Why they're wrong
(Crossposted to Mah Rabu)
Consider this the next post in the “lilmod mah shetashiv” series for supporters of independent Jewish communities. We’ve all gotten into this argument before.
Abstract: Some people argue that new independent Jewish communities are harmful to existing synagogues. They’re wrong. Other people recognize the fallacies in this argument and advance a more nuanced version. They’re also wrong.
The Basic Argument: “Look at that new minyan, Kehilah Atzma’it. They’ve certainly been successful — they get n people every time, most of whom are young and energetic. It’s great that so many young people want to be Jewishly involved! But meanwhile, my synagogue, Rodef Kesef, is aging and struggling to pay the bills, and we’d love to have so many new members. And if Kehilah Atzma’it didn’t exist, all these young people would be going to Rodef Kesef. Therefore, Kehilah Atzma’it is harming Rodef Kesef.”
The Unspoken Assumption: The Jewish population is a zero-sum game. There is a finite and static pool of involved Jews. Therefore, any new community that starts is poaching its members from an existing community.
Why They’re Wrong: It’s not a zero-sum game. Most of the people who go to Kehilah Atzma’it now weren’t going to Rodef Kesef before KA started; they weren’t going anywhere. And if KA had never been founded, then they would still not be going anywhere. Therefore, the primary effect of KA on the broader Jewish community is an increase in the total number of involved Jews, not an exodus from one community to another.
The More Nuanced Argument: “Ok, that’s true about marginal Jews who wouldn’t otherwise be going anywhere, and it reminds us that we should all be doing better outreach efforts to bring them in. But I went to Kehilah Atzma’it one time, and let me tell you, these were not marginal Jews! These are highly committed and knowledgeable Jews, who make Judaism a major priority in their lives. Surely the committed core of KA would be going somewhere for Shabbat if KA didn’t exist. They’ve put a lot of energy into building KA, and we could really benefit from that energy here at Rodef Kesef.”
The Unspoken Assumption: There are two types of Jews: marginal and committed. Either you’re one or the other; people never switch back and forth between these two types. Marginal Jews are involved or not, depending on the circumstances, while committed Jews are always going to be involved. Therefore, while the Jewish population as a whole is not necessarily a zero-sum game, the committed Jewish population is — both in their numbers and in their commitment.
Why They’re Still Wrong: This version of the argument is taking a short-term view. In the long term, people switch back and forth all the time. People who used to be “marginal” Jews have gone to Kehilah Atzma’it and not only become involved at KA, but become “committed Jews”, to the degree that a casual observer (such as our interlocutor from Rodef Kesef) might assume that these people have been “committed” all along and might not recognize KA’s transformative role.
Of course, (since KA was not created on the sixth day along with the tongs [not] made from tongs) this can’t be true of everyone at KA. The original founders of KA had to have been committed and knowledgeable from the start, given the commitment and knowledge required to start a minyan. But just as it is fallacious to assume that “marginal” Jews will always be “marginal”, it is fallacious to assume that “committed” Jews will always be “committed”. Whatever one’s level of commitment in the short term, it can be context-dependent in the long term.
Hypothetical scenario 1: Ploni is a “committed Jew” who moves to a new city. Kehilah Atzma’it doesn’t exist, and Ploni doesn’t find any Jewish community that’s right for him, but he’s determined to make it work somehow, so he goes to Rodef Kesef and toughs it out for a while. However, over time, it becomes more and more difficult for Ploni to continue practicing Judaism in the absence of a Jewish community that shares his values and where he feels like part of the community. Ploni’s priorities shift, so that Judaism becomes less central in his life. Ploni thus ceases to be the “committed Jew” that he used to be. Far-fetched? I could easily see this scenario happening to me in an alternate universe in which I moved to a different city after college, or graduated from college a few years earlier than I did.
Hypothetical scenario 2: Plonit has a similar story to Ploni in Scenario 1. But Plonit is even more determined than Ploni, and she decides that if Rodef Kesef isn’t the place for her, then she’s going to make it the place for her. So she becomes an active member of Rodef Kesef, and sets out to make incremental changes, so that RK can be the type of community that she’s looking for. However, she runs into obstacles when she discovers that RK’s longtime members like things the way they are and oppose each of these changes. Plonit’s energy may be vast, but it is not limitless, and eventually she gets burned out and is no longer able to continue contributing.
