The results are in: Take III
(Crossposted to Mah Rabu)
Last week I posted some initial thoughts on the Spiritual Communities Study survey results, and then ZT posted a second round. Since then, they’ve made some revisions to the report, incorporating suggestions from us and other bloggers, so the squeaky wheel has gotten the grease. As crazy as it sounds, I’m now posting a third round of commentary on the survey.
As Desh has pointed out, these results should silence those who claim that independent minyan participants are motivated by selfishness and narcissism, in contrast with conventional synagogues and their participants who are committed to the broader community. In addition to the data that Desh cites, the results show that independent minyan participants have higher “yes” rates than synagogue members on the questions “I have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people” and “I have a special responsibility to take care of Jews in need around the world”. (The report didn’t list the results for the question “I have a Jewish responsibility to care for people in trouble (as with Darfur or Katrina)”, which would also be interesting to see.) Moreover, though there are no comparable numbers for synagogue members, the survey also shows that 95% of independent minyan participants have been invited to a Shabbat meal by someone in their community in the last year, and 86% have invited others. These results come within a few days of another study showing that people are leaving conventional congregations because this sense of community is missing. (Of course, this isn’t true of all synagogues. Kol hakavod to any community of whatever structure whose participants are committed to each other and to the larger world.)
Next, another word on the Reform stuff. I’m particularly interested in this, as someone who definitely marked “Reform” for the first question (in which denomination were you raised?) and probably was among the 3% who marked “Reform” for the second question (what do you consider yourself now?) but I’m not certain. I’m not connected to any Reform-affiliated institutions, but I still think of myself as a Reform expat; the synagogue I don’t go to is Reform. But the fact that I’m not certain highlights the fact that the answer to this second question doesn’t necessarily have any direct real-world manifestations (i.e. affiliations, behaviors, etc.) and is all in the respondent’s head (and might not be in the respondent’s head very often except when s/he is answering surveys like this). But the results are still very interesting and worthy of study. Pardon me if, in the next few paragraphs, I blur the lines between Reform Judaism (which can mean a number of things – ideology, aesthetics, etc.) and the Reform movement (a set of institutions), which I generally try to avoid, but this blurring is an essential aspect of the topic at hand (Reform self-identification). The same, of course, is true about Conservative Judaism (again, defined in a number of ways) and the Conservative movement. (This latter blurring leads at times to serious logical inconsistencies. The report (p. 4-5) says that Conservative leaders claim that independent minyanim are “Conservative congregations flying a Liberian flag”, presumably basing this claim on traits of the minyanim that they would identify as “Conservative”, and/or the fact that participants in the minyanim grew up in the Conservative movement. But the same Conservative leaders would claim that Conservative central institutions, such as the CJLS, have the authority to determine policies and halacha that Conservative congregations should aspire to. Does this include “Conservative congregations flying a Liberian flag”? If so, then they seem to be making the absurd claim that the CJLS (etc.) automatically has plenary jurisdiction over any Jewish community that davens in Hebrew without a mechitza (or whatever criteria they’re using) or has Ramah alumni among its participants, regardless of whether that community ever consented to this.)
In my last post, I wrote about people who grew up in a particular denomination and still consider themselves to be carrying out that denomination’s values even when they’re not affiliated with it or with something with superficial similarities to it. I admit that this is somewhat of an elite position that doesn’t necessarily reflect most people’s experiences. Would I still identify myself as “Reform” (based on background and ideology, but not institutional affiliation or aesthetics) if I weren’t a fifth-generation Reform Jew, a third-generation NFTY alum, and generally descended from Reform nobility? Less clear. Denominational self-identification (which, again, only really comes up for this crowd when we’re taking surveys) is based on a combination of many factors.
The numbers from the survey (p. 16) appear to suggest that the majority of people raised Reform now identify as something else (presumably “Other Jewish”, which has the largest gain), while the majority of people raised Conservative still identify as Conservative. But all we know is the numbers – we don’t know whether the people who identify as Conservative are the same people who were raised Conservative. However, this information is available in the raw data, so in the next report, I’d be interested in seeing these results further broken down — what percent of people raised x now identify as y, etc. In the absence of this additional information, I’m going to propose a hypothesis that might be confirmed or refuted when we see that data: perhaps there is a shift from Reform to Conservative, and from Conservative to Other Jewish.
