Your responses in this thread have stated that “participation”, for you, is most meaningful when there is silence. You seem to see “outreach” as a somewhat limited matter of marketing and PR.

I respect your opinion, but others may have a different take. I myself heard a beautiful dvar torah last week about the karbanot that related how the 5 senses are an essential part of the davening experience. There are ways to encourage participation and inclusivenesss–for those individuals and shuls that want it–that are in keeping with halacha.

You may want to see your shul organized and structured in a certain way–fine. But others have just as much right to do things differently–that does not ipso facto make one way “Jewish” and another “non-Jewish”.

And therefore… what?

No one questions that it’s worthwhile for synagogues to do outreach, and to update their image to attract young families and singles (the JTA article is here). But do you imagine that an OU synagogue would do so by firing up the band on Friday night, or importing “mega-church” style singing and “participation?” The question isn’t the idea of attracting new audiences, but what methods are appropriate. Some take you towards Judaism, while others move you away.

Orthodox shuls get outreach grants

Two Orthodox synagogues received $20,000 and a third received $7,500 in outreach grants.

Congregation Beth Israel Abraham and Voliner in Overland Park, Kan., and Young Israel of New Rochelle, N.Y., each received $20,000 Orthodox Union Outreach Grants, it was announced Thursday.

This is the first year for the grant program, meant to encourage Orthodox synagogues to reach out to unaffiliated Jews in their communities. Thirty-one synagogues entered the competition.

Though just one $20,000 grant was meant to be awarded, the judging committee announced it could not decide between the two top contenders, and gave them each the same grant. It also allocated a third, smaller grant to Baron Hirsch Congregation in Memphis, Tenn.

The winning proposals offer detailed plans for creating and marketing programs aimed at young families, singles and other unaffiliated Jews and creating warm, welcoming congregations.

As I’m sure you realize, ‘SM’ creatively misread what I wrote. I’m not making an accusation about your motives, nor did you even refer to “participation.”

There are, nonetheless, any number of crucial differences between how traditional Judaism and Christianity (especially Catholicism) approach prayer and those who lead the service. In Judaism the prayer leader is merely the “Shaliach Tzibbur,” emissary of the congregation. What he does is invested with importance only because of the congregants. He need not be a Rabbi; he could be a teenage student.

In Judaism, the height of participation in the service is not when singing, or responding, or interacting in any way with those “down front.” It is at a moment of absolute silence.

Judaism and Christianity teach their followers to find their sources of inspiration in very different places. That’s exactly why Synagogue 3000 is so misguided.

You made a comparison between an Orthodox shul you attended, and which you criticized, fairly or not, and the Synagogue 3000 service. That is an unfair comparison since you are comparing the services found in two different movements, with different objectives, with different views on egalitarianism and women and prayer. So it seemed to me that notwithstanding your apparent “allegiance” to Orthodoxy, you really wished an Orthodox service to be more like Synagogue 3000. However, IMHO, that is untenable for a committed Orthodox Jew. We don’t look to the heterodox movements for our clues.

RC: Taubman gave a traditional derash? Also, wasn’t this mixed seating, thereby making it all but certain you participated? Finally, didn’t the microphone help you hear what was going on?

It maybe one thing to be influenced, which can result from natural historical trends, which halocheh can see fit to keep or discard. Its another thing to invite those influences into your shul/synagogue/temple (whatever Synagogue 3000 is) and have the influences speak from the pulpit.

I have not been to a mega church but I would suspect that the time of year or season, not unlike ancient Israel, would be reflective in the type and tone of the service. The church in which I attend is reformed meaning very orthodox. There are no women pastors, elders or deacons. Often prayers are lead by a teaching elder/Pastor and at other times during the service are silent - the entire congregation prays silently. Sometimes prayers are participatory and for a specific request to be brought before G-d. Music is appropriate to the season and the message of the sermon. The early service is more traditional with older hymns and organ, piano and orchestra while the later service is more contemporary with newer songs and fewer instruments. At times, hand clapping and raising is permitted - we’re trying to not be the frozen chosen. There is a worship order and a decorum but the experience is never without conviction or encouragement. The ultimate purpose is always to glorify G-d with praise, thanksgiving and voice - teaching,preaching, prayer and song. If you come to be entertained, your focus is on the wrong person. It isn’t about you. It is really all about G-d; he is the honored guest. Our attitude should be, at all times, reflective as if he were there.

Rick Warren is a well respected Pastor and has earned favor from many Christian denominations. Many extraordinary teachings and programs have come out of Saddleback Church. Those which I am familiar have strong biblical support and their intent is to strengthen, heal and direct the church body. I believe he is an ‘out-of-the-box’ pastor in a very good way. He is orthodox in belief but practical in application and he is willing and eager to share his excitement and enthusiasm about G-d to his congregation, other denominations and the nations in ways that bring honor to G-d. This is ‘catching’ but it is not catchy or shtick. He does step out in faith and his actions support his profession of faith.

Gentiles and Jews were created to glorify G-d with all of our being. How and where we do it is determined by the congregational leaders and their participants within appropriate order and time.

Attending an Orthodox Jewish Service - if I would even be permitted - might seem strange to me, at first. In all honesty, I would look to see how G-d is glorified, honored and revered by the congregation and leaders. If there is a teaching, I would see how this fits to the written word - Scripture. If there is reading of prayer, I would see how this reflects an attitude of humility, repentance and awe.

Both groups may be surprised at what we can learn from each other if we are willing.

It seems that RC was actually asking about how to obtain a spiritual benefit from a public service. The answer she got was actually an accusation about her motives.

Let me ask the question again: how does R Menken propose we deal with the de facto exclusion of women who want only to take the part in the service that Halacha permits them? That is, to be there, listen, hear and respond quietly?

What is that, please? I’m very serious. And how are the recruitment techniques of a mega church contrary to its principles.

We need to learn to separate content from methodology. Where the latter works to invigorate OUR message–T’A’ G”Ch, Messilat Yesharim, etc., grab it. There are too many casualties out there for us, that is Orthodox Jews, to remain smug and/or triumphalist.

Young Orthodox rabbis in Germany were similarly displeased with the “lack of decorum” in the old synagogue, and also with the “medieval” appearance of the old rabbi, and they too instituted changes, among them Haham Isaac Bernays and R. SR Hirsch.

I suppose you will propose that theirs was but a tactical approach, that really they longed for the “old synagogue” and wished they didn’t wear canonicals. However, such evidence is entirely lacking. It seems that as the 19th century rolled around the Jews of Western Europe were poised to modernize. Some felt that this meant halakhah goes. Others didn’t. But don’t confuse form over substance. Many Orthodox rabbonim also desired aesthetic reforms; they were but moderate Reformers.

The rightness of borrowing styles from the outside world depends on the situation; some are compatible with real Judaism and others not. Even the use of blogs for religious purposes was probably borrowed from somebody.

A home-and-home series between a “synagogue” and a church, or an outright rip-off of a church’s proprietary shtick, is Mega-Stupid.

I know the answer isn’t “no changes”, because the Siddur show the influence of societies where Jews lived. Tehillim (= psalms) uses the same poetic style used in Ugarit for idol worship. “Lecha Dodi” and other liturgical poems from the Middle Ages use poetic styles that were originally Arabic. The reclining in the Passover seder comes originally from Graeco-Roman culture, IIRC.

I don’t mean that Synagogue 3000 is necessarily a good thing - I can see NLG’s point that it could show Judaism as meaningless. I’m asking how far could an Orthodox service mutate and still be Orthodox.