As an American who has lived in Israel for nearly two decades, I was not fully aware of the scope of creative Jewish life that had been developing in North America since I made Aliyah (immigrated to Israel) 17 years ago. My upbringing was that of an engaged Reform Jew. I regularly attended synagogue, and participated in youth groups, religious schools, and Jewish summer camps. In college I frequented Hillel, and would “shul-hop.” While living in Washington, DC, however, my personal experience with the American Jewish community was limited to established synagogues (of all denominations), Chabad, Hillel on a few campuses, and the world of Jewish summer camp. I continue to maintain close contacts with Jews of all stripes across the U.S. – from rabbis and Jewish professionals of all denominations, to lay-people with active Jewish lives, to those who have detached from the Jewish community, Jewish life, and their Jewish identities entirely.

During a 2018 lecture tour, I spent Shabbat at the home of a Conservative rabbi in a small midwestern community, Rabbi Michael Friedland of Sinai Synagogue in South Bend, Indiana. Through our discussions, I learned for the first time of the appearance of fascinating new frameworks for Jewish life across the United States independent of the existing denominations and the mainstream establishment. We were both curious, but neither of us quite knew what to make of it. At the same time, JPPI’s co-chair, Dennis Ross, suggested the Institute investigate the rise of independent, non-denominational synagogues that had popped up in a few major urban centers, and which he had personally encountered. As the story went, they seem to have “found the secret” to attracting those young Jews largely unengaged with Jewish communal life as it is. It was quite the coincidence.

As I came to learn, both were referring, in part, to the communities that constitute the Jewish Emergent Network (JEN), a group of seven relatively new (the oldest was founded about 20 years ago), independent communities that are seemingly successful in attracting young adult crowds that include many who had previously been marginalized or minimally engaged in Jewish life. They were also referring to developments such as new and pluralistic institutions of serious Jewish text study like Hadar and Svara, “a traditionally radical yeshiva dedicated to the serious study of Talmud and committed to the Queer experience.” There was a sense that something deep was taking place in American Jewish life, and that these new institutions might be at its forefront.

The research for this study, beyond what was publicly available, involved an extensive series of interviews with scholars, leaders, and practitioners alike, as well as with participants and members of these communities. That is, with those writing about North American Jewish life, especially innovation taking place within it, those shaping and pushing this innovation, as well as those served by it. I offer all those mentioned my utmost gratitude for their generosity of time and energy in speaking with me. The study reflects my understanding and summary of the interviews conducted, and any mischaracterization is solely my responsibility. I only hope I did justice to their important and original contributions to Jewish life and the experiences they described to me.

Early on, I came to two conclusions: first, that much had already been written about these JEN communities; and second, that there was a much broader world taking shape of independent (often non-denominational) and creative initiatives engaging with young adult Jews beyond the Jewish Emergent Network. These include “emergent” communities outside of this group, independent minyanim (prayer groups) and plenty of activity from within forward-thinking established institutions. Therefore, I discovered that if there is a story to tell, it is not that such things exist – that story has been told, although many are still unaware of it. While this work might help to band together many of these initiatives into a single conceptual framework, it also seeks to examine what this might mean, if anything. Are they really succeeding in engaging with younger, disengaged Jews more effectively than the mainstream communities are? Why? How? Are these communities, and the larger ecosystem of Jewish innovation, a real trend, or just a fad, a blip on the radar screen? Are they simply “better” synagogues as some have suggested, and not really all that different? Or are they indicative of something bigger and more fundamentally important taking place in North American Jewish life? Do they reflect a new trajectory for how Jewish life is organized and conducted? And if so, what does that mean for the future of the Jewish community, community leaders, and philanthropists?

The larger world of Jewish innovation, the “Jewish innovation ecosystem,” as it turns out, extends well beyond the seven JEN communities. It includes the world of independent minyanim, emergent communities outside of JEN, established denominational synagogues that host and fund creative young adult outreach programs and different frameworks for independent Jewish life under their roofs (whether figuratively or literally), lay-led social communities, intentional communities, pluralistic Chabad-style outreach projects, and intense Jewish study programs that engage Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews alike. There are considerable differences among them. So, what do they have in common? They seem to be succeeding where mainstream institutions are not – in resonating with young adult Jews who feel marginalized by the mainstream community. Although I mention and discuss many such communities to some extent, I chose to focus more on the JEN communities and the independent minyan movement. The goal was to examine what exactly they think they are doing, why they are doing it, and their impact on the broader Jewish community, if this is at all measurable.

