by Richard A. Marker
[Published in "The Inclusive" by JOI, Spring 2003]

Early in my career, over 30 years ago, none of us had yet coined the terms outreach, inreach, engagement, empowerment for the work we were doing. I was working on campuses at the time and because of the nature of my appointment, had the choice between having my primary office at the Hillel House [2 blocks from the main quad] or in the center of campus with the other chaplains. I chose the latter. Intuitively, I knew that if I wanted to appear to be approachable, I needed to demonstrate that one didn't have to cross a symbolic threshold which for many was a barrier. In other words, the door of the Hillel House was, for many more of a gate than a portal.

I was aware that the vast majority of Jewish students believed myths [and most were inaccurate!] about what happened at Hillel and who went there. To take but one example, if one were to ask the average non-participating student who was at Hillel, they would say that it was "too Orthodox." In fact, the overwhelming majority of activities and participants were quite far from Orthodox and would have laughed at the description. And the few Orthodox who were involved with Hillel would have been shocked as well.

But perception creates its own reality, and here was a case where facts didn't matter. If I wanted to be seen as approachable by the overwhelming majority, I needed to demonstrate it symbolically. And so I chose to office elsewhere.

I don't know when I first learned the term "outreach" but, in retrospect, I was choosing to do exactly that. In the late 60's/early 70's there were some easy ways to demonstrate one's involvement in the majority culture. Fully ½ of my time was spent doing draft counseling and abortion counseling. Religious leaders had a key role in those movements, and it made it easy to be credible among the non-Jewishly-active students and faculty. But even later, as those issues receded and Jewish life began to thrive in very real ways, I always felt that we needed to be measured by our success in touching the large majority of people who did not choose to be activists.

This is not the place to rehearse some of the outreach methods I used. Many were quite successful; others less so. Nevertheless, these recollections surfaced recently as I read that the one movement which had committed itself to "outreach" has chosen to eliminate its outreach staff. That announcement brought about a cry of disappointment from many quarters. As of this writing, it appears that some progress has been made to sustain some of those positions.

However, even if all of those positions were to be maintained, I still believe that we as a community have it backwards. Even those institutions such as UAHC or Hillel which have made major commitments to reach beyond the core activists still do so in a peripheral way. For example, in almost every case, who works with the underaffiliated or marginally connected? Typically it is the most junior and often the most transient of professional staff. Yet, if one thinks about it, which population is most in need of carefully trained and sensitive staff? One cannot overemphasize the symbolic value of the senior leadership of a synagogue or Hillel affirming that the majority population matters through their direct involvement in outreach type activities.

Moreover, in contrast to the uninvolved, the most activist populations are typically most able to fend for themselves. Of course, they need serious professional educators, leaders, role models, and facilitators. But they are also best able to assume a shared partnership role in achieving what they want. They are most able to be empowered to fulfill their own visions of what Jewish life should be like.

The least involved, those most in need of engagement, are also the least likely to take a leadership role or to trust that the institution is and can be responsive to them. Often they have no articulated vision. Their knowledge of available resources and Jewish sources may be weak. They may be highly accomplished in other endeavors, but, all too often their experience with Jewish life has been alienating. And they look at the activists not as their leaders but rather as "super Jews" a different breed of Jew altogether.

And, most important of all, by any statistical measure of affiliation, involvement, or participation, this population represents the majority of North American Jewry.

Much has been written about the definition of and the value of outreach. Fro our purposes let us list 3 different approaches:

1. For some, outreach is a method to chase/find those who have opted for a different path. Those in favor of this understanding believe that the resources spent will re-engage those who do not feel comfortable within the established institutions. Often the hope is that they will indeed choose to "come in" in response to an effective outreach.

In response, some have criticized this approach as unlikely at best. It conveys a judgment that being outside is less acceptable than being inside and assumes that most people are simply waiting to be invited into institutions and organizations from which they might have felt alienated, an arguable assumption at best.

2. A second approach advocates a different model: If one wishes to engage the disengaged population, one must start outside and respond to their needs where people are. Hopefully the newly engaged will embrace their Jewishness seriously, but in their own ways and places and with their own social circle. In essence, this approach posits a parallel track for Jewish connection.

The starting assumption of both of the first 2 approaches is that a large number of Diaspora Jews do not affiliate, associate, or feel committed to the organized community. They are the target population of outreach efforts.

