Some Implications for Synagogues to the Emergent Jewish Communities Study
December 5, 2007 - כ"ה כסלו תשס"ח by
As many congregations continue to struggle with engaging younger members in synagogue life, synagogue leaders are continually asking, “What do American Jews want?”
Recent survey findings from the “Spiritual Communities Study” are providing some answers. The survey of some 80 emergent spiritual communities was conducted by Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion sociologist Steven Cohen on behalf of the S3K Synagogue Studies Institute and Mechon Hadar.
The findings of these emergent spiritual communities confirm that there is a healthy desire for spirituality, prayer informed by excellent quality and good music, and deep community, marked by sharing shabbat and holiday meals together on a regular basis. The study also affirms that people are looking for opportunities for serious engagement. Individuals want to bring their volunteer gifts to the synagogue and to utilize them without bureaucratic barriers. (Many synagogues have felt the positive results of such engagement and empowerment through STAR’s Synaplex™ Initiative.)
Can these two communities, the community of emergent spiritual communities and mainstream synagogues, find a common meeting place? I believe that they could benefit from each other, for mainstream synagogues have infrastructure that these emergent communities often lack and conversely, these emergent communities, just by their presence, could supply some energy to mainstream congregations. And the existence of multiple minyanim under the same roof is not an entirely new idea—think “Library Minyan” from decades ago or today’s Tikvat Yisrael.
Acknowledging that there is skepticism about this possibility from both sides, let’s think for a moment about what it might take.
- Synagogues would have to abandon their current dues model with emergents and come to other, affordable financial arrangements.
- They would have to be willing to accept them on their terms—that means everything from governance models to different models of prayer.
- They would have to warmly embrace their presence and not just begrudgingly accept them as a revenue stream.
And what of the benefits for synagogues?
- Some of these emergent communities don’t meet weekly, so synagogues may enjoy some greater involvement on off weeks or in other synagogue activities.
- They would have another model that could stimulate learning in how prayer is done and how grass-roots organizing works well with younger people.
- Over time, they might co-sponsoring some events and celebrate holidays together.
- They would sharpen their self-understanding of the other activities which they do well, not offered by these emergent communities.
- They would have the pride in doing what one generation has always done for the other—reaching out and extending a helping hand.
These findings should not come as a great surprise to those who are, work with or read about Gen X’ers and Millenials. Denominational leaders who dismiss these powerful spiritual centers as ephemeral fads are engaging in wishful thinking. If synagogues don’t find a way to engage them, they will continue to create the models that fit who they are.
Sustainable collaborations happen when people raise mutual interest a notch higher above self-interest. Here, self-interest and mutual interest are compatible. Synagogues and emergent minyans can each gain by exploring what it would mean to collaborate. And participants in the synagogue and emergent communities know that mutual caring for the future of the American Jewish is in our common interest.
Despite the tensions that some may see in initiating a series of discussions around collaboration between these two communities now, the possibility of a “win-win” situation is potentially great.
B’shalom,
Rabbi Hayim Herring
Image Credit:www.nefeshminyan.org
December 12, 2007 - ג' טבת תשס"ח at 4:00 pm
I am a fan of these emergent communities, for the simple reason that they are dynamic centers of Jewish growth. In my estimation, they are not “going away” as some would wish, but neither do they seem ready to “engage” with synagogues.
Their composition and their existence does challenge us to do business differently. But I believe that whatever changes we make are not to capitalize on the membership of these minyanim. Rather, they are to change ourselves for the better.
That being said, my challenge to these independent communities is this - what is sacrificed by not being intergenerational? Ultimately, does a “niche” community run the risk of its own insularity by not opening itself up to those who are older, not on a particular academic or professional track, etc?
Synagogues can do things that niche communities can not. But just as synagogues have been changed by havurot over the past generations, so we are poised for new changes now.
My two shekels.
Kol tuv,
Justin David
December 16, 2007 - ז' טבת תשס"ח at 12:04 am
Justin raises a good point. Religious institutions are one of the last places where multi-generational community can be created. We use (or perhaps overuse) the phrase “l’dor va-dor,” implying the responsiblity that one generation has always undertaken to lend a hand to the upcoming generation. More practically, multi-generational synagogues create communities where young and old can interact and appreciate what one has to offer the other.
December 17, 2007 - ח' טבת תשס"ח at 3:10 pm
Perhaps synagogues need to think about ways to be less bureaucratic, becoming communities instead of institutions. This will make space for meaningful connections with others and God and less space for people’s ulterior motives. Perhaps Rabbis need to see themselves as Rabbis of communities and not of synagogues. Then these alternative smaller minyanim will naturally be seen as part of the community and synagogue minyanim will be part of the same community. In this way they might benefit from each other, come together for celebrations and learn from each other’s strengths with out feeling threatened.
December 18, 2007 - ט' טבת תשס"ח at 1:10 am
Thank you, Hayim, for inviting me to comment on your post. I think you’re right on target with your recommendations. They make the most sense for those emergent communities that genuinely are open to synagogue partnerships, and for those synagogues truly committed to engaging with the emergent model. Indeed, there are a number of synagogues already exploring partnerships with emergent communities - Riverway is an autonomous project of Boston’s Temple Israel, for example, and Los Angeles’s Temple Beth Am rents space to PicoEgal, an independent minyan. Rabbi Andy Bachman at Congregation Beth Elohim is the pioneer here: he is forging a real model of synagogue-emergent relationship-building through his relationships not only with Brooklyn Jews, an alternative group which he founded before taking the helm of CBE, but also with Altshul, a traditional egalitarian independent minyan.