A common theme that arose from the research and interviews was that of “authenticity.” The innovators and participants in these new frameworks seem to be searching for a sense of authenticity in Jewish life they felt they were not finding in many mainstream institutions. The concept of authenticity was perhaps first and most prominently expressed as a guiding ideal of North American Jewish life, and Jewish identity in modern times generally, by Arnold Eisen and Steven M. Cohen in their 2000 book, The Jew Within: Self, Family and Community in America.

Authenticity, throughout this work and the interviews conducted, has been expressed as a common denominator in the various frameworks described throughout in two primary ways. First, many of those interviewed, whether leaders or participants, felt their Jewish experiences prior to their engagement with these new frameworks were somehow inauthentic. They described them as uninspiring, boring, scripted, performative, or lacking spirituality. They did not feel that their experience was “heart-opening,” as one interviewee described it. Second, many felt they could not express their full and true selves in most mainstream Jewish institutions – that their values were not fully in line with the values espoused and promoted by these Jewish institutions. In most cases, this centered around political views, often regarding Israel.

Many of the changes discussed revolve around this very search for authenticity, and in adapting the frameworks and institutions built for previous generations to the preferences of a new generation. Eisen and Cohen describe this new Jew as generally deeply connected to their Jewishness, but the nature of that connection has undergone a metamorphosis. There is less of a commitment to communal expressions of Jewish life (conformity), and they are “little moved by the authority of God or the normative tradition…They seek a Judaism that is meaningful to them, and therefore, requires a degree of personal investment.”³

It seems that many institutions of the established Jewish world, which are rightfully concerned that “young adults” are not showing up, were built according to the preferences and styles of previous generations, under different conceptualizations and assumptions, and at times, attuned to social realities that are less relevant today. Many of the organizers and participants talked about feeling that they could not express their full and true selves, because existing institutions came with certain pre-packaged, or bundled, expectations.

Any Jewish professional or congregational leader could likely identify with much of this. Figuring out how to do something about it is something else. In some cases, the changes are cosmetic and easier to do – organs out, drums in; pews out, seating in the round in; operatic cantor and passive service out, participatory music in. In other cases, the changes run deeper and relate to notions of membership, empowerment, and participation, the use of technology, questions of who can participate and to what extent, and even the deepest questions such as how to regard Israel or on the very existence and nature of God. Some are calling into question the relevance of the major religious denominations and organizations that have characterized Jewish life for some decades. Some of these considerations, such as the inclusion of non-Jews, are fundamentally changing Judaism itself. Others, such as what participation and space actually entail, are changing other aspects of Jewish practice – such as organizing virtual services, or exploring whether such a thing as a virtual Jewish community is even possible. And yet, others are bringing into question accepted notions of what a Jewish community is, and what purposes it serves. Is prayer the focus? Learning? Community service and social justice work? Social gathering? Whom does a community serve? Do Jewish communities need to serve a broad range of Jews, or can they serve niche groups within the larger collective? Can they serve non-Jews as well? And, of course, many are tackling the biggest question of all – why Judaism? What is the purpose of it all?

What is the common denominator of all these innovative frameworks? They offer intentionality, purpose, and value. They are institutions seeking to be authentic, and attract Jews who seek authenticity. For most of Jewish history, participation and belonging to a Jewish community was innate and automatic (with the exception, of course, of converts to Judaism). Aside from total assimilation and immersion into the surrounding society, Jews belonged to their Jewish community by default. Little thought had to be given to the “why” because the thought that someone might ask “why,” or say “no, thank you” was almost unimaginable. At most, Jews discussed “how” and “what” – and to some extent developed four or five major avenues for Jewish expression – religious practices of varying levels of traditionalism, civic and political involvement in society at large, and, in recent years, avenues for Israel advocacy. For all these, the organized Jewish community served as the conduit through which the Jew participated in society. No longer. Young adult Jews no longer feel obligated to continue with traditions or religious practices. The Holocaust and Israel do not compel like they once did – one is too far in the past and too universalized, the other too secure to seem vulnerable, and often seemingly too much at odds with their values, even their version of “Jewish values.”

Moreover, Jews are, ostensibly, as fully accepted into American society as any other minority group, and do not perceive that they require large and established organizations in order to participate in society – one can participate as an individual. Therefore, these new frameworks, to one extent or another, must answer for themselves and for the young Jews who need an explicit answer to the question, “why Jewish?” What value do they add to the lives of their participants? Implicit assumptions that they will participate “just because” are far less valid or viable. Institutions created for the “mainstream” Jew of a previous generation, often feel inauthentic for the new type of American Jew of the younger generation. It is this theme that runs throughout, and so we decided to title this study In Search of Authenticity. JPPI’s editor Barry Geltman gets the credit for this title.

