Two results of the Pew Research Center’s national survey, “A Portrait of Jewish Americans,” have dominated the media.  First, Orthodox Judaism appears to be more successful than other movements in maintaining Jewish continuity.  Second, American Jews are becoming more secular. 

Over a quarter of Gen X (born 1965-1980) and almost a third of Millennials (born 1981-1995) are categorized as atheist, agnostic, or having no particular religion. These “seculars” are much less likely to join Jewish organizations. 

These results, which may be closely related, provide reasons for religious organizations to target their efforts on those for whom religion is important rather than at the broad “unaffiliated.” The results also suggest the development of more substantive Jewish programs for non-religious Jews of all kinds. 

The headlines touting the relative success of Orthodoxy over the other movements may be overstated as they treat all individuals the same regardless of how important religion is to them in the first place. Eighty-three percent of Orthodox Jews report that religion is very important to their lives with only 3 percent saying it is of not much importance.  By contrast 43 percent of Conservative Jews and only 16 percent of Reform Jews say that religion is very important to their lives, while 17 percent of Conservative Jews and 43 percent of self-identified Jews believe that religion is “not too” or “not at all” important. 

These results are not surprising because being an Orthodox Jew in large part entails making religion an important part of one’s life, where no such requirement follows an identity as a Reform or Conservative Jew.  For many people, identifying as a liberal Jew—and particularly a “Reform” Jew—is synonymous with saying “less religious” rather than embracing that movement’s core religious principles and practices.  The same is not true for Orthodoxy.   

Orthodoxy as a movement, then, may seem to be more successful than other movements because we measure its success only among those for whom religion is important.  Liberal movements seem to fare less well because we measure their success among a broader group of people, most of whom do not find religion itself particularly compelling.   Why would we think any religious movement would have much success among people for whom religion is not very important?  

Faulting the other movements for failure among all Jews is a little like blaming the local dairy for poor sales among the lactose intolerant.  

If we want to compare the relative success of the movements, let us compare the success of each among the same kinds of people, i.e., those for whom religion is important.  (In social scientific terms we want to hold constant an individual or family’s religiosity before taking into account the effectiveness of a synagogue, movement or other external factor in producing the effect.) Orthodoxy may well do much better than the other movements in attracting and retaining those for whom religion is important. But when we control for the importance of religion to an individual parent or family, Conservative and Reform Judaism are likely to do much better in terms of most measures of success than they seem to when we do not make that distinction.   

A second headline that was common in reports about the survey — that younger Jews are more likely to be secular, and that secular Jews are less likely to affiliate — may be closely related.  

Let’s refer to “secular Jews” and “Jews for whom religion is unimportant” as “non-religious Jews.” One reason that non-religious Jews are “much less connected to Jewish organizations and much less likely to be raising their children Jewish,” (Pew Study) is because there are fewer institutions to help these Jews live fully authentic, but non-religious Jewish lives.  If that is so, our response to bemoan the loss of vibrant religious institutions is misplaced.  Rather, our response should envision a more dynamic approach to non-religious forms of Jewish engagement of all kinds, particularly in small and mid-sized American Jewish communities where cultural and intellectual engagement with Jewish life is less robust.   

Non-religious approaches to Jewish life treat Jewish texts as important, but not sacred sources of wisdom worth continued engagement. They treat Jewish ritual and observance as lived poetry, but not the sanctification of time or space. These approaches view our obligations to tzedakah (charity or justice) as ethical ones illustrated by Jewish tradition, but not necessarily commanded by God.  Non-religious Jews celebrate holidays like Passover and Hannukah in ways that highlight more universal themes of freedom and persecution in the world today but without the intervention of a divine presence in the story.  And they view the continuity and connectivity to the Jewish People as an important and meaningful political and sociological fact, but not one with theological distinctiveness.  

These non-religious approaches to Jewish life are inspiring and deeply meaningful to those who participate in them.  But they require institutional support, no more or less than religious Jews of any movement require institutions to support their engagement with Judaism. Our commitment to finding ways of engaging the non-religious would provide them that support rather than attempting to attract them to religious institutions animated by ideals and commitments that they do not have and are not looking for. 

Indeed, it should not be a surprise that non-religious Jews do not join existing Jewish organizations since the primary organizations of Jewish life are religious organizations and contrary to a secular Jew’s worldview. Jews for whom religion is not very important would seem to have little reason to invest time and effort in learning and practice within such religious organizations. 

Models for non-religious engagement with Judaism exist most robustly in Israel.  This is not surprising because Israel was a state founded in good measure by secular humanists and avowed atheists (along with their religious brethren):  fully 41 percent of its current Jewish population declares itself to be “non-religious.”

Programs like BINA and ALMA  offer secular engagement with service and Jewish study without having to accept religious belief or practice.  Ruth Calderon, the founder of ALMA, is now a member of Knesset and her inaugural speech last year teaching Talmud was a YouTube sensation.

An emphasis on non-religious Judaism may well lead some people to be inspired by religious ideals and ultimately to synagogue membership. But that should not be our community’s only standard of success.  

The aim instead should be to provide opportunities for all Jews to be inspired by the richness of living a Jewish life, a tradition that encourages us to contemplate questions of deeper meaning and inspires us to act with justice for all; whether religion is important to them, whether or not they believe in God or are secular Jews. 

Investing in non-religious Jewish life thus must not undermine traditional institutions critical to the maintenance of our community.  Dynamic synagogues, innovative religious day school education, and meaningful Jewish summer camps are still the primary institutions for most Americans who affiliate and who are, by the Pew Study’s estimates, religiously identified. My guess is that by recognizing the distinction between the religious and non-religious, and the potential for dynamic non-religious Judaism, both our religious and non-religious communities are more likely to thrive. 

Andrew Rehfeld, Ph.D., is President and CEO of the Jewish Federation of St. Louis.