Some people choose to become Jewish communal professionals, and are prepared to spend their careers devoted tirelessly to the Jewish community despite adverse circumstances. Ploni and Plonit chose other careers to devote their days to, and are also happy to put energy into the Jewish community, but can only sustain this in the long term if they are getting something out of this communal involvement.
Fortunately, these scenarios don’t have to come to pass. In our universe, Plonit founded Kehilah Atzma’it, and Ploni is an active participant in KA.
(Disclaimer: This post has been floating around my head for a while, and is not intended as a response to Elf’s DH’s post on Studentville, which is a recommended read.)
I grant that the arguments against which you protest here are off, but I think you missed the main one, which isn’t, in itself, actually to do necessarily with independant minyans, exept insofar as they currently tend to be formed. That is to say, most independant minyans attract a core of people who aren’t committed to that community in the long term, and even in the short term don’t tend to see it as worthwhile enough to pay money to support. A great many of these minyans actully exist only because of the largesse of established communities, who give them siddurim, let them use Torahs, facilities, etc.
Since by and large those going to these minyans aren’t supporting them, while they may attract people who aren’t being attracted by these other minyans, they are also not supporting the comunity at large.
Those people we hipsters love to hate, the boring folks who pay to get their kids “bar mitzvah’ed” and then drop out, or who only come on the high holidays, are the people who make it possible for indie minyans to exist, by paying their dues to the institutions, which then canafford to pay for lights, rent, Torah repair, prayer books, mikvaot, and all the things that a jewish community needs to function.
Not all indie minyans, of course – for example, the shtibl minyan in LA has done a great job of funding itself – of course, in the beginning, it, too, relied heavily on the graciousness of Temple Beth Am.
BUt I think the real question and fears are what is going to happen as people raised on DIY indie minyans grow up and don’t want to pay for lights, heat, rooms, Torah scrolls, and the like. Are they going to create vibrant communities where they do pay for these things? Are they going to disappear into wisps? Something other or in between?
I don’t think the answer is at all foregone, and it seems to me something that the indie communities should be thinking hard about.
This doesn’t match my experience with independent minyanim. The vast majority of the independent minyanim with which I’m familiar either meet in participants’ living rooms (for free) or pay fair and square for the space that they rent (whether from synagogues or other venues). In the latter case, the rental is paid for with donations or dues from participants. In neither case are the minyanim freeloading.
I agree that some people can float between “marginal” and “committed” (although I think that you can be, like me, both at once). I understand that this is a matter of choice and circumstance. But, I am sometimes disturbed by those people who are committed to being marginal.
while I agree entirely with BZ’s analysis, I think that KRG raises a good point about the long-term prognosis of independent minyanim. what will happen when we get a bit older and require the functions of an institution, facilities for weddings and other major lifecycle events and holidays, hebrew school for our kids, etc. I dont yet know the answer to these questions, but nor do I think that independent minyanim are by definition afraid of becoming institutions, or having institution-like aspects.
perhaps these minyanim become the synagogues of the future, maintaining their pluralistic, soulful nature? perhaps they partner with other institutions like pluralistic, non-denomination day schools? perhaps in certain cities they band together to acquire necessary facilities and ritual objects, torah, etc. these are questions we will have to answer in the years ahead, but i have faith in us to find these answers in as new and exciting ways as we have found answers to creating our own jewish communities, and in a way that is in line with the values we are trying to live by.
in fact, i look forward to it 😉
backbeat, we don’t have to wait a few years to see what will happen with independent minyanim. Didn’t they exist twenty and thirty years ago? Where are they now? Witness the transformation of Michael Strassfeld (The Jewish Catalogue) into an UWS pulpit rabbi. Other stories abound….
I for one wish that the new generation stop wandering around pointing at long standing phenomena and exclaiming with wonder, ‘look what I have discovered’ like a Columbus standing on the shore of the New World. That hipster attitude of ‘look at me, I’m doing cool independent Judaism’ just reeks of elitism and supports a false history of the Jewish community in this country.
Independent Jewish communities have been around a long time, creating affordable, inclusive and meaningful Jewish communities. Long live the shiny new independent minyanim! May they swiftly lose their new car smell….
And they will. Just as soon as the reek of full diapers fills their homes.
Perhaps it my Organizational Theory background talking, but in these discussions i often notice that people presume a static organizational approach, meaning, since synagogues generally own their own buildings where they house prayer and childrens’ educational experience, we tend to assume that this model will continue to be the way we organize things.
Frankly, there are a lot of silly aspects to the conventional synagogue model (content-aside). Namely, synagogues have large numbers of people in the building only a few times a week (friday nights or saturday mornings and whatever evenings the school meets. This means there are probably only 20 hours a week (probably less) where more than 100 people are in most schools. Does this justify owning multi-million dollar buildings? Clearly it doesn’t in many cases.
There is a broad possibility to partner with organizations with different usage patterns. In DC, for instance, Tikkun Leil Shabbat has been invited to use the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. TLS meets in their building every third friday night and cleans the building afterwards. The model works because the groups have inverse usage patterns and complimentary interests. The RAC is thrilled to be a destination for coolyoungprogressive jews and the young folks tend to be excited, insofar as they know about it, about the RAC’s message and history. The RAC would be closed on friday night, so they can provide the support without any marginal cost. Whatever money and naches they get from TLS is gravy. Eventually as the groups’ members enter higher earning years, presumably the degree to which they contribute to the host institutions will increase somewhat. In this sense, the lay-led non-affiliated minyanim are helpful to the institutions they pay usage fees to.
This doesn’t respond adequately to the question about what will happen when people need a more robust set of services. There are several possible answers. For many types of services there are existing solutions. Where to hold a wedding? There are dozens of good choices. As for religious schools, the choices are less robust and mostly connected with synagogues. I am not entirely sure why there aren’t pluralistic supplementary schools like the day schools. In fact, why not merge them to some extent. Day schools aren’t in use on sundays and often have classrooms available weekday evenings.
A lot of the reason jewish community is expensive, is that there are lots of inefficiencies. if we can pay for fewer buildings without compromising services we will do well. The question shouldn’t be why won’t these silly kids buy a building. The question ought to be why the Jewish community has so darn many already. The answer (according to rich kirshen) is that the jewish people has an edifice complex.
I for one wish that the new generation stop wandering around pointing at long standing phenomena and exclaiming with wonder, ‘look what I have discovered’ like a Columbus standing on the shore of the New World. That hipster attitude of ‘look at me, I’m doing cool independent Judaism’ just reeks of elitism and supports a false history of the Jewish community in this country.
It warrants repeating.
What’s the false history? People in newer independent minyanim are quite aware of the existence of older independent minyanim, and get together with them every summer.
I note that except for the responses expecting that indie minyans will grow up into something else, the responses fail to address the question of where needs are met from. Admittedly, a minyan which meets only Friday night doesn’t require a torah, but that’s hardly robust Judaism (let alone meeting needs such as marriage, mikveh, education and so on).
But suppose we just keep the conversation to davenning needs: Sure indie minyans can provide their own siddurim, as long as everyone brings their own (supposing that’s the rule: minyan x asks you to bring your own and possibly an extra for guests). But what about shabbat and holidays? Torahs are not inexpensive – those minyans that meet on shabbat day and/or holidays have to begin to come up with some way of paying for scribes to write new Torhas, and fix damaged ones – not to mention a place to store them from week to week. For the most part, currently, they do it by borrowing from communities where members pay dues to an institution.
I have no problem with indie minyans: I like and support them. I thinkthey’re Jewonderful and Torahtacular. My concern is the indie of indie minyans: they aren’t (again, mostly) driven by concern for the community – they tend (not exclusively, of course there are exceptions) to be a narrow slice of life, demographically speaking, and they tend to rely on other people paying for them. Granted, the exceptions of those that meet only complementarily. However, I think that TLS, which is a fabulous minyan, also relies on these larger institutions (i.e. the RAC). The fact that the institution doesn’t lose much except perhaps heating costs in supporting them is irrelevant. My point is that they depend upon another organization for their bread and butter – they don’t pay their own way in the community – as a whole. As a cost this is minimal. I think that institutions should be supporting little start ups – but start-ups can only start up for so long. By and large these minyans need to figure out ways to become a community, and part of the wider commmunity, rather than a club; to contribute to the larger Jewish comunity, and not simply be about themselves. Some have- but most haven’t.
I would like to see these communities grapple with the questions of how to make themselves open to those whoare perhaps not so hip: everyone wants energy and spirit in their davenning, not just 20-40 year olds. Some people just don’t kow it yet, or don’t kow how to provide it, or don’t have the energy to do it on their own because thy’re busy supporting and educating 20-40 year olds, and 20-40 year-olds-to-be.