However, there are many communities committed to exploring new institutional models entirely on their own: Hadar, IKAR, Kavana, Kavod House, and others all are building innovative communities that seek to stand and be met on their own terms. I’m sure you would agree that we should be giving communities such as these the space (both physical and moral) they need to find new sustainable institutional models.
As to Justin David’s comment about intergenerationality (forgive the neologism), I should point out the diversity the S3K-Mechon Hadar study revealed: the rabbi-led emergent communities are far more intergenerational than indy minyanim and
alternative communities. We can’t generalize and say, “emergent equals monogenerational.” There again, I think it’s a question of style and preference; surely the broader Jewish community is large enough to encompass multiple styles and preferences.
And Rabbi Shafner: amen - may it be so speedily and in our days!
December 19, 2007 - י' טבת תשס"ח at 3:16 pm
Folks - I have enjoyed reading these comments. Just one additional point related to Justin’s challenge. I have found that these independent minyanim are, in fact, open to people of all ages. As an example, Kehilat Hadar states on its website: “Hadar appeals to a wide section of the general Jewish community: young and old, secular and observant, straight and gay. We are committed to furthering openness and hospitality to both newcomers and long-time members.” Now while this is more a statement of principle than fact, it is clear that Hadar is not excluding anyone based on age. Hadar has a very active volunteer who is over 60, and has provided some much-desired diversity to the community.
That said, Hadar, and the other independent minyanim, are overwhelmingly populated by young people, as our study found. In my experience, this is because of a few factors:
1) Most of these minyanim were started by people in their 20s and early 30s, and therefore their social networks were in their 20s and early 30s. As a counter-example, some of the independent minyanim started by people in an older generation (Kesher Minyan, no longer existing in Manhattan, or Shachar in Riverdale) attract people mainly in that generation. This is the result of natural social networks, not any particular policy by the minyanim.
2) People not in their 20s and 30s for whom these minyanim are attractive from a worship standpoint already have a primary community. While they may visit a minyan on a particular week, and even prefer the davening there, their Jewish social/communal life is already built in a synagogue.
3) People don’t like going to places that don’t reflect their age group. I can’t tell you how many dozens of times I have heard from people older than 35: I wish I could go to Hadar, but I end up raising the average age! My question to that statement is: what makes you uncomfortable about being in a room of people who are younger than you? (FWIW - college students in NY have the opposite concern: everyone in this room is over 21, so I can’t come). More critically, if people in this age bracket organized, they could come in groups, eliminating this problem. The minyanim would welcome it, from what I have seen. (I have found a disproportionate percentage of aliyot, the chief means of welcoming someone ritually in a worship service, have been given to people older than 35). This factor is the exact mirror of what keeps out many younger people from synagogue: no matter how good the programming, if there is no critical mass of people their own age, they stay away.
I think the real challenge for increased intergenerationality (Shawn’s term) is to expand people’s social networks. Once we start inviting multiple generations to Shabbat meals, and forming real relationships, uniting for prayer, study and social action should be much easier.
December 27, 2007 - י"ח טבת תשס"ח at 10:06 pm
Thanks to my friends and colleagues for adding to the conversation about emergent spiritual communities! A few responses:
It’s easier said than done to expand one’s social networks and create a greater level of comfort for davening when you enter a room and see people with either a lot more or a lot less gray hair than you have. But, I do agree with Eli’s statement, that getting people of different ages together for a shabbat or yom tov meal, outside of services, is the best way to build intergenerational community—or any community, for that matter. Chabad’s focus on bringing people together for a shabbat meal is intentional—they’ve learned that’s how social ties form organically. What would happen if every “regular” synagogue member invited an inactive member for a shabbat meal? I bet it would completely change the climate of the synagogue. Synagogues can adopt this practice from Chabad and many of these other emergent communities. This is not rocket science, there is really no (or little) expense involved and any synagogue theoretically could implement this basic Jewish value in short order.
As to Hyim’s point about rabbis thinking of themselves as leader of communities and not institutions, you are right on! My semikha (rabbinic ordination) is from a specific denominational institution. But it never proclaims that I am rabbi only to those with ties to that denomination. So it’s a welcome thought for rabbis, regardless of whether or not they have denominational loyalty, to remember their broader responsibility to the larger Jewish community. (And this applies to all Jews who care about community and not just rabbis.) I have a lot of empathy for my rabbinic colleagues who don’t have the resources they would like to have to serve their congregations and are challenged by the notion of reaching out beyond their synagogues. But we all need to stretch a little more on behalf of the future Jewish community.
This exchange has been refreshing because unlike other issues (think about the destructive “inreach-outreach” debate about intermarried families), it shows the possibilities of accepting polarities as a sign of a health. As Shawn implies, it isn’t that one form of community is better than the other; it’s just that each kind of community emerges for different purposes, that each has a place on the communal landscape and that each can learn from the other.
What can we do to create more opportunities for this kind of dialogue? And, to Justin’s point, are there other suggestions about how to help synagogues and generation-specific emergent spiritual communities become more intergenerational? I am concerned that there are so few places left in society where multiple generations can interact, and that there are broader societal forces which tend to divide generations. All suggestions are welcome!
March 13, 2008 - ו' אדר ב' תשס"ח at 3:30 pm
On the subject of integenerationality and emergent sacred communities, permit a son to kvell over his mother’s letter to the editor in this week’s Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles: