The Kiruv Debate: A Response to "Haterz Gonna Hate"

     Kiruv professional Rachel Eden recently responded to one of my recent posts, continuing our kiruv debate. You can read her post "Haterz Gonna Hate" on her blog. I must admit that I'm disappointed with her title. I'm a firm believer that disagreeing with a person's point of view doesn't make someone a "hater." It takes courage to disagree respectfully, and even if we don't expect to accept the other's perspective for our own, I think that having a dialogue enables both parties to learn from each other. Labeling a party who disagrees with one's point of view (even though that party has maintained a respectful exchange) as "haterz" is dismissive and unproductive. That said, I'll start by pulling out some of Ms. Eden's responses from her post. Where she states in bold "she asks," Ms. Eden is referring to me. Notice that my full name is not used here. "I answer" refers to Ms. Eden.

She Asks:  I have no problem with people coming to orthodoxy by their own volition. The problem I have is when people are willfully misled by kiruv workers who teach that the all-encompassing cozy blanket is “just Judaism.” It is not “just Judaism.” It is specifically an Ashkenazi brand of orthodox Judaism.”"

I Answer: Rebecca makes an interesting point. The Torah – written and oral law was given thousands of years ago. In the early 19th century, the reform movement was created and as a reaction to that, in around 1850, the conservative movement began. Most non-orthodox practicing Jews are practicing a relatively new form of Judaism that doesn’t match up with the authentic tradition given over in 2448. That original version of Judaism is “just Judaism”. I am absolutely pointing Sephardi Jews towards experts in Sephardi customs and Sephardi groups. I have no intention of dictating customs. There is, however, a basic list of expectations Jews observe and then beyond that minimal set of laws- it’s up to the person how they want to practice. I always tell my students to be true to themselves (they should also be true to Judaism). Side-note: “Willfully misled”? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

     First of all, "willfully misled" means "deliberately misled." "Willfully misled" is definitely not an oxymoron.
     Secondly, it seems to me that the only Judaism that's probably mostly unchanged by chumras and reinterpretations, and that may be closest to what used to be practiced  is the Judaism practiced by the Middle Eastern Jews, thus making Aish Judaism not very "traditional." [Updated here to add this: I was reminded by an acquaintance a few moments ago that perhaps the most "traditional" Judaism would be that which was practiced by the Ethiopian Jews.] Would you let your child marry a person who keeps shabbos, taharat hamishpacha (family purity laws,) and kosher? What if they're actually Conservative but keep these things?

She Asks: If Ms. Eden’s children were to decide that they no longer believed that orthodox Judaism was the way to go, and instead, opted to live as Humanist Jews, would Ms. Eden be as accommodating to their needs as she expects non-orthodox parents should be to the needs of their BT children? Let’s assume that her children are simply following their own path in Judaism. Would she “commend [her] own parenting efforts because, after all, [she] taught them the importance of being Jewish which led to this self-discovery?

I Answer: Another nice point, Bec. The above image “Just Be You” is me being facetious. I’m not typically one of those facebook posters who paste a cliche into their status bar. If you are, no judgement- sometimes I even enjoy reading them.

I'm going to interject here. Ms. Eden says that "Just Be You" is facetious? So she doesn't want people to be themselves? I took her at her word and didn't ascribe any sarcasm that phrase, and I didn't assume she was just using that cliche facetiously. That suddenly clarifies a lot. She doesn't want you to "just be you" at all.

 If my children, God forbid, decided to live as “humanist Jews” that wouldn’t be self-expression.

Interjecting again. Note the "God forbid" here in use and the lack of capitalization for the proper noun--it's the name of a specific movement-- "Humanist Jews." Perhaps readers here feel that "God forbid their children should become orthodox." If we said that, we'd be labeled "haterz." Why the double standard?

Let me explain. I believe God created the Torah as a guide to living for all Jews in every generation. Just like when my husband and I married, we created an understood exchange of expectations (ex/ we come home every evening, know for the most part each other’s whereabouts, pool our money together, are faithful to one another, etc). My children also know I have expectations of them (speak respectfully, eat health food usually, clean up after playtime). God created expectations for our benefit – and our benefit alone. Hashem doesn’t need us to do this stuff- this stuff is how we keep spiritually healthy. After we do everything we need to do to keep spiritually healthy, we can start to consider self-discovery, creativity, more spiritual outlets.

The more we dissect this, the less healthy it sounds. You can do what you want, as long as you do what I want first. For someone who loves and welcomes all Jews, this seems very disrespectful to all Jews who are not orthodox. I hope that if Ms. Eden's children ever go off the derech (off the path of orthodox Judaism,) that she doesn't toss them to the curb like yesterday's trash. And I sincerely hope that she will respect their life choices and love them unconditionally.

But there’s a minimum standard as I said before. I’m happy to accommodate my children as long as they’re being healthy. If there are parents who think practicing a Torah-observant life is unhealthy, I’d like to hear why please.