A possible mechanism for these shifts: Suppose Reuven grew up in a Reform congregation, and Chana grew up in a Conservative congregation, and now they both participate in a (let’s say) “traditional egalitarian” independent minyan and like it better than what they grew up with. Reuven says “Huh. I like this minyan, with its all-Hebrew prayers, better than my family’s congregation, with its English responsive readings. I guess that means I’m Conservative.” Chana says “No way. I know the Conservative movement, and it doesn’t look anything like this. You can call me ‘Other Jewish’.”
(Reuven and Chana don’t represent everyone. There are certainly people who are Reform->Other Jewish, and for the numbers to make sense, there must still be some Conservative->Conservative. But perhaps they represent some people.)
One more question to consider: So why is it in the first place that plenty of independent minyanim are mistaken for Conservative, while there are few to no independent minyanim (of the type studied in this survey) accused of being “Reform congregations flying a Liberian flag”? I’ve already said that lots of independent minyanim represent Reform ideals of informed autonomy, but why aren’t there more independent minyanim that display superficial traits commonly associated with “Reform” (in the same superficial way that Hebrew+egalitarian = “Conservative”, and thus Kol Haneshama “isn’t really Reform”)? (Or why is it that, as the report says on p. 18, “few emergent communities take a Reform-style approach”, except that I would limit “Reform-style” to these aesthetic elements.) Some might chalk this up to “increased interest in tradition”, whatever that means. I disagree. While this may be true of some minyanim, there are others whose participants and general communal outlooks are “progressive” on a number of axes, and still pray in a way that would be somewhat alien to the typical person coming from an exclusively Reform-affiliated background — generally involving an unchanging macroscopic liturgical structure, and prayers all in Hebrew. I think it has more to do with the participatory havurah ethic that characterizes many independent minyanim. The prayer leader is seen as truly a sheliach tzibbur (representative of the community), rather than as a top-down leader. Any of these “Reform” elements that are missing from independent minyanim — and I’m not talking about musical instruments or “Reform” melodies, which are used in some independent minyanim, but I’m talking about English readings and explanations of the prayers and changes in macroscopic liturgy from week to week — require top-down leadership in order to be implemented. Participants can’t simply daven on their own, since there’s no way to know what’s coming next until the leader says so. Thus, the use of a style sometimes characterized as “traditional” isn’t always motivated by “traditional” concerns, but may be motivated by a desire to maximize individual freedom and participation.
Yes, there are also Conservative congregations with heavy-handed top-down prayer leadership, with which independent minyan prayer has little in common. But there are also counterexamples in the Conservative movement, in Ramah and USY, which may be very different stylistically from most independent minyanim, but perhaps have a similar approach to the role of the sheliach tzibbur — similar enough that people aren’t as quick to characterize independent minyan prayer as “not Conservative” the way they characterize it as “not Reform”. Services at URJ camps and NFTY, though different from the typical Reform congregation, still require some degree of top-down leadership, even if it’s coming from a songleader or RCVP rather than a rabbi or cantor.
If the Reform movement is at all concerned about the fact that so many people who grew up in it are ceasing to identify as Reform, then as I’ve said before, the solution is to expand the horizons of what Reform prayer and Reform communities look like, and to create a vision of what a Reform community would look like if its participants were not dependent on top-down leadership.
So what about the “rabbi-led emergent communities”, which do have a rabbi, and tend to have more top-down prayer leadership? In those communities, it’s more likely that the style of prayer might be superficially recognizable as “Reform”. And indeed, more rabbi-led emergent participants (7%) identify as Reform than independent minyan participants (3%). But why is it still only 7%? This is in part because the communities happen to have other leanings — e.g., Kehilat Romemu (NYC) identifies itself with Jewish Renewal (“Other Jewish”), Kol Tsedek (Philly) is affiliated Reconstructionist (also “Other Jewish”), and Ikar (Los Angeles) is unaffilated but led by a Conservative-ordained rabbi. As the report says, “Most emergent community leaders see formal denominationalism as a barrier to entry and as connoting the types of congregations from which they seek to differentiate themselves.” (p. 17)
One more thing: for the record, I think it’s dumb that denominational self-identification (for individuals and communities) is so tied to prayer, at the expense of all the other aspects of Judaism. (This is even more true of the border, or “mechitza” if you will, between Conservative and Orthodox identification.) But that’s the way it is.