What I’d like to see is a transformation of the synagogue so that some of the functions of each infuse the other, and strengthen it. Just because you aren’t 75 now, doesn’t mean we should turn up our nose at the way they daven:;it’s their money that allows the indie minyans to exist, if they are to exist as anything more than a friday night dinner club and meat market.
I want to be clear that I’m not dissing indie minyans. I attend one myself. I have started more than one, I like their energy, I like their davenning, and I like the fact that they push people to be involved in their own spirituality, rather than have it presented to them ona platter. But I think that indie minyans are an expression of a particular form of American attitudes about spirituality: that it needs to meet my needs now, as an individual; that the payoff needs to be upfront, and so on, that has become pervasive in American religion – it’s consumerist, and it worries me. I want indie minyans to survive and flourish and add to the health of Judaism, as a whole. Instead of saying that there areno problems, that they’re perfect, I want us to start talking about how to imnprove now, so that we can make indie even better -for everyone.
KRG says:
Admittedly, a minyan which meets only Friday night doesn’t require a torah, but that’s hardly robust Judaism
One of the points of my post was that comparing independent minyanim (some of which only meet on Friday night) to synagogues (which meet Friday night, Saturday morning, etc.) is the wrong comparison — the proper comparison is between independent minyanim and what their participants would be doing Jewishly in the absence of those minyanim (which, I argue, isn’t synagogues). I agree that Friday night only isn’t robust Judaism, but the people who only do Friday night wouldn’t be doing even that if these Friday night minyanim didn’t exist.
Likewise, regardless of the extent to which independent minyan participants are supporting “the larger Jewish community”, they would be supporting it even less if the independent minyanim did not exist and they therefore had no Jewish involvement at all.
But I think that indie minyans are an expression of a particular form of American attitudes about spirituality: that it needs to meet my needs now, as an individual; that the payoff needs to be upfront, and so on, that has become pervasive in American religion – it’s consumerist, and it worries me.
I would say the opposite. The synagogue members you mention in your previous comment (“who pay to get their kids ‘bar mitzvah’ed’ and then drop out, or who only come on the high holidays”) display a far more consumerist approach (paying for specific professionally delivered services) than the independent minyan participants who volunteer their time to keep their communities running.
POLJ, you did NOT just repeat me! 🙂
On a kinder note, I like indie minyans minus the elitism and overblown sense of mission. I like new things, and support youngsters making their own way. I think conversations like these are good, and I appreciate those who make the effort to facilitate it all.
I wonder what it is that makes me so defensive about those indies? Is there really something about the attitude (grossly generalized) that is worthy of my contempt? Having vented, I’m now open to learning about what my own reaction means.
A first stab would be: the virtue I demand from my leaders is above all else, humility. It’s the lack of humility that makes any institution feel unwelcome. The smugness with which indie minyans proclaim their value and importance is matched only by the smugness of the concrete mega shul bm factories.
I want to be part of a community of doubters, always willing to admit that in truth, they are probably far too full of themselves.
BTW, the desire for “more than a friday night dinner club and meat market” is exactly why people in their 20s and 30s have started independent Jewish communities devoted to Jewish values rather than attending “20s and 30s” events thrown by the establishment.
KRG, which independent minyanim did you start?
There are more reasons to build a building than an edifice complex. Owning a building means you control your own destiny. Owning a building means you never have to worry about having your landlord raise your rent to the point where you can’t afford it. Owning a building means never having to cancel a holiday program because you can’t find an available space. And finally, owning a building is a sign of stability that you are not going anywhere.
Even beyond the building issue, no independent minayn provides all the religious needs for its members. How many minyanim meet every week? How about meeting for every service on Shabbat? What about meeting during the week? Yes I know not every synagogue meets every day for Shacharit, Mincha, and Maariv, but any Conservative or Orthodox(I don’t know enough to comment on Reform) synagogue that doesn’t have a daily minyan considers that a failure.
Will any of the independant minyanim grow to provide 3 minyans a day? A couple of them might, but for most of the minyanim it seems like being a full service place to pray is not even on their radar screens.
