One of the defining features of the innovation ecosystem described throughout this study is an ethos of consciously rethinking and reimagining accepted aspects of communal life. This is partly a result of establishing new organizations and structures, and doing so with contemporary aesthetics and sensibilities. However, there is also an ideological aspect that broadly reflects a generational mood, of deconstructing existing societal structures. It is common to hear or read references to reimagining the workplace, schools, or transportation systems.^,177 That is, a recognition that as a society we needn’t be committed to continuing to do things the way they have always been done. We have discussed a number of cases where religious practice, ideology, text, and pairings have all been rethought – deconstructed and reconstructed. However, many of these organizations are also rethinking and reconsidering practical elements of Jewish communal life and expression. In doing so, the effects run deeper than logistics.

There are two overarching questions that frequently arise in any discussion of innovative Jewish frameworks. At what point in the innovation process does the result differ so much from the original product that it fails to take hold? Conversely, to what degree is innovation and re-thinking useful if the result is not significantly different from the original? Perhaps, we will find out, that there is only so much one can “reinvent” in Judaism before it no longer it hardly resembles Judaism any longer and cannot, therefore, hold traction. On the other hand, some frameworks that do take hold hardly differ from mainstream Judaism today, calling into question if they justify inordinate attention and discussion. It may be that the very process of opening everything up for discussion is itself key, so that the new generation of leaders must make a conscious and intentional decision to reclaim Judaism, or parts of it. Perhaps the process is itself the desired result.

Rethinking the Role of Technology and the Digital Space in Jewish Life

As technology becomes increasingly integral to contemporary life generally, it also becomes more intertwined in Jewish life. Jewish communities have been seeking the creative integration of technology in various aspects of communal and spiritual life for years. The integration of technology becomes functionally imperative as millennials are essentially digital natives and live much of their lives online.

Nearly all the newer organizations mentioned in this study were early adopters of sleek websites and have made robust use of social media platforms. A simple comparison of their websites with those of many establishment organizations gives one a subjective sense of youth, modernity, and informality. This certainly influences the initial impression younger adults. Of course, as so often is the case with innovation, many establishment organizations now also operate modern and well-designed websites and are active on social media.

Websites, email lists, WhatsApp groups, Facebook pages, and software programs like ShulCloud, enable grassroots and lay-led communities to coordinate much more efficiently, communicate with potential members or participants, and maintain a more nimble organizational structure. Many minyanim and emergent communities, for example, have shifting locations or do not meet weekly. Collaboration software, applications and Excel sheets allow for easier coordination of volunteers as well as general administrative and accounting tasks. Access to the internet and collaborative software has empowered small groups of people and grassroots organizers.

Readily accessible online platforms also expedite coordination and deconfliction within larger communities. In some larger communities, Jewish organizations share events and programming on a community-wide calendar, preventing scheduling conflicts and facilitating better cooperation among niche organizations with a larger community.

Some of the communities discussed, such as The Kitchen, noted that new technologies allow them to design and distribute their own prayer books, obviating the need for outside publishers. Lab/Shul uses constantly updated video monitors instead of printed prayer books.

Internet access also allows for digital and crowdsourced fundraising campaigns, further empowering individuals and small groups. Communities like Sixth & I conduct their entire organizing, booking, and payment functions through their website. As noted earlier, Sixth & I requires no membership, and registration and payment for services and other events is conducted online.

Technology, more deeply, has allowed for widespread access to information. Orthodox outreach organizations have been using the internet for years for a variety of educational functions – from easily accessible (and translated) information about Jewish rituals, law, and history, to various methods for learning about the week’s Torah portion. Chabad, one of the pioneers of generating online accessible content, built a strong digital presence through its interactive “ask-a-rabbi” function and online Talmud study. AlephBeta uses its online presence to create highly accessible short video clips explaining the weekly Torah portion or an upcoming holiday, which combine cartoon clips with religious insights.

At The Well, one of the Open Dor (a pun: dor means generation in Hebrew) projects mentioned, reaches out to 1,200 people daily in the Detroit area throughout the counting of the Omer between Passover and Shavuot, helping them connect to the ritual with a modern twist. Modern Ritual, an Instagram account run by a rabbi, had over 10,000 followers when research began in 2019, with nearly 19,000 followers a year later) who learn about a different Jewish ritual each day.^,179 Many leading rabbis, including some mentioned here, use their online platforms to share regular insights or words of inspiration with audiences beyond their communities. Just to give two examples, the Los Angeles-based Conservative rabbi, David Wolpe, has nearly 64,000 Facebook followers, another 23,700 on Twitter (as of July 2022) and 6,500 Instagram followers. Celebrity rabbi, Shmuley Boteach, has nearly 900,000 Facebook followers, and 216,000 Twitter followers (as of September 2022) . TikTok/Instagram influencer Miriam Anzovin, who does a daily take on the “daf yomi” of Talmud (mentioned earlier), has over 30,000 followers across platforms.

For Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike, technology has revolutionized Jewish education and connectivity. We have seen the emergence of mass access to Jewish knowledge through dozens of podcasts (such as the highly popular Judaism Unbound, Tablet’s Unorthodox, or even “Jewanced,” (launched and run by the author of this study) and platforms like Sefaria, which offers easy access to the classic Jewish bookshelf of the Torah and rabbinic literature. Platforms like 929 allow thousands around the world to learn Torah daily in an accessible and synchronized manner. Yeshivat Hadar’s Project Zug matches students with teachers remotely, as well as study partners for deep Jewish learning; 1,200 people take these courses annually. The Hartman Institute’s I-Engage program enables communities to connect with top scholars remotely.^,180

Still, a bigger question remains about the extent to which technology is changing the religious experience itself. Due to halachic considerations, Orthodox and most Conservative congregations limit their use of digital technology to organizational and educational purposes.^,181 However, even this has begun to change. In mid-2020 due to the Covid pandemic, and as noted in JPPI’s 2020 Annual Assessment, halachic communities, such as within the Conservative movement, some Sephardic communities and a few Modern Orthodox rabbis began allowing prayers that generally require a minyan to be said virtually, provided certain criteria are met. In Israel, a handful of Sephardic rabbis (connected to the Chief Rabbinate) allowed (with much controversy) for those who would experience sorrow if they were alone on Passover to attend “Zoom Seders” with their loved ones as long as the computer was activated prior to the start of the holiday.^,182 The use of digital platforms to facilitate a minyan is currently a point of debate within Orthodoxy communities in the U.S. and Israel.^,183

No doubt, technology has had a revolutionary effect within various halachic communities and made Judaism far more accessible than before. However, among non-halachic communities, the use of technology has been taken many steps further. Here, many emergent and independent communities are at the forefront of technological experimentation and innovation as a part of the synagogue service and ritual life.

Rabbi Lau Lavie at Lab/Shul is a leading figure in thinking about the use of technology in religion. Lau Lavie has deeply considered concepts of community and space in a virtual world – Can a community meet virtually? Is the digital space still space? Lau Lavie introduced a virtual Kaddish call, in which a minyan convenes in a weekly conference call. He has welcomed many participants from around the world who either cannot reach a synagogue or do not feel comfortable in one. He reflected that this is a development that the sages could never have imagined, and he organizes a regular online course with other JEN leaders discussing such matters.

Some of the emergent congregations and some denominational and independent congregations already livestream services for those who cannot physically attend and have been doing so since 2013 when such technologies became widely available. Live streaming can attract an additional 1000 or more “participants” in High Holiday services in larger congregations. Some congregations, like Lab/Shul, even offer a separate membership rate for “virtual members” who might never show up physically.

Yet, most of the rabbis interviewed, from both emergent and established congregations, stressed that most people are ultimately seeking in-person human contact and connection, especially as they spend more and more time online. The use of technology, according to them, can assist but not overtake the main goal of forming these deep connections. The one exception was Lau Lavie, who expressed an interest in devoting more energies to establishing a stronger digital presence, becoming “a Jewish televangelist,” in order to reach a greater number of people.

Some Jews feel differently. Whether due to their living in remote locations or their aversion to synagogues, established institutions or in physical spaces generally, a few small virtual synagogues have appeared in recent years. Among them are SecularSynagogue.com, which prior to the Covid pandemic comprised a few dozen members who participated from the “comfort of their couches” and even held a virtual Passover Seder together. By 2022, the congregation grew to 120 members. Other virtual congregations include Punk Torah/One Shul, which operates a virtual pluralistic rabbinic seminary and yeshiva; and Sim Shalom, an an “interactive Online Jewish Universalist Synagogue- liberal in thought and traditional in liturgy.”

As technology becomes more embedded in our lives, this issue will certainly spur further discussion and thought. In the meantime, even among the most experimental communities (save for a few smaller ones) technology and the internet are not supplanting physical contact but are utilized to enhance communal experience.

One potentially significant result of the ongoing shift to digital Judaism, observed during the Covid-19 pandemic, is that as the availability and quality of Jewish life online increases, we may see a “flattening” of the Jewish world, an increasingly “borderless” Jewish world. This trend brings together the previously discussed digitization trend with the increased individualization of Jewish life. As traditional, heterogenous (to an extent) geographic based communities seem to be less of a draw for many younger Jews, interest in niche-based expressions have risen in popularity. Therefore, people are beginning to connect to certain rabbis and communities who are geographically distant but better suit their personal taste or interests.

Many are already “connecting at a distance” in addition to their participation in physical communities, and it might replace physical modes of engagement for some, effectively erasing the borders of the Jewish world. The results of this would be far-reaching. On the one hand, it could help bring together Jews across geographic boundaries and distances through access to common ideas and experiences. On the other hand, it might erode what unity and sense of community remains in heterogenous geographic-based communities. As Jews find they can phase those with different beliefs, opinions, ages, or lifestyles out of their lives, it might have an adverse effect on Jewish unity and community. After all, the discussion and eventual compromise with fellow community members with differing opinions has traditionally shaped Jewish life and Judaism itself. What were to happen if we trend away from having to engage with anyone who might think differently? The consequences could be far-reaching and catastrophic.