This isn't about a Torah-observant life being healthy or unhealthy. It is about doing deceptive outreach to students under the guise of genuine friendship.
     In short, the answer to my question is no. Ms. Eden believes, as a kiruv professional, that a non-orthodox lifestyle is not a spiritually healthy lifestyle. This explains why, if her children left orthodoxy, their lifestyles would not be acceptable to her. This also justifies her outreach work. Does she tell her students that non-orthodox Judaism is spiritually unhealthy when she sits down with them for coffee for the first (or second, or third, or fifteenth) time? Does she tell this to their parents when they sign checks for donations to her organization? OR are these forms of Judaism only spiritually unhealthy for her own children?

 She Asks: Within the last post, I also posted claims made by another (anonymous) person in kiruv which seem to contradict your claims. ”AM” (“Anonymous Mekarev”) states that:

1. It is the firm position of Halachic Judaism that all Jews have a responsibility to influence others to the realization that there is a creator of the world and that there is a correct code of conduct for human beings in general and Jews (as His reps to the world) in particular.
2. We are to do this by any peaceful means including persuasion because we are held responsible for others’ actions and welfare to the amount that we can influence them for the better. We have a moral obligation to educate people about this code of conduct who – through no fault of their own – do not yet understand what is incumbent upon them being born as Jews.

I Answer: Firstly, I’m one of those annoying people that don’t enjoy reading anonymous posts. I just don’t see why a person gets to state an opinion and not stand behind it proudly. That said, I’ll oblige since Bec and I now go way back.

1. I never considered kiruv a responsibility though maybe that’s bad. I feel really fortunate to have investigated Judaism at a time in my life when I could create a home and family on the basis of my conclusions. I feel fortunate to be born into a religious with a built in infrastructure for how to live life to its fullest and grow every day. I feel so fortunate that it seems wrong not to share what I benefit so much from with others.

2. I don’t agree with Anonymous’ point here at all. “We are to do this by any peaceful means”? “We are held responsible for others’ actions”? No and no. There are boundaries. There are lines. There are no-nos. Anonymous needs to back up what s/he is accusing – a dangerous accusation- with some evidence and there’s not a shred of it. My husband and I would never manipulate anyone or pressure someone to be a frum Jew. Before our desire to educate people about Judaism is our obligation to be upright people. Anonymous sounds like a rabble rouser and I’m suspicious of this person’s credibility.

     Let's take the first sentence. Ms. Eden does not like anonymous posts. Yet she refuses to link to my blog or refer to me by my full name. She will not print my blog's title. She doesn't like anonymity, yet insists on keeping me anonymous. I am not anonymous. In fact, I have my name on my blog (as well as my bio with some of my other writing.) This lack of proper attribution is both hypocritical and academically dishonest.
     To address the issue of anonymous posters on my blog: I have had many people in kiruv contact me personally. Some I've even spoken with on the phone. However, many have expressed a sincere need to maintain anonymity due to their positions within their organizations, and for the privacy that they desire but often lack as public figures, or as people of influence within their respective communities. That said, these are ideas that we're discussing, not people. A valid opinion is a valid opinion. This differs from purposely hiding the identity of someone with whom you disagree because you don't want other people to access information being provided.
     While I'm not sure who the Anonymous Mekarev is, his words sound vaguely like they were influenced by Project Inspire, an Aish HaTorah affiliate. At the same time, they remind me of something I read in Aish HaTorah's "The Eye of A Needle: Aish HaTorah's Kiruv Primer." While AM and I don't see eye to eye on kiruv, he generally makes well-thought out points that seem to be based on familiar and accepted work in the kiruv field.

She Comments: While yes, there are key issues within the blog as a whole, it was my understanding that we were actually discussing specific points we were each making within the body of discussion.

I React: If there are specific points to address, I’m game. However, my guess is there are a couple underlying themes that once we identify we can cut right to the chase. For example, now that I’ve had so many interactions with your readership I now have the hunch that these anti-kiruv people are actually anti-orthodox.

     It's sad to see this in print because I've had this "argument" tossed at me too many times to count and I really thought that Ms. Eden was above this cheap shot. I've even written posts about these words. It seems to me that whenever there is disagreement between Jews, and the non-orthodox Jew has ideas that the other may disagree with, instead of putting up a valid argument, the discussion turns to "well, you must be anti-orthodox/anti-semitic/a self-hating Jew." I've seen this online, I've received private emails about it, I've seen this on online forums, and I've seen it in local politics. It's an interesting way of shutting down and dismissing points that may be valid but the other party would prefer not to address. While I don't personally know all of the people who comment on this blog, I can speak for some who are not anti-orthodox, but anti-deceptive proselytizing. I believe that it is your freedom to practice your religion, but don't push it on me or my children, especially when you're doing it deceptively.

She Comments: I’m also really curious to know about these “outrageous comments and points that are too ridiculous and off-the-wall to address.”

I React: One example is when you paralleled my work in Jewish outreach with rape. For starters.