I think some worthwhile questions to consider are what constitutes “giving back to the community”? I think creating a positive Jewish experience for many people – who then may go and tell others about it, share it with their friends or families, or children, etc – may in and of itself be giving back. I’m also not exactly sure how big shuls give back, but maybe that’s my own ignorance. Smaller minyans also tend to have some sort of social action volunteer program/opportunties, as do larger shuls.
Another term that should be defined is “indie” – many indie minyans develop to the point where they have boards and other leadership structures.
Finally, my personal interest (what I’m looking for and sometimes find) is to what extent both indie and larger shuls can be transparent, in terms of how decisions are made and where power resides and inspiring, in terms of the religious experience that comes as a content result of those decisions/leadership/democratic process.
I’m not sure what this mythic “greater Jewish community” is the KRG insists the indy minyanim contribute to. As I see it there are LOTS of Jewish communities, and when one group of Jews takes the mantle for “the community” they erase all the wonderful and not so wonderful diversity in Jewish life. Right now the big three movements and the federations (plus the ADL and the other paranoid “offense” agencies) get to be “the community.” Identifying those with money and power as “the community” just enables them to have more money and power to advance vapid and reactionary movements. I think we need to stop thinking about a single American Jewish community. Lets think about Judaims in terms of radical diversity. There are lots of communities doing lots of interesting things, some i support, and some i oppose with every fiber of me being. The one’s I like to associate with are independent, Jewishly knowledgeable, and politically radical/progressive. Those are my Jewish communities, and its unclear to me why we have responsibility toward the big boys. They certainly don’t give a shit about me (as can be seen in the AJC report)
A few months ago the heads of the major denominations spoke at a panel I attended. They were asked given the draw of DIY indy judaism, what the movements were good for. I kid you not, the best answer rabbi eric yoffe could could up with was the movements print prayerbooks. Because, you know, there are only THOUSANDS of independent prayerbooks put out, by orthodox publishers, by havurot, as photocopied zines. Judaism has been cut and paste for a long time, and the last thing we need is a movement’s official imprimatur on some book. That most liberal American Jews have only ever had the pleasure of praying from Sim Shalom of Gates of Prayer, that is a travesty.
So, “the community” they can go fuck themselves. I want to see an explosion of diverse Jewish communities, publications, and institutions. “The community”s role right now is policing the boundaries, to make sure they do not loose their power. Again, I point you to the AJC report.
What is “hipster” Judaism? I’m in my mid-20s, Jewish, live in downtown Manhattan, attend a renewal synagogue fairly regularly, indie minyans occassionally (never once found them smug), and my parents’ conservative synagogue on the high holidays. I’ve found the “Friday Night Dinners” at my renewal congregation demonstrate a nice sense of community that I sometimes find lacking in other denominations. Oh, and I have a well-groomed beard, and am in the arts.
At the same time, I think I’m pretty humble about the knowledge of Judaism that I have, value my participation in the community, and find inspiration in my religion that guides me in my life.
why do people insist that one needs a shul for things like marriage, funerals, education, mikva’ot, etc?
getting married doesn’t even require a RABBI, unless everyone else is so Jewishly uninformed that they don’t know how to conduct a wedding by themselves. (same with funerals). There is no reason for a mikva to need a shul– in fact, the older mikva in my community is in a converted house.
I think the main question here is if the indie minyanim and such can survive independent of established shuls. I’m not sure why they need to, as long as relationships are symbiotic. But it also seems to me that some can and do.
ABJ– Having one’s own building can create stability. It can also lead to ostentatious buildings with mortgages that drain the community’s resources and put an undue burden on less affluent members. So all in all, I find shul buildings overrated.
As for sifrei torah, I believe both Shira Chadasha and Kedem in J-m own their torah’s, and they seem to find safe places to keep them. Other options for those with less cash flow include borrowing from a big shul with an absurd number of extra torahs, borrowing from a school that does not use theirs on shabbat, and borrowing a privately owned torah.
I’ve gotta agree. I have never once found a single indie minyan to be smug, and for what it’s worth, mine can’t even seem to form a mission statement let alone running around being obnoxious about its mission. It’s ironic we call it the Mission Minyan.
i’ll also point out that many of the minyans we’re talking about are chock full of babies. and that many, MANY members of these communities maintain multiple affiliations at multiple institutions. and that this conversation is getting a bit old. if you hate indie minyans, just don’t go to them, okay?
there’s no reason for marriages, funerals, education, or mikva’ot to be dependent on shuls. None of the above even require RABBI’S (not to say that rabbis can’t be excellent resources, beacause plenty are)
ABJ– shul buildings can create stability… or they can be ostentatious ridiculous edifices with mortgages that drain the community’s resources and energy, and especially burden less affluent members. highly overrated.
as for sifrei torah, the options seem to be:
1. minyan buys it’s own torah. I believe both Shira Chadasha and Kehillat Kedem (J-m) own their sifrei torah and find places to store them. convenient, but requires a good amount of money.