Rethinking Space and Organization

One of the initial defining characteristics of emergent communities and other innovative frameworks was rethinking the use of physical space. These considerations have both practical and conceptual considerations. Real estate is costly, especially in urban areas, and often consumes the bulk of high, sometimes off-putting membership fees. At the same time, many of today’s synagogues were built during an era when social norms dictated higher rates of affiliation with religious communities, and opulence, passive participation, rows of pews and large sanctuaries were priorities.

Many existing synagogues were built for maximum capacity, which was reached only on High Holidays or at special events and remain empty most days of the year. Beyond being a costly and inefficient use of space, largely empty spaces may also have a negative spiritual effect on those who do attend. Other synagogues make use of smaller sanctuary spaces throughout the year and only use their larger space on special occasions, ultimately wasting space and resources. Financial difficulties and shrinking demographics have led some congregations to merge.

Many of the newer emergent communities and independent minyanim eschew permanent space altogether, mostly for budgetary reasons. One prevalent model is the renting of a small office space for administrative and small-group educational purposes, and renting bigger venues – in established synagogues, Jewish centers, churches, or totally secular spaces – for larger events. Some organizations reviewed purposely conduct programing in alternating secular spaces to lower inclusion barriers for those adverse to formal Jewish spaces (bars, cafes, parks, nightclubs, etc.).

A handful of organizations discussed share office facilities, which allows them to expand for short periods, say to use the conference room, as needed. This also allows them to open smaller spaces throughout a city to engage with participants in those areas. Chicago is home to a uniquely Jewish shared office space (SketchPad, discussed earlier), which encourages innovation and collaboration between Jewish start-ups.

Rabbi Noa Kushner (The Kitchen) utilizes a rented converted factory space, a church, and various public sites. When asked if she would build or purchase a permanent structure were she to have the funding, she answered that she would prefer to use that capital to establish neighborhood outreach centers: “I would rather use that $15 million to fund 15 neighborhood rabbis.” Rabbi Rachel Nussbaum (Kavana Cooperative) responded that geographic nimbleness is helpful as there is no geographically delineated Jewish community in Seattle.

Other rabbis and leaders believe that a Jewish community requires a physical center, both practically and symbolically. However, this does not preclude having a “home base” while supporting outreach activity in areas more distant from the synagogue. Ikar’s president, Melissa Balaban, for example, spoke of plans to build an “Ikar Center,” a campus from which Ikar will operate. This idea of building campuses that can be shared by multiple Jewish organizations is another efficiency-minded concept. But perhaps more than that, there is also a uniting communal element at play. Kehilath Israel in Cambridge uses its campus to partner with smaller organizations and communities in the Boston area. This concept, whether undertaken by one organization that invites others to join (and rent space), or is undertaken by multiple organizations, views the building or synagogue as a center for Jewish life that is not exclusively dedicated to a single purpose. In times of shrinking philanthropy and membership, Jewish organizations can share not only space but also administrative and logistical staff, further encouraging efficiency.

However, alternative uses of space are not simply a financial or logistical consideration. In many of the organizations discussed, seating and space can be altered and shifted to facilitate more participatory forms of service, programming, or activity. Newer communities, like emergent synagogues and minyanim, are generally mindful of this, and seek to integrate such concepts whenever possible.

Rethinking Funding Models

The issue of funding and fundraising in Jewish communal life is always under discussion, and not just by the communities in this study. The general social trends already discussed affect how Jewish communities fund their activities. As the membership model generally declines, we see an increase in alternative funding methods. According to Rabbi Dr. Dan Judson, Chabad was perhaps the first experiment in relying solely on voluntary contributions rather than membership fees and has led many synagogues and Jewish organizations to reconsider their own funding and membership models.

Judson noted that the dues model to which most synagogues adhere (an annual membership fee that confers full access to the synagogue, community events, clergy, and educational programming) has weakened. Several community leaders told Judson throughout his research, “Chabad is killing us – they don’t charge dues.” The introduction of Chabad, increase in DIY Judaism and freelance rabbis, free High Holiday only communities, and the abundance of readily available Jewish information on the internet, have led many to eschew formal congregational life. Many of those less committed to Jewish life wonder why they should pay thousands of dollars each year for something they can get for considerably less or for free in other places.

An increasing number of institutions are exploring alternative funding models, such as voluntary funding with recommended amounts (ranging from minimal to higher levels with many opting to donate more when given a choice), pay-per-service like Chabad and others, or pay-per-program like Sixth & I. Many emergent communities utilize a “freemium” model – free access to services for all comers and greater access to clergy and educational programs for members. It is worth noting that the Chabad model, much more than voluntary donations, essentially rests on contributions from a handful of major philanthropists who choose to fund Jewish life in that community. No matter the alternative model, it is clear that congregations can no longer take for granted the continued viability of the traditional membership model.

Certainly, no single model will work everywhere, and different models are required for those who are engaged with the Jewish community and those who are unengaged in Jewish life. Thus, a hybrid option seems to make sense for many of the emergent communities. While acknowledging that membership is critical in funding Jewish life and encouraging active participation and communal ownership, the emergent community leaders interviewed asserted that transparency is crucial. Thus, members are actively brought into the full decision-making process.