I actually thought that my example was fabulous. Here it is again for reference.

Regardless of the outcome, the steps themselves are in place to form a relationship that otherwise would not exist. Whether the relationship is good or bad as an end result really isn't the issue at all. Here's an example: A woman is raped. As a result of that rape, she ends up pregnant. For her own personal reasons, she decides not to have an abortion. She decides to keep the baby and the child gives her joy throughout her life. The fact that she loves her child more than anything does not suddenly make rape acceptable. These are two separate issues. Part A--rape is wrong, no matter what the outcome. Part B--the woman has a child whom she loves. In the case of kiruv, Part A is also separated from Part B. The relationship is contrived with a specific goal in mind. If the relationship works out for both parties, that's wonderful, but it doesn't negate Part A.*

     It shouldn't need to be explained here that my point is and remains, that regardless of the outcome, the initial steps taken were wrong. Deception is wrong. But that's coming from me--someone who believes that a person's spirituality (or lack thereof) is personal, and who doesn't believe that orthodoxy (in whatever form) is the only way to express one's Judaism or spirituality, and who doesn't believe that missionary tactics are acceptable. I believe that we all have the right to practice our religion in a way that doesn't harm others. From what I've seen of kiruv, that which is practiced deceptively is both harmful and unethical.

 

All quoted material except that with an asterisk is from:
Eden, Rachel. "Haterz Gonna Hate." This Way To Eden. December 27, 2013.

Material with an asterisk is from:
*Ross, Rebecca M. The Kiruv Debate: A Response to "La Responsa." Jewish Outreach: What Your Rabbi Isn't Telling You. December 22, 2013.

            

The Continuation of the Great Kiruv Debate

     The other day, I responded to kiruv professional Rachel Eden's rebuttal of my article about her blog post. As things were left, it was her turn.  For those just tuning in now, here's a brief summary. Ms. Eden's initial post outlined how she approaches and selects appropriate students who might be good targets for her work as a Jewish outreach professional. I criticized her techniques. She wrote defending her actions. I wrote a response, countering the points that she made in her refutation. Her latest response, "Playing Defense in a War that Need Not Exist," can be found on her blog. As always, I just want to mention that I'm not personally attacking Ms. Eden's character, just the ideas on this issue that she's putting out there.

     When I read Rachel's latest response, I have to admit, I was a bit turned off to our debate. Not because she said anything that I found odd or disturbing, but because what had started off as a point by point discourse in previous postings, was turned into a general attack of my blog and comments garnered, instead of actually addressing the valid and respectful points and questions I had made in my previous post. Rather than address my refutations of her points, she instead states "Rebecca makes a couple [of] outrageous comments and points that are too ridiculous and off-the-wall to address." I hope that Ms. Eden will share with the readers these "outrageous comments and points that are too ridiculous and off-the-wall to address" that she claims I made while refuting her points. How are they "outrageous" and "ridiculous" and "off the wall?" Why shut the dialogue down by dismissing the points I made? Furthermore, by straying from the initial points that I made (all based on Ms. Eden's previously posted statements,) Ms. Eden never actually defends her arguments, but instead attempts to change the subject. Whether this is done to confuse readers, or because she really has no legitimate defense of her claims, or for whatever reason, it is not a tactic unfamiliar with people dealing with kiruv professionals. I'm sure that I'm not the first person who has had dealings with kiruv workers, both online and in real life, who have danced around real questions and thrown out straw men in an effort to obfuscate the original issue being discussed. Part of this is the feeling on the part of the kiruv professionals that just because a person has questions, doesn't mean that they are questions that justify answers.
     As expected, Ms. Eden once again gives her readers no way of reading the original posts in which I criticize and discuss her points. There are no links (other than one posted by someone in her comments section,) no blog title, and no post titles so that her readers can even read what it is she is spending valuable time writing about. Her readers are never given the opportunity to see both sides of the debate--only the side that she is presenting. That reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
     In a select few instances, the matter of kiruv is actually discussed, and so I'll address those few moments here. Ms. Eden states:

YES, I do hope that students who’ve joined me for a cup of coffee at the Starbucks near campus will observe Shabbat more wholly, invest time into their relationship with God, identify more strongly as a Jew, be a more dignified and modest person, feel more connected to other Jews, honor their parents, opt to raise a Jewish family, celebrate Jewish holidays, the list goes on and on and on. I too hope to change for the better from these experiences and there’s no question in my mind that the list I just wrote above would enhance any Jew’s life. 