2. borrow a privately owned torah. not always an option, and people who own torah’s sometimes get very very protective.
3. borrow from a school or somewhere that doesn’t use theirs on shabbat. excellent symbiotic relationship
4. borrow from a big shul that has about 16 extra sifrei torah it never actually uses. While this would make the minyan technically dependent upon the resources of a shul with seriously misplaced priorities, it seems like a win-win situation. The big rich shul gets to do something actually worthwhile with its extra torah’s, and the minyan gets to have a torah reading. so again, symbiosis.
OKay, just for the record (which I’ve said before), I *like* indie minyans, and think they’re a good thing. I’m trying to raise questions which I think are important to their and the Jewish comunity’s health. That’s all.
I also want to note that when I say “community” I do nt mean movement. What I’m noting is that many of these minyans target a very slim demographic which tends to exclude (again, not all but many) people in their forties or older. Some have young families with young children. few have young families with slightly older children. those that do, don’t have many of them, and very few have people who might qualify as grandparents – and when they do, they tend to be one or two or three. I find that to be of concern. I don’t actually care if indie minyans affiliate with any none or all movements. I have to admit, that I don’t much care about movements over all either – I thinkthe purpose of movements oughtto have been to get Jews to beinvolved in Judaism. Insofar as they succeed, that’s great, where they don’t ,let others take over, or let them fail and disappear. Whatever, as long as someone’s out there doing it.
My question, is how to get a robust Judaism out of a narrow slice of community that tends not to contribute monetarily to the services it receives, and how those services can be maintained in the face of thelack of desire to do so.
Some indie minyans *have* solved this problem – many of them – as Becca noted- take onthe trappings of institutional life: boards, or other administrative structuresThe question that then remains for those minyans is whether or not they are able to maintain, inthe face of their administrative structures, the energy and passion that they began with. I have no answers, only questions.
And BZ, if you want to know which minyans, write me off-line, please.
no reason for marriages, funerals, education, or mikva’ot to be dependent on shuls. None of the above even require RABBI’S (not to say that rabbis can’t be excellent resources, because plenty are)
ABJ– shul buildings can create stability… or they can be ostentatious “edifices” with mortgages that drain the community’s resources and energy, and especially burden less affluent members.
as for sifrei torah, the options seem to be:
1. minyan buys it’s own torah. I believe both Shira Chadasha and Kehillat Kedem (J-m) own their sifrei torah and have places to store them. convenient, but requires a fair amount of money.
2. borrow a privately owned torah. not always an option, and people who own torah’s sometimes get very very protective.
3. borrow from a school or somewhere that doesn’t use theirs on shabbat. excellent symbiotic relationship
4. borrow from a big shul that has about 16 extra sifrei torah it never actually uses. While this would make the minyan technically dependent upon the resources of a shul with seriously misplaced priorities, it seems like a win-win situation. The big rich shul gets to do something actually worthwhile with its extra torah’s, and the minyan gets to have a torah reading. so again, symbiosis.
KRG asks, again: how to get a robust Judaism out of a narrow slice of community that tends not to contribute monetarily to the services it receives, and how those services can be maintained in the face of the lack of desire to do so.
I’m truly puzzled by the repeated assertion that indie minyans don’t finance themselves. Here’s what I know: Hadar pays (a lot of) money to rent its space, and owns its Torah. (The Torah, btw, is stored in a participant’s apartment, not kept by some shul.) Kol Zimrah pays money to rent its space and stores its siddurim, potluck equipment, etc. in participants’ homes. Park Slope Minyan pays to rent its space. Altshul has paid to rent its space when it’s not meeting in a participant’s home. Washington Square Minyan pays to rent space. Kol HaKfar meets in people’s homes. Techiya meets in people’s homes. Zoo Minyan meets in people’s homes. The Highland Park Minyan has been renting its own space for 30 years and owns its Torah and siddurim. It’s really a bit unfair- and inaccurate- to say indie minyans have significant tendency to freeload!