“Connection, Cultivation and Commitment: New Insights on Voluntary Dues,” a 2017 study that examined approximately 50 communities that had switched from a mandatory to a voluntary dues model, found that most reported increased membership and revenue, and none reverted to the previous fundraising model. This also required a more dynamic approach to promoting active membership.

Looking forward, in an age where there are fewer Jewish donors giving to Jewish causes, communities and leaders will have to take a more entrepreneurial approach to funding. Sixth & I employs this hybrid funding model. As noted, Sixth & I in Washington DC and the 92nd Street Y in New York hold a considerable number of secular cultural events, the revenue from which helps subsidize Jewish programming. Generating revenue from non-Jewish sources could be a direction more communities should consider. Moreover, younger Jews seem to prefer being involved in the giving process, whether through family foundations or just being able to see and connect to where their giving goes to, as opposed to writing checks to umbrella organizations like Federations.

Within the generational innovative shifts that have taken place, we also see the appearance of several philanthropic platforms geared to millennials, especially Jewish crowdfunding platforms. Crowdfunding is a direct application of technology to their individualistic orientations and economic realities. Jewish crowdsourcing platforms, such as JGive, Jewcer, and CauseMatch, have taken Jewish giving to the grassroots level “totally flying in the face of federations and family foundations.”

Established philanthropic organizations might consider adopting boutique, or bespoke giving options in addition to their current models. Thus, donors who prefer the established model can continue supporting umbrella organizations, while other, often younger donors can be given a menu of options to support. Alternately, umbrella organizations can act as conveners and priority setters, seeking to bring boutique organizations and individual philanthropists to the same table, as a handful of existing established umbrella philanthropic organizations have started to do.^,188

Adapting Jewish Communities and Organizations to Future Trends

In an era of niche organizations, episodic engagement, and diminished institutional loyalty, Jewish communities should be planned and developed so that a geographic area hosts the components of an entire ecosystem of Jewish engagement and innovation, which may link and interact with the established community. Multiple entrance and engagement points should be offered through various outreach modalities – religious, cultural, text study, mindfulness, environment and sustainability, social justice, etc. – that link back into the engaged part of the Jewish community in a coordinated manner, without losing the “independent, start-up” ambience that makes such initiatives appealing to the unengaged. Community leaders, together with philanthropists, should think how to put together the parts of an ecosystem their community needs. That is, approach Jewish community building from a user-centric design approach – with the result in mind to encourage the growth of those elements. That is, community leaders and philanthropists should reverse engineer from the end-goal of what a community should look like and not necessarily place the organizations first.

Discussing such a vision, Rabbi Nate DeGroot of Hazon explained that there should be multiple engagement points potential participants might find meaningful, bridging the Jewish and secular worlds. He offered northern Chicago as an exemplar of such an ecosystem, which houses Mishkan, Svara, Jewish social action organizations, Sketchpad (the Jewish shared office space), the Judaism Unbound Podcast, which discusses and promotes innovation and more, working alongside and together with the active denominational frameworks. DeGroot further recommended that Jewish leaders begin to consider how to integrate revenue-generating models from the outset in planning such communities.

From a structural and conceptual perspective, organizations that want to become or remain relevant need to institutionalize change “in their DNA.” This should include taking such measures as ensuring significant young adult representation in leadership roles (“make 51% of your board under 40”) or install mechanisms to ensure constant turnover in leadership. It also might galvanize a community of niche “micro-communities” who come together at peak moments throughout the year within a central communal structure. This concept allows for constant creativity and adaptation to new trends and the development of smaller and more committed communities within the larger umbrella of a stable community.

Finally, organizations should consider that the language, methods, and approach that have proved effective with Jews who are engaged with the Jewish community may prove less effective in engaging those on the margins of the Jewish community.

Rethinking Israel

The connection to Israel of many of these communities in this study also did not fit into neat, predictable bundles. Within the context of “decoupling” of expected norms, behaviors or attitudes, these communities have, to some extent, rethought their connection to Israel. At the outset of the research process, it was not clear to what extent the communities and initiatives in question would totally disconnect from Zionism and Israel. Was it even possible for active Jewish life to be disengaged from something so central to modern Jewish life? Could there be a Judaism without an active connection to Israel?

Indeed, many of these communities and organizations seem to combine a heightened sense of engagement with tradition and Jewish text with progressive politics, including an often-critical discourse related to Israel. And yet, while there are some communities in the Jewish world adopting a post-Zionist or even an anti-Zionist perspective as a key point of identification and political activism, the rabbis, leaders, and community members interviewed stressed that the connection to Israel for them was crucial, even if it was at times critical on a policy level. And yet, most of those interviewed pointed out that one detractor of many young, unengaged Jews from establishment institutions was what they felt was a reflexive, “knee-jerk” and defensive approach to any criticism of Israel or its policies. While most of the participants in these initiatives seem to be connected to Israel, they were certainly more critical in their engagement than those in establishment organizations.