The fact that these various new ways of engaging Jewishly existed and were creating buzz was one thing. They raise many questions, ideas, and predictions about the future direction(s) of American Judaism. One thing I wanted to try to understand was how widespread these new frameworks are. As the independent minyanim movement began some 20 years ago, and the emergent communities and other innovations have been around for more than a few years – can we now measure their wider impact, and how? Participation numbers? Given that we knew how many JEN communities, minyanim, how many emergent projects from within established organizations and other young-adult engagement projects existed, we could offer an estimate as to how many participate in these new forms of Jewish life. It is impossible to say exactly because it is difficult to know how much overlap exists between any of these and established Jewish frameworks.

However, many involved will say it does not even matter how many participate – rather the impact would be felt to the extent mainstream institutions adapt to what was happening in these new frameworks. This makes sense, as I point out a few times, and as was pointed out to me even by the most enthusiastic proponents of these new frameworks, such as Rabbi Eli Kaunfer (of Hadar): “there are 900 Reform synagogues and nine Sharon Brouses,” (referring to the charismatic rabbi who heads Ikar in Los Angeles) meaning they are not going to take over. But to what extent are mainstream institutions adopting practices, approaches, melodies, or other innovations initiated by these communities? One observation pointed out by many interviewees was that the minyanim and Jewish Emergent synagogues tend to attract many future Jewish leaders, especially rabbinical students, who then go on to serve in the mainstream communities of the major denominations. It would only make sense that they would take such innovations with them. One rabbi interviewed noted that the mainstream synagogues in their community have come to view them as R&D laboratories for new approaches to Jewish life. One rabbi went so far as to call his synagogue Lab/Shul. After all, we don’t measure the influence of all innovations in terms of their becoming mass movements. One could argue that while the Reconstructionist stream never became a mass movement (only a small percentage of American Jews identify with the denomination), the ideas of Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism, had far-reaching influence on Reform and Conservative Judaism, and in the formation of Jewish community centers. Similarly, the Chavurah movement influenced much of Jewish life in America today, well beyond its original numbers.

How does all this measure up with the common narrative that young-adult Jews are less engaged in Jewish life and less interested in their Jewish identities than were previous generations? How does this measure up with the doom-and-gloom claim that non-Orthodox Jewish life in America is dwindling fast? This narrative, of course, is not baseless, and has been touted by many respected scholars and Jewish professionals. In short, it posits that in most (non-Orthodox) Jewish institutions across the country, it is increasingly difficult to find young people, who are less inclined to belong to Jewish institutions, less inclined to have a denominational affiliation, and less inclined to marry Jewish. It especially relates to the shrinking of the vanguard of the Jewish middle – the Conservative movement, as many of those raised in the movement shifted left (mostly) or right (to a much lesser extent). Surely, the numbers would reflect this.

To some extent, they verify these claims. And yet, something else was noticeable when examining the various studies when different questions were asked. Perhaps, as more Jews begin interacting with Judaism outside of establishment institutions, might they begin to define themselves outside of the traditional denominational identities and expected definitions? As young adults are unlikely to be members of, well, anything, might this be part of the reason for a decline in membership? As they seek alternative institutions that better reflect their more nuanced identities, might they seek to interact with the Jewish world not through established organizations but through newer, organic organizations that feel more authentic to them? Perhaps researchers were asking the wrong questions? Perhaps professionals and communal leaders were asking the wrong questions? Could this be reflected in the data too? What about Jewish behavior? If America at large has shifted to an age where communal institutions are less relevant for belonging and communal participation, does this reflect on Jews, as well? If a Jewish individual frequents Jewish websites, cultural events or remains up to date on Israel-related news, is this a form of Jewish engagement? What about those who celebrate Jewish holidays at home with family and friends? And, ultimately, if more of these new types of institutions and organizations existed, would more younger, unengaged Jews become engaged?

Poring over numerous demographic studies, something stands out. When looking at the different ways in which Jews behave and engage as Jews by age group, it is not at all clear that young-adult Jews (broadly speaking) care less about their Jewish identities. Different geographic areas show different trends of Jewish behavior. But more importantly, it turns out that we might not have been asking the right questions. Certainly, if trying to understand whether young Jews today act like older Jews, it is plain that they do not. But when we expand the parameters to investigate various Jewish behaviors, the conclusion that there has been a major decline of American Judaism is not so obvious. Where is the shrinking Jewish middle? In some communities, there is a growing Orthodox presence among younger age groups, but not in all. In places like Washington, DC and Boston, two of the larger Jewish communities we examined, we could even detect an increase in various “Jewish behaviors” among younger Jews, including those identifying outside of the traditional denominational spectrum (just Jewish or no denomination). A comparison across 29 community studies conducted between 2000 and 2018 around the country, leaving out the Orthodox, did not show any kind of real drop in many Jewish behaviors across age groups. Some measurements increased, others decreased, and many remained stable. Of course, this all hinges on the questions we ask, how we define the “Jewish middle,” and what we deem desirable. It all hinges on how we define engagement and identification.