Furthermore, even in cases (which I of course acknowledge exist) where indie minyans are hosted for free by shuls, the shul is *always* getting something out of that relationship; institutions rarely do things that aren’t in their self-interest. Their interests might be in bragging rights (“look at how many young people are in our building!”), in hoping to woo minyan members into becoming shul members or participating in shul activities (a la the pre-Andy Bachman Beth Elohim/Park Slope Minyan debacle), or a thousand other things that might or might not be obvious to us.
Re: the provision of services, it’s totally fascinating that so many detractors assume that this generation will inevitably join shuls because we’ll need Hebrew schools, rabbis to marry us, bar/bat mitzvah our kids, etc. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve had pretty serious conversations with like-minded friends about how we plan to form Jewish education collectives to educate our kids, do weddings for one another, etc. Lest you dismiss this as pie-in-the-sky idealism, I point you to my parents’ independent minyan, which has existed for over 25 years and never had a rabbi or professional Jew working for them. That community has taught its own kids and done its own b’nai mitzvah (turning out kids with much better Judaic knowledge than institutional schools), performed its own weddings, done its own bikkur cholim, ran its own adult education classes, conducted its own high holiday services, and on and on.
I’m with Sarah: if you don’t like indie minyans, then just don’t go to one! I totally don’t get this seemingly incessant need to diss them or to hold them to higher standards than we hold any other communal institution.
Darn it. Sorry about the italics madness.
Jew Guevara and POLJ both accuse independent minyanim of this elitism. I’m not sure I understand what this accusation is about, but I’m going to respond as if it’s “Sure, it’s easy enough for you to start independent minyanim when you’re in NYC or another big city with lots of Jews, but what about the rest of us in Cedar Rapids and Presque Isle?”. which I’ve heard often enough around these parts and elsewhere. (If I’m responding to a straw man and this isn’t what you intended, please let me know what you meant by “elitism”, and give examples.)
Of course I acknowledge that there is a difference between the Jewish landscape in NYC and in Cedar Rapids. But why should the alleged unfeasibility of an independent minyan in Cedar Rapids affect what anyone does in NYC?
Is it elitist for me to ride the subway (which people outside of large cities don’t have), or for someone in Florida to take advantage of the warm weather (which I certainly don’t have right now)?
How would it benefit the Jewish community of Cedar Rapids if the Jews of NYC were to become less “elitist” and abandon their independent minyanim?
Avi BenJakob writes:
And finally, owning a building is a sign of stability that you are not going anywhere.
Perhaps the mobility of the Jewish population should teach us that “not going anywhere” is an unrealistic ideal. It’s certainly unrealistic for me — I don’t plan to make enough money to raise a family in my current neighborhood, so I’ll be on the move at some point.
Even beyond the building issue, no independent minayn provides all the religious needs for its members. How many minyanim meet every week? How about meeting for every service on Shabbat? What about meeting during the week?
My original post was directed at the argument that independent minyanim are harming synagogues. Now you’re making a different point — that independent minyanim aren’t properly providing for their own participants. But isn’t that for those people to decide? To echo once again what Sarah said, “if you hate indie minyans, just don’t go to them, okay?”
Assuming that this is true, it’s even more remarkable that many people are choosing independent minyanim over synagogues, despite the fact that they don’t “provide all the religious needs”. The people who participate in these minyanim, assuming they are rational actors, have made the decision that this is still the best place for them.
Rooftopper Rav says: I’m truly puzzled by the repeated assertion that indie minyans don’t finance themselves.
It’s not so much that they don’t finance themselves (though some don’t, or seriously struggle to). It’s that they can’t exist in a vaccum without other Jewish institutions. Hadar owns one torah, but when they need a second torah, they can just borrow from someone. Hadar has lots of machzors for high holidays, but where did they come from? TLS meets in the RAC for free. Sure, the source of the second torah or the machzors or the free space might not need them anymore, or might have sold them or leased them for below or even at fair market value. And these sources might be gaining something non-monetary that’s of equal value to them. The argument isn’t that the indie minyanim are freeloading from the other instituitions. It’s just that they can’t exist without the other institutions, whether freeloading is happening or not.