Still, one thing was clear: although Israel and Zionist political activism are key rallying points in many mainstream communities and organizations, Israel does not seem to carry the same weight in some of these new communities. Relations to Israel were more complex and less central to their focus. This was especially so the more the community seemed to be experimental as well as open to non-Jewish participation, interfaith families, or various marginalized Jews who may lack the ethnic, familial connection to Judaism.^,193

As more non-Jews and Jews-by-choice engage in the Jewish community, will this lead, as some have suggested, to the development of a “Jewish faith” or “Jewish wisdom-culture” more similar to how Buddhism or Yoga are engaged in the United States, and markedly different from the ethnic and cultural traditions through which many Jews today might express their Jewish identity (Passover seder, brisket, bagels and lox, etc.). It is difficult to ignore the general and opposite trajectories in which the majority of Israelis Jews and American Jews are heading. However, the short-lived Israeli government elected at time of editing (the end of 2021 through the middle of 2022), that took a more conciliatory tone towards the Israeli left, American Jewry and American Democrats, alongside the election of Joe Biden in the US, a pro-Israel, centrist Democrat, seemed to have slowed some of these adverse trends regarding the growing disconnect between Israel and American Jewry. Israel’s November 2022 elections, which took place as this went to the publisher, might very well speed up the existing trajectories.

Rethinking Denominations

The initial success of independent synagogues that fall outside existing and predictable categories, and the overall decline in denominational identification and subsequent rise in the “Just Jewish” category, leads some to argue that we are seeing the demise of denominational American Judaism. Perhaps they have become less relevant, as some of those interviewed reflected (“they are NBC and CBS, while emergent communities are the Netflix” – per Lau Lavie). Alternatively, perhaps we are witnessing the dissolution of the existing denominations and the formation of new ones in their place.

The driving forces within the emergent communities and the independent minyanim organizers interviewed cite a number of main reasons for their desire for denominational and organizational independence. The first is that the communities interviewed perceive a lack of benefit from belonging to an organized denominational movement, at least in relation to the costs involved. They also seek maximal nimbleness and flexibility to make changes and adaptations free of hierarchical or centralized control. Moreover, many young Jews are resistant to labels, certainly those drawn to independent frameworks. Most have come to expect specific pairings of levels of religious depth with corresponding levels of political or social orientation and levels of tradition: a Reform label might equate with, “Jewish light,” musical instruments, and liberal politics in people’s minds, on the one hand, or in other cases, positions on such social issues as Israel that are not progressive enough, on the other. In an age of hyper-individualism, people are less willing to hold to expected behaviors, groupings, and labels. Most importantly, the labels do not accurately reflect what they feel they are doing or who they want to be.

Shlomo Fischer, a sociologist and JPPI senior fellow, attributes the decline of the denominations to a generational shift in which people no longer seek societal stamps of approval. That a synagogue or organization carried such approval and belonging was once more important than it is today, on the organizational and personal level. This is, at a time when the concept of membership itself has become less relevant. Still, Fischer asserts that the independent synagogues will eventually seek out some form of larger organizational structure, for seminaries, summer camps, networking, schools, youth groups and more.

Indeed, the two major liberal denominations, Reform and Conservative, have each struggled in their own ways in recent decades, especially the Conservative movement, which saw a sharp decline in membership, while the Reform movement remained stable in many ways. The Conservative movement’s struggles have to do in large part with the significant gap that developed between the highly committed, observant and Jewishly literate leadership and elites and the majority of its laity. Those who are less committed, for one, are intermarrying in greater numbers, and drifting to the Reform movement (a boon for the Reform communities), while a few of those preferring a more observant or Jewishly dynamic lifestyle drift to independent minyanim or even Modern Orthodox congregations. Data from the Pew Research Center’s 2013 study of American Jewry back this up: 28% of those raised Conservative are now Reform, while 13% of those raised Conservative are now Orthodox. Conservative raised Jews have the largest group that shifted to a different denomination. More recent Pew data from its 2020 study of American Jews shows that, “Within Judaism, denominational switching has led to the largest net losses for the Conservative movement, which, in the 1950s and 1960s, was the largest branch of American Jewry.” Thus, of Jewish adults in the U.S. today, Conservative Judaism has lost 14% of those identifying as such, while gaining only 5%. In comparison, Orthodoxy lost 3% while gaining 1%, Reform lost 10% of its participants while gaining 16%, and those of no denomination lost 7% while gaining 19%. Today, only 15% of American Jews identify as Conservative, while 25% say they were raised Conservative.

Does this mean we are seeing the disappearance of Conservative Judaism or at least its diminishment into a more minor force in American Jewry?

Conservative Judaism was, for decades, the middle road of American Judaism. Some, like Fischer, described it as a “sacred ethnicity” that allowed Jews to focus on peoplehood, Zionism as ethnic solidarity combined with religious traditionalism, even if most members themselves were not observant. For others, it allowed for a deeper engagement with Jewish life and observance that was more liberal than Orthodoxy and allowed for women to fully participate. The movement also succeeded in producing a strong core of “Jewish middle” leaders, alumni of the Solomon Schechter schools and Ramah summer camps. However, it seems to have failed to retain many of them – who are now leading figures in their Reform congregations due to their stronger Jewish literacy, or are at the heart of many non-denominational emergent synagogues, independent minyanim, or other innovative Jewish expressions described throughout this study. This also may be influenced, to an extent, by the decades-long efforts by Jewish communities who funded and pushed non- or post-denominational spaces within the Jewish community – federations, Hillels, and various leadership programs like those of the Wexner or Schusterman Foundations.