3. A third approach concentrates primarily or exclusively on those who are intermarried, their children, their spouses, or their parents. Seeing a demographic reality of a sizeable and growing number of families which have intermarried members, they argue that, unless one creates a community which accepts or engages them, the community is abandoning a great potential pool. There are two variations: there are those who believe in the ideal of in-marriage or conversion, and there are those who believe that only a non-judgmental full acceptance of the intermarried is viable. In either case, there is a rejection of the idea that this large subgroup is permanently removed from Jewish life and should be written off.

There are those who argue emphatically against any community resources being spent on outreach. This group believe that, faced with limited resources and an already watered down Jewish identity, the only valid and justifiable approach for the long term is "in-reach" - providing more and better service to those who choose to remain fully committed to Judaism and the Jewish community. They point to statistics which show a sobering attrition among the 2nd generation children of intermarried as proof of the foolishness of pretending that outreach makes sense. Moreover, they argue that a non-judgmental engagement approach constitutes a surrender to a self authenticating Judaism. If everyone can define his or her own Judaism, it has no transcendent common meaning.

Jewish public policy is what is at stake in this debate. We live at a time when individuals in American society can choose to do whatever they wish. And communities, whatever that word may mean, are strictly voluntary and therefore porous and as open or closed as any social group. So if there is to be any meaningful implication to the discussion it is in the realm of public policy and priority. And it is to these issues that I would like to address these remaining thoughts.

1. In-reach alone is an impossible approach. The current demographics in Diaspora Jewry show that almost any given family will have members who are intermarried, chozrai-b'tshuvah [religious returnees], marginally affiliated, and all variations in between. Even for those who follow the third approach suggested above, those who believe that the only valid approach is to support those who demonstrate a Jewish commitment, how does one functionally apply a policy of in-reach given this demographic reality?

2. Identities are fluid. As several studies have shown, individuals seem to flow from alienated to involved; to be secular one moment and spiritual the next; to be comfortable in non-Jewish settings at one hour and ethnically affirming at another. Contemporary identity studies suggest that individuals don't fit neatly into traditional categories. Any attempt to set policy which does not account for this fluidity is doomed.

3. Except for certain moments of rites of passage, there is no social difference in the daily life experience of those who are in-married and those who are inter-married. Social and business connections them together all the time. It is artificial to assume that one can reach out only to in-married or only to inter-married. In fact, most Diaspora Jews feel alienated or at least at a distance from most Jewish institutions. The commonality of experience is that most feel that they are outsiders. The major institutions of Jewish life must find ways to make the majority of people feel like insiders, or at least comfortable and welcome occasional visitors.

4. The most senior [professional and lay] leaders are not committed to the majority. While it seems strange to articulate the issue this way, it is the experience of many that "leaders" seem to be speaking only to each other. I don't believe that there is a purposeful and willful antagonism to those who feel like outsiders. In fact, most institutional leadership would readily concur that there is a problem, but naively act as if the answer is to invite more people to be like them.

5. It is time to re-examine our attitude toward proselytization. Over the centuries, the Jewish tradition has been inconsistent in its attitude toward conversion. Perhaps we are now at a time when our public policy should veer toward affirmative action. This is not an argument for street corner evangelization, but why should we not be more encouraging to those who may be exploring that we are open to them? On a demographic level, this is an obvious recommendation. Surely there are few enough of us that there is room for more fellow travelers. On an ideological level, it affirms that there is indeed uniqueness to the Jewish tradition which may speak to the larger world. This is not the place to elucidate that tradition, but such a perspective does not need to rise and fall with an argument around the chosen people question. I should also clarify that I write this as a Traditional Jew who believes that a conversion should follow Halachic procedure; but I also believe that history and even halachah allow a much more inclusive attitude, approach, response to inquiries, and public posture regarding conversions.

6. I have written elsewhere about the value of placing our Jewish institutions where people spend their time. What greater statement of inclusivity can there be than to have the synagogues, JCC's, Federations, and Hillels, the primary portals into Jewish life, in the same places where people do their daily chores?

7. To reach the un- or marginally-connected must we need to operate on two levels: big visibility programs such as birthright Israel to capture the imagination and attention of the intended population, and to create a culture of increased sensitivity to individuals who make choices based on their own private experiences.

If we as a Jewish community are serious about our demographic challenges, there are many changes which we must confront. These changes must include support for revitalized day schools, expanded camps, expanded Hillel programs, and many others. There must be more opportunities to participate, and high quality experiences for those who do. But unless we remember that the majority of Jews live comfortably outside our community's gates, we will continue to win small battles while losing the war of war for our future. It is no longer acceptable to have it backwards.

Back to top