Therefore, perhaps a new narrative should be considered. Not a decline, although this is happening to some degree as young Jews become less engaged, but perhaps a “reorientation,” as young Jews seek different ways to express their Jewish identities, at times in new organizations that are now forming, and at times in no measurable institutional way. Moreover, what I suggest in the following study, is that the forms, styles, and characteristics being experimented with now will help shape American Judaism as it undergoes this reorientation, as it finds this very authenticity. Historically, this seems to be the case, as American Judaism has, every few generations, undergone similar stylistic, organizational, and even theological shifts. We are, I claim, at the beginning of such a shift now. To read more about these shifts in a historical perspective, see Appendix 1.

The extent to which the leaders, funders, and professionals of the established Jewish world understand this shift, is the extent to which they can adapt and help shape the trend as it develops. We are not simply passive observers or bystanders of trends of “thriving” or “decline.” The community studies mentioned in places like Washington, DC and Boston, which have thriving ecosystems of innovation, independent frameworks, and platforms to engage with young adults, seem to have succeeded to some degree, in making this switch. They understood sooner than others how to engage with a new generation of young Jewish adults. It also seems that the investment surge in Jewish education, summer camps, and programs like Birthright since the 1990 NJPS study (that sparked some of the current concern) has had a positive effect. To be sure, intermarriage rates are high, but the rate of intermarried families choosing to live Jewish lives is also high. American Jews, like Americans in general, are increasingly racially, religiously, and ethnically diverse, and identities tend to be compound constructions, no longer exclusive. Broader American social norms and trends are inescapable, but this does not make us incapable of responding to these trends. Even in the course of one generation, social trends can be influenced. There is abundant potential in launching new initiatives to engage with younger Jews. Recalling the famous line from the film Field of Dreams, “If you build it, they will come.”

The global Covid pandemic, which began in early 2020 and has largely subsided as we head to printing, also heavily affected the Jewish world, and this study. As we discuss in the annex, the Covid period served to accelerate many processes that were already underway prior to the pandemic. These included the weakening or closing of already weak and anachronistic institutions, the thriving and catapulting into modernity those viable and lively ones, and forcing virtually the entire Jewish world to develop a strong digital and virtual presence. Even though research and the peer-review process were largely finished prior to Covid, it also forced me to go back and reexamine the research and assumptions. How did the Jewish world adapt? How did the innovative and independent communities adapt versus the mainstream ones? How did the digital shift affect Jewish life and even the Jewish religious and communal model?

We even discussed one of the latest trends of the new Jewish landscape taking shape and being powered by the Covid era – online and informal Jewish engagement. We discussed, for example, TikTok and Instagram influencer Miriam Anzovin, who made headlines by calling a Talmudic sage a “misogynistic ageist dipshit” in her daily reflection and rant on the “Daf Yomi” – her daily learning of Talmud. Anzovin is a part of this new trend of modern and very unorthodox engagement with deep and traditional Judaism. To give the reader an idea, Anzovin had 7,000 followers online when the article was first published – today she has over 30,000 who tune in regularly to her short clips to learn Talmudic wisdom in a very informal, modern and personal manner.⁴

The following pages are part field guide to the Jewish innovation ecosystem, part reexamination of demographic studies of Jewish communities, part summary of generational shifts of Americans and American Jews, part unpacking and decoding what seems to work in engaging younger Jews, and part reflections and implications of what could happen in the American Jewish community in the coming decade or two. There is also a section added at the conclusion of the research as to how some of the communities managed the Covid-19 pandemic and how this period might impact Jewish life moving forward. My hope is that this becomes a useful tool for Jewish Americans (and Jews everywhere) to learn about what some Jews are doing to inject energy and creativity into Jewish life, to find authenticity. I also intend this to be a rebuttal of sorts to those in the United States and here in Israel who buy into and advance the narrative that non-Orthodox American Judaism is fast disappearing, and can therefore be discounted or dismissed entirely. That hardly seems to be the case. Even here, however, Israelis and others alike must learn to engage with these new frameworks in new ways, with new language and new thinking.

This transition stage is critical, and I hope this study helps us navigate it more steadily.

Dan Feferman

Jerusalem, November 2022