And still, despite the decline in the size of the Conservative movement, there seems to still be a desire for a “middle road” Judaism that is both traditional and embraces change. Many of the new organizations discussed in this study are creating new “middle road” Judaisms – Conservative Judaism that is outside the framework of the movement. Perhaps, the issue is not a lack of product demand but rather branding and organizational structure. Many of those interviewed noted the movement has been noticeably slow and less aggressive than the Reform movement, and certainly not as aggressive as Chabad, in seeding new synagogues in areas without a traditional Jewish presence. They further noted that the benefit of belonging to a national movement is unclear. That 200 synagogues once affiliated with the Conservative movement are now non-denominational, might speak more to this point than to the lack of interest in a “middle road” Judaism.

Rabbi Josh Rabin, senior director for synagogue leadership at the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, who deals with innovation within the movement, seemed less fazed by some of these developments. He reflected that for a variety of reasons, communities that are similar in style and substance to Conservative Judaism want to operate outside the denominational framework. He noted, however, that the Conservative movement did not stand still through these developments, and that many Conservative rabbinic students participate in such communities (especially in Los Angeles and New York) and bring some of the innovations they find there back to Conservative synagogues, transforming them from within. The most important part, Rabin explained, was that many Conservative synagogues are learning to create unique and positive identities in an age when things cannot be taken for granted – be it prioritizing the prayer experience or the social justice aspect. Similarly, many rabbis are also slowly adopting the Chabad outreach playbook, whose model of aggressive outreach without membership is creating tough competition for Conservative synagogues. Rabin noted a handful of Conservative communities are taking steps to innovate and engage more aggressively with the community.

Rabin further reflected that it was never clear that Conservative Judaism was intended to be a movement rather than an approach to Judaism; meaning that institutions are only relevant in their capacity to serve people seeking this model of traditional yet modern Judaism. The bigger challenge, from his perspective, is not the small groups branching off and creating non-denominational institutions that offer high-content Judaism, but the larger group branching off and practicing less or no Judaism. Rabin hopes the Conservative movement can take a more forward-thinking and audacious approach in steering its philanthropic capability toward the future, for example by ensuring every bar/bat mitzvah child can attend a Ramah camp or join the USY youth group (United Synagogue Youth), to strengthen Jewish identity and literacy and maintain their engagement with Judaism.

Rabbi Vernon Kurtz, who served for three decades as the senior rabbi of North Suburban Synagogue Beth El, a thriving 1100 family Conservative synagogue near Chicago, and held national leadership positions in the movement, shared that as a suburban rabbi, he was similarly not concerned by the appearance and success of independent congregations, as they serve fundamentally different audiences. He was encouraged that there is a strong demand for a “middle road” Jewish product, even if it chooses to remain independent of the denomination, and noted that the leadership of many of these came out of the Conservative movement. There is much that can be learned from such experimental congregations, and mainstream congregations can apply various methods they find relevant. Kurtz also believes the independent synagogues and initiatives, as they further institutionalize and grow, can learn much from the successful established congregations and organizations. Furthermore, they should be looking to find ways to cooperate on a deeper institutional level, helping one another compensate for their respective weaknesses.

The challenge all congregational rabbis face is not from each other, says Kurtz, rather from the pull of DIY Judaism and free pop-up High Holiday congregations that cater to today’s heightened sense of individualism. These options allow less engaged Jews to leave the Jewish collective, which they find preferable and more convenient than paying thousands of dollars each year for synagogue membership. This is especially relevant as people delay marriage and child rearing and the often-accompanying move to the suburbs. Kurtz noted a similar trend in established national organizations such as JFNA or JAFI, in an age where designated giving has become the desirable philanthropic avenue for many donors. The organized Jewish world must act as a collective, taking care of its weaker elements, and such trends weaken this collective. In this sense, Kurtz sees the national denominational institutions as highly necessary – providing guidance and direction, coordination, national youth movements, moral and religious leadership, rabbinic seminaries, summer camps and assistance to smaller congregations. All this is part of the concept of the Jewish community as a collective – locally and nationally, with the challenge being to instill and inspire a sense of communal responsibility.

The United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism’s (USCJ) president, Ned Gladstein, reflected on the emergence of the creative initiatives that are essentially Conservative, but outside the auspices of the Conservative movement. Noting the JEN communities specifically, Gladstein seeks to tap into this energy for “deep Jewish engagement” and sees this as his main goal. As a way to achieve this goal, Gladstein intends to significantly update the outdated institutional structure of the USCJ to better engage with both active members and nonaffiliated Jews and revamp the network of partnerships within the movement.