BZ, your point that the elements associated with “appearing Reform”, chiefly changing prayer matbeah and english readings require top-down community structures is well taken.
moving away from it would require much more complete education outcomes, right? If only songleaders get liturgical and musical training it isn’t surprising that non-songleaders need to be top-downed. the flip side, of course, is that songleaders generally get better training than anyone in the other movements.
there seems to be a rejection of english reading these days, i wonder what the genesis of that trend is.
I’ve seen numerous cases where Conservative leadership define all non-mechitza mostly Hebrew services as Conservative. They also tend to view their Conservative style service as pluralistic default. A lot of this probably comes from being the largest movement in terms of membership for so long, but there is probably some institutional arrogance also.
In their defense, I think they see independent minyanim through Hadar. And when Hadar is founded and run by JTS Rabbinical students it’s very easy to decide it’s really Conservative. Of course, what they should be asking is why Hadar chooses not to define itself as Conservative.
I agree with you that “it’s dumb that denominational self-identification (for individuals and communities) is so tied to prayer.” But there are probably two very good reasons this arises. First, for institutions prayer is the most visible distinction, and historically movements defined themselves as anti-organ/mechitza/microphone. For individuals, unfortunately most Americans never think about ideology. The only way for them to classify themselves is by what synagogue they belong.
If only songleaders get liturgical and musical training it isn’t surprising that non-songleaders need to be top-downed. the flip side, of course, is that songleaders generally get better training than anyone in the other movements.
First, I don’t like the term songleader. If we are talking about leading services it’s much more than leading songs. Let’s use Shaliach tzibbur, or if we are talking about trained individuals Hazzan/Cantor.
Now on to the substance of your comment. Just because someone doesn’t receive formal training doesn’t mean they can’t learn enough from exposure to function on their own. Most Orthodox males can lead services without any formal training. Also a decent number of Conservative USY/Ramah alumni can lead without formal training. And a larger number of both can at least function without a top-down leader. The problem is when the Rabbi/Cantor of the big box suburban shuls insist on treating the congregants like babies they are never stretched to the point where they can be self sufficient.
Finally, when you said “songleaders generally get better training than anyone in the other movements” I am going to assume you meant Reform Cantors based on the context. If I’m wrong I apologize in advance. I don’t think you can say reform Cantors are better trained. They may have different training from what JTS/YU teaches its students, but calling it better requires a value judgment of what you consider important.
bz –
while it may be unfortunate that discussion of denominational identity is weighted towards prayer configuration, it makes complete sense, in our religious cultural milieu. American Judaism, basing itself off of American Protestantism (perhaps this trend began in Germany with a similar self-fashioning in Liberal Judaism), is decidedly church… i mean synagogue-centered. One’s level of Jewishness is measured by how often one goes to shul.
Now, i am not making a normative statement about the standards that some objective Judaism holds itself to, but rather that this is the criterion for our socioicultural situation.
I realize that you young Indy types are at an age that is prone to…experimentation…including with prayer services as well as the prayers themselves. But I think it would be helpful to also make sure that every Jew understands than the classic way of davening, for many, many generations, and for many Jews, until today, is with a mechitza, in Hebrew, and without all these hippy/egalitarian insertions and deletions.
The unity of Klal Yisroel demands Jewish literacy, and that includes a hands-on understanding of a traditional prayer service.
What you do in the privacy of your Indy rooms is your business, but decorum demands an understanding of the classic and traditional ways.
he classic way of davening, for many, many generations, and for many Jews, until today, is with a mechitza, in Hebrew, and without all these hippy/egalitarian insertions and deletions. that’s certainly the line taken by certain institutions. It’s also…false.
Insertions (less so deletions) are the way that the siddur -even the Orthodox siddur, which if you take a look is quite different than the masoret of Mizrachi and Sephardi siddurim-came about.
And mechitza pretty much didn’t exist at all in various times and places (not always for the same reason, either. There are still batei knesset in which the women’s space is …outside.)