How does Ms. Eden expect these students to celebrate/observe these things? Is she alright with students attending synagogue and then heading out for dinner at the local Peruvian restaurant? Will she settle for students opting for egalitarian services in which a woman cantor and rabbi lead the services? Maybe the real question is whether Ms. Eden is teaching students from a Reform, Conservative, Humanist, Reconstructionist, or other liberal Jewish perspective? Or is she only teaching them from an Ashkenazi-based orthodox perspective? And if she's only teaching from an Ashkenazi-based orthodox perspective, how is she addressing the needs and differences in cultural practice of those of Sephardi heritage? Does she tell Jews of Middle Eastern ancestry that they have a distinct cultural flavor that differs drastically from those of European descent? Rachel Eden states that "the point of my presence [as an outreach worker on campus] is to create a Jewish student community and enhance their observance of Mitzvot." Ms. Eden, how is this not to be interpreted as grooming students for orthodoxy? Are you encouraging students to also seek other Jewish options (such as Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Humanist, and other liberal factions,) outside of orthodoxy?

Because I want Ms. Eden to respond to the points in my previous post, I am not going to cover each and every off-topic remark made in her latest post. Doing so takes away the legitimacy of the debate itself, and since this is in writing, it should be easy enough to refute the points made, and certainly easy enough to go back for reference. I do however, want to address this line: "But let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water." This is a stock phrase that is used by almost everyone in kiruv at one time or another. The thought process is that if a particular brand of orthodoxy didn't work out for you, compassionate kiruv workers understand. Their brand is the real thing. Their brand is really the most inspiring form of Judaism (not the other one you were unfortunately sold on that other time!) and they want to show it to you. "The Toyota didn't work out for you? That's because what you really need is a Mercedes. And I have a Mercedes, and because you're a close friend, I'm going to let you drive mine for a while. Trust me. Whatever you do, you don't want to ride a bike. My Mercedes is the way to go." The "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" thought process fails to take into account that people have legitimate reasons for not choosing whichever form of Judaism they've rejected. That approach fails to see people as human, and reduces them to social experiments at the hands of the kiruv professional.
     Ms. Eden writes:

But let’s get a few things straight:

1. I don’t care about the color of your yarmulke.
2. I don’t mind if you like classical music or jazz or Jewish.
3. I do think Jews shouldn’t eat pig or lobster but if you want to be a vegetarian-  go for it- I’ll happily accommodate you at dinner.
4. How you choose to express your creativity is totally up to you within the confines of the Torah (obviously).

Be YOU. And YES> Be Jewish. (sic)

This sounds great on paper. However, while Ms. Eden doesn't care about your yarmulke's color, she assumes that you'll be wearing one. She doesn't "mind" what type of music you like. Whether or not she'll try to influence you to not engage in mixed dancing, or discourage women from singing in front of men is another story. She'll accommodate your vegetarianism, provided you're requesting kosher food at her table. And she's happy for you to be creative "within the confines of the Torah (obviously.)" Whose interpretation of the Torah are we following here? Is this an orthodox interpretation? Or can students follow the Reform version? Will she be supportive of that version? Or the Conservative, or Reconstructionist, or Humanist interpretations? Or is it only a particular brand of Ashkenazi orthodoxy's version that Ms. Eden will support?
     Ms. Eden says "Be YOU. And YES>Be Jewish."(sic) And so I wonder, when orthodox Judaism doesn't sit well with Ms. Eden's students, does she refer them to the local non-orthodox synagogue? When her female students express a desire to become rabbis, does she try to discourage them with talk of how women have separate roles within Judaism, or does she tell them that they can be ordained in liberal Jewish schools, such as Hebrew Union College and the Jewish Theological Seminary? If she is not advising these other ways of "saving the baby," then she is effectively throwing out the Jewish babies as well, unless they follow her orthodox teachings.
     I do sincerely hope that Ms. Eden will address the points in my previous post, and answer the questions in both this and the last post. Discussing Jewish outreach is very interesting, but I wonder if Ms. Eden's own followers are curious as to why she is not addressing the points that are being made, and answering the questions, as well as why she is withholding information pertinent to having a balanced view of the discussion. Tennis is a great game to observe, but it's really not much fun to watch if you are only allowed to see one side of the court.

All quoted material from:
Eden, Rachel. "Playing Defense in a War that Need Not Exist." This Way to Eden. December 25, 2013.

The Kiruv Debate: A Response to "La Responsa"

     One of the amazing things about the internet is that it gives people the opportunity to connect with each other in ways that we never could before. It gives us the opportunity to look at ideas critically, write about those ideas, and, if we're lucky, receive a response.  My last post, Kiruv Professional Writes about Recruiting Jews on Campus, received a blog post in response. (You can read the original here, but I do want to request that if you do comment on Rachel Eden's post on her blog site, to please feel free to agree or disagree--but be respectful.) I will be referencing her article in pieces in order to respond fairly.
     Rachel begins by writing

Amazing what adrenaline can do. I was hoping for an early night. Just half an hour ago, I was lying in bed (half-asleep) and ready to turn in. I decided that I’d let the blog go for the evening or the week but, by-the-by, found an article in the blogosphere that took my article (this one) out of context to promote different and oppositional ideas so now…I’m awake.  I’d rather not draw anyone’s attention to this blog because I don’t agree with the writer at all but I would like to acknowledge the style of the writer’s (Rebecca’s) article. Rebecca didn’t attack me in any way or at least I don’t feel attacked by Rebecca personally but some of my writing was misinterpreted to fit with her agenda which I don’t love. Rebecca- we’re women- so let’s put it all out there. You’re my Jewish sister. Let’s get real. Really real. Therefore, friends, I give you: La Responsa.