If Conservative Judaism shrank significantly, Reform Judaism, on the other hand, experienced growth along some parameters, stability in others, as well as some trends that warrant concern. For one, between 1990 and 2013, the overall numbers of Reform synagogue members grew – from 623,000 to 756,000, which was commensurate with the growth of the overall number of adult Jews in the U.S. (4.3 to 5.3 million) in the same period. In other good news, there were no real changes in the proportions of Reform synagogue members who celebrated Jewish holidays, fasted on Yom Kippur, or attended a Passover seder. However, intermarriage rates also increased dramatically – jumping from 8% to 31% of adult married Reform temple members. There was also a drop in Reform temple members with mostly close Jewish friends, along with a significant increase in the numbers of non-Jewish Reform synagogue members.

We also saw some declines during this 23-year period, including the rates of monthly synagogue attendance, of those who usually light Shabbat candles, of those belonging to Jewish organizations and, maybe most importantly, the number of those who say being Jewish is very important to them. Overall, Reform synagogues managed to increase their membership numbers with Jews who were as generally engaged in Jewish life as they had been in 1990. We also saw a decline of young adult congregation members during this period, with the average age rising from 46 to 52.

The bigger challenge to American Judaism however, revealed in the PEW studies, might be with those who identify as Reform yet are not synagogue members. Thus, from 1990-2013, their numbers also grew from 900,000 to 1.15 million individuals, with intermarriage rates jumping from 34% in 1990 to 66% by 2013. A significant decline in the number of those with mostly Jewish friends was also observed. Lastly, we see that among those Jews raised Reform who married between 2000 and 2013, 80% were intermarried.

The Reform movement is aware of its challenges and is consciously working to adapt. Having essentially cornered the market on interfaith families within the established Jewish world as well as on liberal political positions, the movement is working to encourage more observance among its hundreds of synagogues by making services more contemporary, lively, and participatory. The question is whether the Reform movement is succeeding in inspiring Jews to remain Jewish and pass on this identity to the next generation. Only 36% of those raised in Reform communities belong to one in adulthood, and only 28% of those raised Reform are involved in the Jewish community at all. Much of its uptick in membership and observance is not coming from within the movement but rather from the entrance of those raised Conservative and who are now members of interfaith families, including a significant number of non-Jews who are members of Reform communities.

According to the 2013 Pew study, 55% of those raised Reform continue to identify as such in adulthood. While comparisons between studies should be approached with caution, the 2020 Pew study of American Jews found that a full 65% of those raised Reform continue to identify as such into adulthood (a rate comparable to those raised Orthodox, while only 42% of those raised Conservative continue to identify as such into adulthood.)^,197

And yet, Reform Judaism also has the highest rate of those leaving the Jewish religion altogether. According to the 2013 Pew study, 17% of those raised Reform identified as Jews of no religion, while 11% identified as entirely non-Jewish.^,198 The 2020 findings resemble those from 2013.^,199

Is Reform Judaism failing to engage those who walk through its doors? Has it sacrificed serious engagement and depth for inclusiveness? Has it substituted liberal politics for serious Jewish practice? Alternatively, is it, as today’s “normative” Judaism, receiving a disproportionate number of those who had never sought deep engagement?

All this, of course, should not diminish the work and success of those Reform and Conservative congregations that are thriving, vibrant, creative, flowing with life, and succeeding in engaging their members and attracting new ones. There are certainly plenty of such success stories – only a few were mentioned in this study.

Whatever challenges the two movements face, their significant nation-wide infrastructure – synagogues, rabbinic seminaries, summer camps, rabbinic assemblies and more – cannot be overlooked or discarded. Indeed, The Reform movement has undergone significant shifts in ideology since its founding, once eschewing tradition ritual and even Zionism, and later embracing them. The success of these movements will in part depend on their ability to accommodate the generational shifts underway.

Rabbi Josh Weinberg, the URJ’s vice president for Israel and Reform Zionism, was optimistic about the future of Reform Judaism, noting the last Biennial to take place before the Covid pandemic was the largest Jewish gathering in the world (about 5,000 attended), and their network of 900 synagogues, many of which are vibrant and growing. The URJ is aware of the energy pouring into non-denominational communities and their success in engaging with millennials and those on the margins of the Jewish community. “Everyone is seeking to figure out how to create community today and answer what they need Judaism for,” said Weinberg reflecting today’s individualist ethos.

Weinberg is convinced of the big-picture importance of the denominational movements but noted that maintaining them is a long-term investment whose benefits are not immediately felt. Millennials, on the other hand, prefer donating directly to specific causes and dislike seeing their limited philanthropic dollars go to cover overhead, creating a challenge for the movement and many Jewish organizations. Another challenge is the millennial generation’s lack of patience for institutional bureaucracy and slow change. The URJ is thus investing significant effort in young-adult engagement (it has a VP for this function). Weinberg reiterated that the extent to which the URJ will succeed in continuing to be a thriving Jewish movement is the extent to which it can engage this current generation and increase their Jewish literacy and education.

There is another viewpoint that doesn’t accept the notion that such independent communities will become institutionalized or replace the existing institutions. Perhaps, their success (to the extent that it exists) relies on remaining counter-cultural and operating in the spaces between or beyond existing denominational structures.

