations stemming from those who support this approach are that outreach is the way to promulgate our future as opposed to inreach and active discouragement of intermarriage. I believe that for those families already intermarried, an outreach approach makes sense — but not at the cost of inreach recommendations for conversion and endogamy.

I am dismayed by the rapidity with which some Jewish leaders have jumped to the conclusion that outreach can increase the number of Jews in the community. Counting the number of Jews who identify as Jews in a most superficial way and taking that identification seriously is an enormous danger. Having grandparents, for example, who “kvell” at a grandchild who is the product of intermarriage singing a few words in Hebrew does not suggest even remotely a Jewish identity. It is bad enough to know of the enormous numbers of Jewish couples who have no significant ties to the Jewish community or to Judaism. Adding to that number by identifying the intermarried and their children as Jews continues the dilution of our identity amidst our people.

Outreach is, in fact, an effort to decrease the intensity of the disaster we face. It hardly constitutes a foundation for the future.

The burden of leadership for the Jewish community is a most difficult one. On the one hand, reaching out to Jews who are unaffiliated requires finding a way to be inviting, to present an attractive face, to be friendly — in other words to reach out. At the same time leadership for the Jewish community demands depth, being educated, being committed, dealing with assimilation and anti-Semitism, fighting for and supporting Israel and standing up in the face of adversity. Both directions are requirements of leadership. Our people must be strong, committed, deeply knowledgeable and courageous.

Finally, the conclusions drawn from the Boston experience, which have been touted by some Jewish leaders as indicating that outreach is the way to go, are misleading and dangerous for another reason. If the focus is on outreach, it clearly stands as being contradictory and even antagonistic to the traditional approach of discouraging intermarriage and encouraging conversion. That traditional approach would clearly not be acceptable as a basic orientation to Jewish continuity. Discouraging intermarriage while promoting outreach is taking two diametrically opposite approaches. Outreach, however, may be appropriate once intermarriage has taken place.

As is often the case the conclusions drawn from any study always depend on the way in which the questions are asked. The old Talmudic adage is applicable here: “It’s not the answer that matters; it’s how you ask the question.” How does “Jewish identity” express itself at home, in education, in life events, in behavior and in depths of consciousness, is the real question. Until we have a more clear understanding of what the nature of that Jewishness is all about, we ought not interpret the data presented to us in the Boston study as pointing to a definitive conclusion. n

Dr. Samuel C. Klagsbrun is chairman of the Commission on Contemporary Jewish Life at the American Jewish Committee.