I do sincerely hope that Rachel got a good night's sleep afterwards. For the record, I do try to be very respectful of those I criticize. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that we're not each deserving of respectful dialogue. I want to thank Rachel for recognizing that I wasn't attacking her personally. She continues:

1. In my article “Blowing the Head Off Of Campus Outreach”, the goal for most kiruv professionals is to help a student feel more connected to Judaism, God, other Jews, and to develop (from that connection) a stronger commitment to Judaism. Most kiruv professionals that I’ve spoken to (and I talk to the most fanatic!) do not want carbon copies of themselves or even to force a student into an “orthodox lifestyle” (her words). A the goal for most kiruv professionals is to help a student feel more connected to Judaism, God, other Jews, and to develop (from that connection) a stronger commitment to Judaism. to reflect that connection is not the same thing as forcing someone into a little cookie-cutter mold called “orthodox”.  True story.

     I have to agree and disagree here. I do agree that "the goal for most kiruv professionals is to help a student feel more connected to Judaism, God, other Jews, and to develop (from that connection) a stronger commitment to Judaism." However, it's what those words mean that I find troubling. For a Jewish student connected to a non-orthodox yet Jewish lifestyle, "stronger commitment" means increasing levels of observance. Because the outreach worker happens to be orthodox by default, that person will be emphasizing "a stronger commitment to Judaism," but through orthodox practice. Because orthodox Judaism doesn't recognize the more liberal factions of Judaism to be valid expressions of Judaism, kiruv workers will not be encouraging students to practice Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or Humanist Judaism. Ms. Eden suggests that encouraging students "to reflect that connection [a student's stronger commitment to Judaism] is not the same thing as forcing  someone into a little cookie-cutter mold called "orthodox."" However, she then appears to contradict herself in her second statement:

2. My “brazen” (her words) mention of students needing inner-strength to live a more Jewish life even when friends and, at times, family take exception…Where to start? We all (should) make choices at some point that don’t sit well or even threaten others. Whenever I go on a diet, I inevitably encounter people who are threatened by my new choices and I need to fortify myself to eat healthy and exercise in the face of such people. OK, not quite. It’s been a while since I’ve been on a real diet but the principle is there. It is  hard for certain types of people (usually the insecure types) to feel comfortable when someone else is making choices to live a healthier, happier life (I’m not just talking  about Jews). The idea is that those who truly love us will be happy we’re happy and support us. If not immediately, then eventually. Rebecca: Why fear change? Change can be good! In that vein, why fear questioning? The definition of “brainwash” is to adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure. The ability to question is a person’s only chance NOT to get brainwashed and I certainly hope you aren’t trying to brainwash your readers, Rebecca STRONG people QUESTION. WEAK people bury their heads in the sand.

     Let's go back. Ms. Eden said before she doesn't believe in forcing people into orthodox Judaism. Let's give the benefit of the doubt here, and get rid of the word "forcing." (To clarify, I don't believe that people are "forced," but are rather completely misled to believe that orthodox Judaism--the only type of Judaism being peddled by kiruv professionals--is the only valid expression of Judaism.) I see this second statement as contradicting her first statement. If students aren't being pushed or influenced towards orthodox Judaism, then the following should be unnecessary: "We all (should) make choices at some point that don’t sit well or even threaten others....It is  hard for certain types of people (usually the insecure types) to feel comfortable when someone else is making choices to live a healthier, happier life (I’m not just talking  about Jews)." What choices would these students be making that aren't sitting well with others? Is she talking about a move towards ... wait for it ... orthodox Judaism? Ms. Eden suggests that I "fear change." Again, what change would that be? If nobody is pushing orthodoxy, then there is no change. Except that's not true. As I've said before, I have no problem with people coming to orthodoxy by their own volition. The problem I have is when people are willfully misled by kiruv workers who teach that the all-encompassing cozy blanket is "just Judaism." It is not "just Judaism." It is specifically an Ashkenazi brand of orthodox Judaism.
     I do agree that it is very important to give people the ability to question. Of course, this goes both ways. In kiruv, outreach workers encourage their students to question their own non-orthodox lives in order to change their lives. In the real orthodox world, students who question orthodox doctrine, who question orthodoxy, who question their parents and their teachers, are often alienated from the community, rather than given the room to explore other expressions of Judaism, education, and personal satisfaction.
     Since we're talking about allowing people the option of questioning, this seems like a good time to point out this line from Ms. Eden's first paragraph: "I’d rather not draw anyone’s attention to this blog because I don’t agree with the writer at all." By not providing a link  to my blog (which is the writer's prerogative,) and by not providing even the title of the blog, nor the title of the post, Ms. Eden has robbed her own readers of their right to view and question a view that opposes her own. I don't fear questioning at all. The reason I started this blog was specifically for people who are looking for information and who are questioning. By providing information that is often left out by people in kiruv, it helps those who may not want to be steered towards orthodoxy to understand the underlying goal of outreach. This brings us to Ms. Eden's third point:

3. My step-to-step guide of how a kiruv professional develops a relationship with students does sound contrived and, in fact, is contrived. I’m not being facetious when I tell you that I’m not naturally sociable and don’t enjoy socializing, per se. The result of these steps is actually an organic relationship. Proof? My husband and I were “set up” on a blind date that led to a (short) series of dates before our engagement. The whole process was forced, contrived. However, my marriage is anything but contrived. It is very real. One can go through a premeditated series of steps and the outcome of the connection between those two people will depend on those two people- not the steps that got them there. My best friend is dating a guy who had a crush on her for two years and used the pretense of friendship to solidify a bond with her. Was he being dishonest? Honesty isn’t even in the equation. The honesty was his intention to connect and whether they’d end up together was up to their chemistry. Same with my relationships with students. Either we end up having a deep and long-lasting friendship or the chemistry isn’t right.

     The steps are contrived. Regardless of the outcome, the steps themselves are in place to form a relationship that otherwise would not exist. Whether the relationship is good or bad as an end result really isn't the issue at all. Here's an example: A woman is raped. As a result of that rape, she ends up pregnant. For her own personal reasons, she decides not to have an abortion. She decides to keep the baby and the child gives her joy throughout her life. The fact that she loves her child more than anything does not suddenly make rape acceptable. These are two separate issues. Part A--rape is wrong, no matter what the outcome. Part B--the woman has a child whom she loves. In the case of kiruv, Part A is also separated from Part B. The relationship is contrived with a specific goal in mind. If the relationship works out for both parties, that's wonderful, but it doesn't negate Part A.
Let's look at the fourth point.

4. Rebecca seems overly concerned with families who “try to figure out how to relate to their children and how to weather the growing pains of the baal teshuvah”. To me, a healthy and loving family views a member’s growing devotion to Judaism as a positive thing and accommodates the family member’s request for, say, kosher food. If my children ask me to serve them food that is more “kosher” than I’m accustomed to eating, I would be happy that they want to strive for a stronger commitment. I would commend my own parenting efforts because, after all, I taught them the importance of being Jewish which led to this self-discovery. I don’t want my kids to follow my path in Judaism. I want them to follow theirs. Abraham was happy to have Isaac and not another Abraham. Those two were different and had very different paths towards God. Both were good. Neither one should be judged. Abraham wasn’t preoccupied (I assume) with the fact that Isaac didn’t embrace the kindness of hospitality the way he did. Rather, he was proud that Isaac developed the trait of self-restraint and discipline.

     Let's look at this scenario through a different lens, but let's start with Rachel's statement, "I don’t want my kids to follow my path in Judaism. I want them to follow theirs." If Ms. Eden's children were to decide that they no longer believed that orthodox Judaism was the way to go, and instead, opted to live as Humanist Jews, would Ms. Eden be as accommodating to their needs as she expects non-orthodox parents should be to the needs of their BT children? Let's assume that her children are simply following their own path in Judaism. Would she "commend [her] own parenting efforts because, after all, [she] taught them the importance of being Jewish which led to this self-discovery?" If we are expected to understand that "Abraham and Isaac ... were different and had very different paths towards God" then we should understand that all Jews are different and have different pathways in life, making kiruv unnecessary. But that's not the case. A kiruv rabbi who has been commenting on this blog as anonymous but signs off as "AM" ("Anonymous Mekarev") states that:

1. It is the firm position of Halachic Judaism that all Jews have a responsibility to influence others to the realization that there is a creator of the world and that there is a correct code of conduct for human beings in general and Jews (as His reps to the world) in particular.

2. We are to do this by any peaceful means including persuasion because we are held responsible for others' actions and welfare to the amount that we can influence them for the better. We have a moral obligation to educate people about this code of conduct who - through no fault of their own - do not yet understand what is incumbent upon them being born as Jews. (AnonymousDecember 17, 2013 at 4:28 AM)

 These statements actually disprove the idea that the orthodox kiruv worker believes all Jews to have different pathways in life. Sure, maybe in the non-spiritual realm of their lives, but as far as their spiritual lives, outreach professionals believe that those pathways need to be paved with halachic Judaism as defined by orthodoxy. Based on this, it is my belief that while Ms. Eden thinks that non-orthodox parents should be happy to change their own lives to meet the new needs of their grown children, she would not necessarily be quite as happy to do this in the opposite situation.
     Ms. Eden ends her response with number five:

5. Finally, Rebecca’s (and her commenters’) plea for more transparency in campus outreach. I can only speak for myself and my husband when I say that our prayer for our students is a heightened awareness and connection with Judaism. We never made any other claim. Those students that I’m closest with (and are probably reading this) know I bust their chops about dating non-Jewish people because I love them and feel close enough to discuss my opinions openly with them. In return, they discuss their honest opinions with me. I’ve debated some extremely opinionated students in my day and one girl (who I feel very close to) has, indeed, left me changed. I believe she has made me a more open and less judgmental person. I hope I have made her more proud of her Judaism. How much more transparent can I get?
If you have an opinion – whether you agree with me or you don’t- I’d love to hear it.
Rebecca- whoever you are, wherever you are- I love you girl. Before you judge, how about listening with an open heart? You may be surprised there are no devil horns beneath my wig. 