Some argue that the story of American Judaism’s evolution is not a question of denominations but rather one of religiosity. For Judaism to survive among the non-halachic majority of American Jews, it will have to take on a much broader cultural dimension, in which religion may or may not be a part. Len Saxe, a long-time observer of American Jewry, pointed to the flourishing of Israeli and Jewish films and books, festivals, and of a secular Jewish culture that includes holiday observance. This is, alongside the massive growth of Israel and Jewish studies in American universities, where more Jews are interested in learning about Judaism than ever before, but in academic, non-religious contexts. Saxe added that the community studies his team conducted, offer a new way to classify American Jews according to behaviors, and in which we noticed that a significant percentage of American Jews, especially in major Jewish centers and especially younger adults, could be classified as “cultural” or “holiday” Jews, as opposed to immersed, affiliated, or minimal. That is, their prime expression of Jewish identity is not religious.^,200

Dan Libenson of Judaism Unbound echoed this view, noting that the extent to which Judaism survives, beyond a small religious core, will be as a “voluntary wisdom culture,” like Yoga or Buddhism, with religious foundations, but not a religion per se. Time will tell whether such directions, as noted by Saxe or Libenson, are sustainable in the long term.

Conclusions

A review of the range of creative endeavors taking place in the North American Jewish community over the past decade or so should offer some hope to those lamenting the decline of mainstream American Judaism. Recent surveys show that many young adult Jews are quite proud of their Jewish heritage. However, they are less interested in engaging through establishment institutions and prefer forms of expression they perceive to be more organic, independent, and without labels. They also seek expressions they see as authentic, non-judgmental, and inclusive.

It is difficult to say if the decline of Jewish engagement and identity among young adults over the past few decades, as registered in Pew and other studies, corresponds with the rise in non-denominational yet active identification and engagement through non-establishment structures. It may well do so, but we do not have enough information at this point to confidently assert such a claim. To be clear, this study does not claim that all those who reject denominational identification are actually engaged in Jewish life – far from it. Most metrics point to higher Jewish engagement and activity among those denominationally identified and involved in organized Jewish life.

However, what we are suggesting is that as many of the frameworks and institutions that served the “Jewish middle” have become less relevant as a result of generational differences, new frameworks have emerged whose characteristics will be key in shaping American Judaism as it evolves.

None of this should panic Jewish leaders, as American Judaism has undergone such transformations every few generations to better engage young adults and maintain or increase their relevance. Traditionally, transformations that began on the margins often go on to influence the mainstream Jewish community.

And yet, Jewish leaders cannot sit idly by. As assimilation and acculturation, including interfaith marriage, have become the norm among non-Orthodox Jews, failing to engage this growing demographic increases the chances they will fail to pass on their Jewish identities and education to the next generation.

Jewish organizations that aspire to engage young adult Jews who are detached or less attached to the Jewish community should be geared to new realities:

• They should have a clear understanding of who they, what they do and who they serve. They should affirmatively define themselves, what they wish to achieve, and what they have to offer those who engage with them.
• They should avoid judgement (meet people where they are) and be inclusive – racial, political, religious, gender, sexual orientation, etc. – as a norm, not a goal.
• At the same time, they should not sacrifice quality, depth, or authenticity for such inclusiveness.
• They should offer multiple access points for engagement. This can be through religious, social, political, or other means. This can also be done through multiple points within one organization or within a network of organizations that work together to offer these access points. Educational opportunities are key.
• They should consider concerning themselves less with one-size-fits-all leadership and organization.
• They should seek to empower young leadership, professional and lay leaders.
• They should prioritize the participant over the organization – by applying principles and methods of user-centric (UX) design. Leadership that seeks to form personal relations with individuals is key to implementing these methods.
• Organizations should strive to be nimble, able to make changes relatively quickly, including far-reaching ones. For large organizations or communities, this can be accomplished by seeding semi-independent communities and sub-organizations that answer to a larger organization.Not every model can work in every place. Regional differences are real, as are those between urban and suburban communities, as well as those between large and smaller Jewish communities. There are also significant practical elements of space use, design and aesthetics, fundraising and monetary issues involved. Examples mentioned in this study that seem to be working include:
• New, independent and innovative organizations;
• Established institutions that fund and employ independent innovative projects from within;
• Established institutions that invite independent organizations to partner under a larger community framework;
• Established institutions that seek to remain vibrant and nimble and ensure multiple access points are possible within;
• A network of independent and innovative organizations with niche roles that coordinate to ensure the various elements of a Jewish ecosystem exist in a given area.

Inherent in all of these successful examples are organizations, new or established, with talented and charismatic clergy and leadership, willing to rethink things – from their own borders, membership models, use of space, fundraising models, and what it means to be a community. Nothing can be taken for granted any longer.

Regardless of which path communities take, their leaders and funders should operate with an eye to the future, ensuring that the various components of a Jewish ecosystem, innovative or traditional, are in place to allow for stability and innovation, and multiple access points for those engaged and those not yet engaged. The bigger challenge will be to create bridges that allow the innovative projects to connect to the established organizations and for the newly engaged to merge seamlessly into the larger Jewish community.