Whether it’s intended or not, most of the newer minyanim are mostly young people who haven’t reached their maximum earning potential. So they often need help, and usually get it when they do. And that’s okay; it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t exist. But maybe the so-called “elitist” attitude is the perception that indie minyan goers think they could exist just fine if all the megashuls just up and disappeared one day.
1) What about the shuls who have gotten into the act and have offshoot minyans that meet within them (I’m thinking of the Ruach minyan or traditional minyan at Adas)?
2) I think the profile of the independent minyan as younger might come from the visibility of Hadar or your involvement with Tikkun Leil Shabbat, but it’s not true for many independent minyans. In Dc, for example, there is out that the Hill Havurah. It gets help from a non-Jewish institution (meets in a church basement), has a torah, and most of the members are 40+. It’s really, really hard to generalize about the buildingless communities.
BZ Writes: Assuming that this is true, it’s even more remarkable that many people are choosing independent minyanim over synagogues, despite the fact that they don’t “provide all the religious needsâ€. The people who participate in these minyanim, assuming they are rational actors, have made the decision that this is still the best place for them.
I agree that independent minyanim are better places for a lot of people. My point was what happens if all the shuls die and all that’s left are the independent minyanim? Are they enough to sustain Judaism on their own? And if they grow to meet all your needs what makes them different from a standard shul?
This is not an attack against the independent minyanim. This is an attack against the us vs. them attitude. The independent minyanim can not exist in a vacuum, and at the end of the day there is no difference between a full service independent minyan and a shul besides semantics.
My point was what happens if all the shuls die and all that’s left are the independent minyanim? Are they enough to sustain Judaism on their own?
If all the shuls die and only independent minyanim are left, Judaism has a better chance of being sustained than if all the shuls die and there aren’t independent minyanim left.
If all the shuls die (which I don’t think is very likely or — yes, I’ll say it — desirable), they (not the independent minyanim) will be responsible for their own demise. They had plenty of warning.
And if they grow to meet all your needs what makes them different from a standard shul?
That would be precisely what makes them different! Standard shuls aren’t meeting the needs of the people who participate in independent minyanim.
This is an attack against the us vs. them attitude.
Here we agree, and that was the point of my post. Independent minyanim are serving people who wouldn’t be going to synagogues, and vice versa, so they’re not in direct competition.
ABJ said that: I agree that independent minyanim are better places for a lot of people. My point was what happens if all the shuls die and all that’s left are the independent minyanim? Are they enough to sustain Judaism on their own? And if they grow to meet all your needs what makes them different from a standard shul?
This claim misses a very basic point, that may at first appear semantic: by definition a minyan meets primarily (or only) for services and does not provide religious schooling, spaces for weddings, or any of the other non-service services we have been discussing. Certainly some groups who we think of as “independent minyanim” do not meet this definition.
I earlier pointed out that there are real advantage to having minyanim separate from several other synagogue functions. Think of it like a Hillel, where the Conservative, Renewal, Bratslav, or whatever minyan meets on friday night and a cooking club meets on tuesday night. Many people may love to pray in the Bratslav minyan and cook in the cooking club. Others like one but not both. If we understood synagogues as places where diverse groups met, supported innovation, and welcomed many ideological viewpoints, than they would have many advanatges of contemporary minyanim without a lot of the drawbacks of conventional synagogues. Wouldn’t it be better for everyone (except the banks with the mortgages) if we paid less as a community and had fewer buildings sitting empty most of the time?
We would have a much more fulfilling and efficient community if we built organizations similar to hillels but for multi-generational-geographically-bounded communities. basically add more jewish life to JCCs. This model will be primarily useful without much work in cities, but could be useful elswhere. We would all pay less in membership and get more in return in the short-term and long-term.
shkoyach BZ for generating such interest and a vigorous debate via your post. it was just what I needed after leading my current Independent Minyan.
Wanna get your mind blown? It meets every week. It owns its own Siddurim (Gates of Prayer). At least 6 people participate leading prayers in Hebrew or English each week. Attendance is around 25 on average. We do High Holidays and a Seder in addition to Friday night services. We do not have membership dues. Many of the members belong to other synagogues. Only half the attendees learned Hebrew and three quarters were never Bnai MItzvah’d. There is paid non-clergy Shaliach Tzibur (me). We don’t have a Federation event, annual fundraiser or budget. Nobody it turned away. There is no smug elitism. Everyone sings along. We meet in a retirement community’s social hall.
Average attendee age: 81. So much for all y’all’s assumptions!