I’ll go with you on the Hebrew,though, although the vernacular -often something like Yiddish or Ladino, or Judeo-ROmanesque or the other various creoles- was almost always important for prayer expecially for the less educated, which, by the way meant most men and women, for a significant portion of history.
I know ahead of time that you won’t believe this, but I’ll leave it there for those who are interested in doing more reading and won’t dismiss out of hand.
I would say that insertions are often more problematic than deletions. You are certainly correct that there is a terrible problem both in many sephardic circles and of course, Chassidic circles, of inserting all this so-called mystical Kabbalah stuff. A traditional Lithuanian or non-Kabbalist Yemenite nusach is something both the mystics and the Liberal denominations would do well to at least study.
DK,
SO does that mean you would prefer your friday nights with no kabalat shabbat? That’s just the most obvious example, but I have to say – an extremely large amount of what we consider the “basic service” is derived or directly from kabbalism.
Avi,
I take it from your comments that you have limited familiarity with the NFTY/URJ camp system. I too find “songleader” an odd title, but it is indeed the one they use and is a technical term of sorts which denotes trained facilitators of song sessions and prayer but not ordained clergy. they get a sort of practical training in facilitating davening which i never saw in USY nor experienced elsewhere in my jewish travels. their leading is a musical endeavor rather than the more mechanical mode of leading davening in most other circles.
frankly, i object to that whole model as anti-egalitarian, in that it makes for a great gulf between the leader and community. al tifrosh min hatzibur as it is said.
“SO does that mean you would prefer your friday nights with no kabalat shabbat?”
Yes. At least, I would prefer that it is not considered a mandatory part of the prayer service. If people want to add, fine, but not on a regular basis. Obviously, that can’t happen so easily now, and I accept that, but I am quite sure that I would not have been too happy when this was being instituted.
While it may be accurate to say that kids in USY and Ramah learn to lead without “formal training,” there’s quite a bit of thoughtful, informal training that these kids get beyond “go to services and mimic what you see.” I am less familiar with Ramah, but I know that in my time in USY as both a teenager and a staff member, there were lots of structured opportunities in various guises to encourage kids to learn to lead services, including formal “tefila-goal”-setting, partner programs buddying up kids with someone who had more experience or knowledge in a particular area, and straight-up classes (there are generations of people in New England at this point who learned Maariv (with proper nusach) through Cantor Dress’s classes at Encampment).
It’s a mistake to think that simply placing kids in services – even when repeated over time – will result in education. Tefilot are just like any other subject, and when kids (or adults) master the skills involved, there is almost always thoughtful teaching involved, even if it’s informal.
First, I don’t like the term songleader. If we are talking about leading services it’s much more than leading songs. Let’s use Shaliach tzibbur
Part of my point was precisely the distinction implied by these two terms (and I say this as someone with experience as both).
And when Hadar is founded and run by JTS Rabbinical students it’s very easy to decide it’s really Conservative.
Only one of Hadar’s three founders was a JTS student at the time (a second one later started at JTS), and the vast majority of Hadar organizers over the years have not been JTS students. When Conservative leaders say things like “Hadar is made up mostly of JTS students”, there’s more than a little bit of sample bias — most of the people they know who go to Hadar are JTS students, but why would they know anyone else at Hadar?
The problem is when the Rabbi/Cantor of the big box suburban shuls insist on treating the congregants like babies they are never stretched to the point where they can be self sufficient.
And here, I couldn’t agree more.
BZ, a few months ago I overheard someone instrumental in the founding of Hadar noting the impossibility of not allowing certain Sim Shalom-endorsed liturgical changes at the beginning because of the heavy reliance upon/presence of JTS students, both in the founding and as regulars. That seems like a pretty clear connection. (I don’t know the current state of the range of Hadar’s permitted liturgy.)
I finally got around to reading the whole report. Anyone want to talk about the extremely problematic way the report approaches marriage? In particular, I find it disheartening that the tone is “oh my stars and garters, even though many of them won’t intermarry, some of them will!” with no consideration to what these folks do or don’t do after the wedding. On my reading, it seems like Cohen et al just assume that even someone who is deeply involved in an emergent community who marries a non-Jewish person will immediately separate herself or himself from the Jewish community and cease to count. Oy.