     I will admit that I did chuckle at Rachel's last sentence. Many of my friends on Facebook probably saw my 2013 Halloween picture, in which I sported a pair of purple devil horns. I wear mine openly. Although I will admit that I gave up the wig years ago.
     Let me just take a quick moment to thank Rachel Eden, and my commenter AM, as well as any other kiruv professionals who have read and taken the time to respond to this blog--either as a whole, or in part. While we may not all agree on kiruv (my issue is deceptive kiruv,) I really hope that we can all continue to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue. I recognize that coming out to counter my posts may be daunting, but it shows that you are dedicated to your work. And even if I am not a fan of your work, I do admire your devotion to it. I've said in private conversations that we may disagree on this issue, but that doesn't mean that we disagree on all issues. As a rule, I attack the issue and I don't condone personal attacks. After all, we're not family. (That's a joke.) There are many people who comment on my blog who have suffered greatly because of deceptive practices, so understand that sensitivities often run high. For many, kiruv is a very emotional issue.
     I also want to thank those of you who have supported this blog by commenting, by reading, and by sharing these posts with your friends, family, and/or followers. I want to thank those of you who have reached out via email and Facebook to share your very personal stories with me. I am humbled by your willingness to open up to me, a total stranger. You folks are the reason I'm still writing about kiruv.
     I hope that by providing this side of the story, all of us--regardless of what side of the issue we support--can learn from each other.



Except for the material referenced within the body of the post written by anonymous poster AM, all quoted/indented text is from:
Eden, Rachel. "La Responsa." This Way to Eden. December 17, 2013.

Kiruv Professional Writes About Recruiting Jews on Campus

     On the blog "This Way To Eden-Documenting a Search for a Meaningful Life," Rachel Eden, a

 http://www.says-it.com/unclesam/index.php

woman devoted to kiruv (she's worked for Aish, taught Hebrew School, and worked in campus outreach,) writes about "demystifying kiruv."  In her own words, her "article refers to campus outreach as opposed to all other kinds, which by [her] estimation, is distinguished by its accelerated pace since young people tend to be more open to new ideas and [are] transient."
     In her post, she talks about what she and other outreach professionals look for in college students, and then goes on to write about how students are approached. At the end of the article, she makes a huge point about how few students actually end up orthodox, despite the huge amounts of time and money invested in the campus kiruv venture. She says that the ideal is that seven students per year commit to orthodoxy per campus venture, but believes the number to be lower. However, if seven is the number committing at the end of the year, I would want to know how many are sent on to yeshiva or other programs encouraging an orthodox lifestyle? I believe that students who are being groomed for a possible eventual move to orthodoxy may not necessarily commit to changing their lives while on campus, but are encouraged to go onto other organizations that will help them to get to that point.   
I'm pulling a few excerpts from the December 4, 2013 post because I think that they're very eye-opening. Again, remember that this is coming from someone who is a kiruv professional.

There are a few types of students educated outreach professionals tend to seek.... The idea is that if the assimilation rate is skyrocketing at the speed of lightening, who will your time and effort resonate with best?

1. Middos - good character traits. Nice, normal students. Is this person nice, punctual, helpful? These are questions my source tells me are critical to ask before investing serious time.
2. Intelligence. Torah’s philosophy is brilliant and true- and completely adverse to many ideas we have in the Western world. A student is required to question what s/he thought to be true about priorities and ideas. Such a person (obviously) must be a thinker but proceed with caution if the person takes too much pride in his/her intelligence (see #1)  or has an addiction  (not aspiring) to perfect grades.
3. Inner Strength. A student must have the emotional strength and wherewithal to stand up for what is right or walk away depending on the case. Change is very difficult but change in the face of possible peer or parental pressure requires nothing less than complete grit.1

In Ms. Eden's discussion of the three top traits that kiruv workers should look for when recruiting, she specifically looks for people with "inner strength" and brazenly mentions the difficulty in changing one's life in the face of peer or parental pressure. Of course, a potentially successful recruit would have to change one's life to become orthodox. Ms. Eden is also cautious of people who might be "addicted to perfect grades." She doesn't want people who are perfectionists. If I'm reading her correctly, this is because there is a fear that a potential recruit might take too much on too quickly, and this could cause a whole slew of problems for both the outreach worker and the student. The first quality that is considered important is the willingness to question. A person who is unwilling to question won't question their current lifestyle in order to possibly change it for a new and different lifestyle, in this case, orthodox Judaism.
Let's move on to the second part of  Ms. Eden's discussion about outreach:

Part two are the steps someone in outreach should take if they meet someone who fits the criteria and ..well…seems to like the rabbi/rebbetzin. In the scenario that follows, I’m the rabbi/rebbetzin and you’re the student:

Step 1: We meet. We connect. I ask you for another time to meet and connect.
Step 2: We do this consistently, talk about important philosophical ideas that most people don’t slow down long enough to consider, and we share our lives with one another through these conversations.
Step 3: I invite you over for Shabbat. You eat my food. You meet my family. I enjoy your company. We repeat this cycle often. Before or after Step 3, I throw in other invitations to social or educational programs that take place frequently (example: Maimonides)
Step 4: Our relationship is stronger now.  I invite you to a Shabbaton in a Torah-observant community. You have the opportunity to meet different types of religious  personalities and families to give you a more well-rounded perspective on what it means to live an orthodox life.
Step 5: I invite you to learn and tour in Israel on a short (10 day to 2 week) trip that’s an intense whirlwind of inspiration and gives new meaning to Judaism.
Step 6: We plan a longer trip for you to study in Israel and integrate Jewish ideology into your everyday life and future.

A nice tidy package, huh? Obviously this is an over-simplification but meant to be a generalized structure for creating an environment where positive relationships and a Jewish student community can flourish.2

     Ms. Eden gives us a nice step-by-step list of how kiruv works. A relationship is built gradually. Deep conversations are had. Invitations are issued. That part of the "cycle" is repeated "often." Sounds nice, kind of like a friendship. Except that in this scenario, the target person is befriended only because the outreach worker has determined him/her to be a good choice for a potential recruit, based on the first piece of quoted material. The potential recruit isn't being invited to talk about life's meaning over coffee because the kiruv professional wants to be a friend. The kiruv professional is feeling  him/her out, and if he/she is receptive, then the outreach agent will move to the next step. This way, outreach professionals can say "see? We never pressured anyone. They got involved of their own volition!"
     Following the steps outlined by Ms. Eden, we come to Step 3, in which she mentions that she might toss in invitations to join other programs (she mentions Maimonides--a program run by Meor,) in addition to an invitation to Shabbat at her house with her family. With all of these invitations and discussions going on, the kiruv professional has now gotten the potential recruit involved in a program that pushes a one-sided view of Judaism. But if questioned, this is all "just Jewish." Keep in mind that the college student away from home is now thinking of the rabbi and rebbetzin as friends who are looking out for him or her. The student now trusts these people, and believing them to be friends, or at the very least, people who care for him/her,  and is more likely to be convinced to get involved in any extracurricular programs that they run. The problem here is that this relationship is not based on honesty. The student is being honest and may be thrilled to have such deep conversations, but the student is not aware that the reason this relationship exists is for the sake of recruiting this student to orthodoxy.
     Steps 5 and 6 take the student to different venues to study Judaism. Jewish students are told about Birthright and may be encouraged to travel on a Birthright trip sponsored by the campus rabbi's organization. If the student shows an even greater interest, he/she will be further encouraged to attend a yeshiva abroad.
     I stated earlier that Ms. Eden said that maybe they get seven people to commit to orthodoxy a year per campus. (Again, keep in mind that a person may become orthodox at yeshiva in step 6, so he/she isn't necessarily orthodox from the campus rabbi.) That may not sound like a lot. But let's take one hundred campuses with seven recruits per year on average. That's still seven hundred new recruits. That's seven hundred kids who started off as non-orthodox Jews and rejected their upbringing. That's seven hundred families that will have been thrown into disarray, as parents try to figure out how to relate to their children and how to weather the growing pains of the baal teshuvah, who, at times will exhibit self-righteous behavior and disdain for their upbringing. 
     Comments from people on this blog can often be broken into two camps: people defending Jewish outreach and people against Jewish outreach. This is because those who defend kiruv feel that they are doing what their god wants, and people who are opposed find that notion to be ridiculous and offensive (and very similar to what non-Jewish missionaries do.) However, the one thing that the anti-deceptive kiruv camp wants is more transparency in outreach. You want to proselytize? That's great. Tell people from the very beginning why you are on campus. Tell them that you'd love for them to become orthodox and that's your sole purpose for being on campus. Explain to them that you, the outreach worker, are teaching strictly from an orthodox perspective and that you would like the students under your tutelage to ultimately become observant. Let's face it. Shouldn't people who claim to be brethren exercise at least the same respect that Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints exercise towards us? At least they tell us who they are and that they're hoping we'll accept Jesus. Why are our own brethren not even giving us the benefit of a straight story and instead, resorting to deception in order to further their own agenda?


1. Eden, Rachel. "Blowing the Head Off of Outreach." This Way To Eden, Documenting a Search for a Meaningful Life. 12/4/2013.
2. ibid.