What you do in the privacy of your Indy rooms is your business
David, you make it sound so… sordid!
DK, almost everything except shema and amidah is “added,” the service as we know is full of accretions, additions and innovations that became part of the standard service. As for the vernacular, there is a reason kaddish is in aramaic, and its not because they wanted to make it more esoteric
dlevy, Yes, their treatment of intermarriage is problematic. I’m interested in the breakdown between ideology and practice. That is, folks who are not opposed to intermarriage, but who are friends with, date, and (are likely to) marry Jews. Some of this gets covered over by the categories they chose. I want to see the data broken out ideologically. Putting TLS and Darchei Noam in the same category covers over some important differences.
BZ, there is at least one indy minyan, TLS, which explicitly comes from a reform background. It was a merger of the DC Reform Havurah with TLS, and on alternating weeks they sit in a circle with guitar (which strikes me as closer to a reform aesthetic than a conservative one [such as seating in rows, no music, which they implement on the alternating weeks]). KZ also seems to be highly impacted by the reform movement (as you know). So, it may be in the minority, but there is some impact on these minyanim from the reform movement.
Finally, what does Liberian Flag have to do with any of this? When I first read the report I thought they were talking about the Librarian Flag.
Chorus of Apes-
TLS and KZ were the main examples I had in mind when I wrote
While this may be true of some minyanim, there are others whose participants and general communal outlooks are “progressive†on a number of axes, and still pray in a way that would be somewhat alien to the typical person coming from an exclusively Reform-affiliated background — generally involving an unchanging macroscopic liturgical structure, and prayers all in Hebrew. […] Any of these “Reform†elements that are missing from independent minyanim — and I’m not talking about musical instruments or “Reform†melodies, which are used in some independent minyanim, but I’m talking about English readings and explanations of the prayers and changes in macroscopic liturgy from week to week …
Yes, TLS and KZ have strong Reform influences, and there’s no reason on paper that the Reform movement couldn’t look more like them, but the average person who comes from a Reform background and then shows up at TLS or KZ perceives it as something different from what they’re used to (and kal vachomer the average person who comes from any other unidenominational background). While Hadar gets frequently mislabeled as Conservative, there’s not any denomination that KZ gets mistaken for.
So I have no idea whether the report authors were thinking of KZ and TLS as part of the “few” or as part of the rest when they wrote that “few emergent communities take a Reform-style approach” (assuming again here that “a Reform-style approach” refers to superficial similarities). I’m pretty sure the old DC Reform Chavurah would have counted as part of the “few”.
And here’s the Liberian flag you’re looking for.
“it seems like Cohen et al just assume that even someone who is deeply involved in an emergent community who marries a non-Jewish person will immediately separate herself or himself from the Jewish community and cease to count. Oy”
Well, they do seem to understand that some intermarried folks will continue to be active in both traditional and non-traditional jewish communities, as they report on numbers of “out-married” Jews involved in these and more normative communities. But if they assume that those who intermarry “cease to count” than they are just assuming what the statistics show – even if out-married Jews do not “immediately separate” themselves from the community, the odds are very high that eventually they or their children will do so. There are obviously exceptions to every rule (I say this as the child of an intermarriage and as a committed Jew and member of an “emergent” community) but the truth is, it’s not shocking that these statisticians assume what statistics tell us – intermarriages result in non-involved Jews and non-Jewish grandchildren, most of the time.
Sarah writes:
it’s not shocking that these statisticians assume what statistics tell us – intermarriages result in non-involved Jews and non-Jewish grandchildren, most of the time.
Statistics don’t tell us anything about what intermarriages “result in”; they just tell us about correlations. Intermarriages are correlated with non-involved Jews, but a causation that makes more sense to me is that non-involved Jews result in intermarriages, and non-involved Jewish parents also result in non-involved Jewish children. This tells us nothing about intermarried involved Jews (and there are many).
A further potential causation is that communities who write off intermarried families cause non-involved intermarried Jews.
Statistics that were released last year also showed us that the odds can be beaten.
Ok, I’m still confused about the liberian flag business. Why is being an indy minyan more convenient? Because we don’t pay taxes to the mothership? That seems to seriously misunderstand what indy minyanim are all about.