Friday, December 14, 2007

The results are in: Take III

(Crossposted to Jewschool)

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.

16 comments:

  1. "(This is even more true of the border, or "mechitza" if you will, between Conservative and Orthodox identification.)"

    Nice wording :)

    Someone should do a study on *that* boundary line. I'm interested.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I feel like I already know the answer: No one who identifies as Conservative has any positive associations with that identification as it compares to Orthodoxy (as opposed to comparing it with other movements or it standing on its own), with the notable exception of egalitarianism.

    This is why I have such high hopes for the heksher tzedek. At best, it will create a new positive identity for Conservative Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think "no one" is an overstatement. I think many young adults (and older) would compare their youth group and/or camping experiences positively even when compared to the Orthodox equivalents. Ditto for publications, especially if we take Orthodoxy in this case to mean ArtScroll.

    ReplyDelete
  4. dlevy, what Conservative publications would such an identified person compare positively against Artscroll? Aside from siddur (and while both Sim Shalom & Artscroll have severe aesthetic and substantive issues, preference for a siddur usually comes from movement identification), what is there to compare?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Three thoughts:

    (1) The survey only answers accusations of one type of narcissicism. The narcissism which is of greater concern to me is not about their larger concerns (for the world or the Jewish people), but rather about their lack of long-term temporal vision, either for the Jewish lives of their participants post-minyan (e.g., are these minyanim thinking about continuity of experience to the suburbs) or for their own role/responsibility, as an educational/social phenomenon. (I predict that one response, at least to the this second aspect of vision, is that the very ability of these minyanim to disorganize is a great strength of theirs. That may be true on a local level, but I, as someone who has broader social hopes for the community created by particular prayer experiences, would prefer to see a stress placed on broader contiguity of experience, even if particular experiences disorganize.)

    (2) I wonder how people distinguish "Jewish responsibility" from plain-old "responsibility."

    (3) "[T]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." I think the CJLS itself is pretty clear that its decisions have no jurisdiction whatsoever, and are merely a set of ratified positions that individual community leaders can accept willy-nilly. (See, e.g., the disclaimer here or on the bottom of any of the linked teshuvot.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Still, that disclaimer says "Approved teshuvot represent official halakhic positions of the Conservative movement." "Official", even if they're not binding, and even if they can be overruled or disregarded. And it seems to me that this means that they're official positions of a set of institutions, not official positions of the locus of all Jewish communities with Hebrew egalitarian davening.

    ReplyDelete
  7. but rather about their lack of long-term temporal vision, either for the Jewish lives of their participants post-minyan (e.g., are these minyanim thinking about continuity of experience to the suburbs)

    A few responses to this:
    1) I would argue (and have argued) that the same lack of long-term vision for participants' Jewish lives is found in the conventional synagogue movements, both in terms of life stage (one reason that so many people in their 20s and 30s are attracted to independent minyanim is that many synagogues fail to be a space for those who are neither children nor parents) and in terms of Jewish education (the liberal movements are not prepared to deal with their own educational success and have communities of educated laypeople). I'm not sure the expectations for independent minyanim (which are run by volunteers) should be higher.

    2) I fully agree that we (as individuals, and as networks) should be thinking proactively about our futures. But I don't think that falls within the responsibilities of minyanim (as organizations), unless a minyan is planning to move en masse.

    3) I resent the (very common) meme that "the suburbs" are inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Some of the Conservative Movement publications that compare positively against Artscroll include the bentcher (B'Kol Echad), the Etz Hayim chumash (not perfect, but a major step), and a lot of the educational materials coming from both the formal and informal offices (eg "Higher & Higher: Making Jewish Prayer Part of Us," "Community & Responsibility," and although there's no Orthodox analogue, Dorff's "Conservative Judaism: Our Ancestors to Our Descendants")...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Still, that disclaimer says "Approved teshuvot represent official halakhic positions of the Conservative movement." "Official", even if they're not binding, and even if they can be overruled or disregarded. And it seems to me that this means that they're official positions of a set of institutions, not official positions of the locus of all Jewish communities with Hebrew egalitarian davening.

    But you forget that minyanim like Hadar and DC Minyan (OK, only 2 of the many indy minyanim) actually base their halakhic decision making on Conservative/Masorti teshuvot (I can't find it now but it linked to Rabbi Dr. Golinkin's teshuvot on women in the minyan, among others, as well as Rabbi Dr. Ethan Tucker's sources, one of the founders, who does straddle that "mechitza" institutionally but is ideologically Conservative (although I wonder what his father thinks!))

    And other indy minyanim are partnership minyanim, which, if anything like Shira Hadasha, have tons of Conservative 'marranos' there (myself included). Of course that doesn't reflect those places like Tikkun Leil Shabbat, which I suspect are more the places that attract Reform-raised Jews

    ReplyDelete
  10. But you forget that minyanim like Hadar and DC Minyan (OK, only 2 of the many indy minyanim) actually base their halakhic decision making on Conservative/Masorti teshuvot (I can't find it now but it linked to Rabbi Dr. Golinkin's teshuvot on women in the minyan, among others

    DC Minyan I don't know about. As for Hadar, perhaps those on the inside can clarify if they're reading this, but my understanding is that the Hadar organizers make policy decisions* based on consulting a variety of opinions, some of which might happen to come from within the Conservative/Masorti movement, but which receive no privileged status by virtue of being Conservative/Masorti positions. The Golinkin teshuvot are linked on the Hadar website as "useful resources", not as official Hadar policy.

    * Yes, policy decisions, not "halakhic decisions". As I understand it, the Hadar gabbaim understand their decision-making authority as applying only to what Hadar does, not to what is and isn't permissible for individuals or other communities.

    as well as Rabbi Dr. Ethan Tucker's sources, one of the founders, who does straddle that "mechitza" institutionally but is ideologically Conservative

    Bzzzzzzzzt! FOUL! Once you introduce "ideologically Conservative" into the picture, you're engaging in exactly the kind of blurring I'm talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rabbi Dr. Ethan Tucker's sources, one of the founders, who... is ideologically Conservative

    Have you asked Ethan Tucker whether that's true?

    Also, what does "ideologically Conservative" even mean? I think all non-Orthodox Jews (and even some Orthodox Jews) are ideologically Conservative in some areas, in the same way that I think all Jews are also ideologically Reconstructionist in some areas.

    And other indy minyanim are partnership minyanim, which, if anything like Shira Hadasha, have tons of Conservative 'marranos' there (myself included).

    Why are you in hiding at Shira Hadasha? There are also other folks who come (though maybe not all regulars) who'd be proud to say they're egal, liberal Jews.

    Of course that doesn't reflect those places like Tikkun Leil Shabbat, which I suspect are more the places that attract Reform-raised Jews

    I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Amechad--

    DC Minyan:
    Someone on the steering committee could give you a fuller answer (I'm a civilian), but I'd say they draw on different sources.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they draw on conservative sources in terms of allowing women to lead davenning, just b/c that's where a lot of exploring halachic implications of egal has gone on. That's just a guess, though.

    But their kashrut policy looks more ortho as all processed foods need a hechsher, with no exemption for cheese.

    But honestly? I think most of DCM's policy is based on "what will enable the most people who are interested in coming to feel comfortable*?" (i.e. separate seating but no mechitza, women davenning but 10+10 for a minyan), rather than a particular philosophy.

    TLS-- I believe it gets more Reform raised people than DCM, but it gets a lot (or at least some) of everything.

    *Yeah, I know it's a circle. But the creation story I've heard is that a bunch of younger folks at both Adas and Kesher all felt alienated at their respective shuls and started talking and figuring out what peoples' "red lines" were, and came up with a format that included a critical mass of people.
    I'd be interested in having this story confirmed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. bz,

    1) & 2) I'm prepared to say אין הכי נמי for the moment, since you've drawn a distinction between independent minyanim as networks vs. as organizations with which I agree. I do think that independent minyanim have a higher level of responsibility for forward-planning if they want even their own participants to view them as more than an experience for unmarried people/DINKs in their 20s/30s. (I don't buy the comparative expectation argument -- I think independent minyanim [at least those that represent an ideology] _should_ strive to do a better job than synagogues.)

    3) You're right that the suburbs (or even quasi-suburbs) are not inevitable, but there are plenty of people who live there or who ultimately have no choice but to live there. And they have potential resources (more money, more stability) that could be tapped.

    ReplyDelete
  14. dlevy,

    Obviously there's taste involved, but Be-Kol Ehad's song selection is paltry compared to either NCSY or Artscroll Family Zemiros [shudder] -- in particular, it leaves out my favorite "Ki Eshmerah Shabbat" and the beautiful "Tzamah Nafshi." And while I think both Etz Hayyim & Stone royally suck (neither watered down academia & superficial derash nor frum moralizing appeal to me), at least the latter has Rashi in the original!

    Since I haven't seen the educational materials to which you refer, I'll demur from commenting. (With the exception of Dorff's book, which has a decent history section but belongs to a strange genre of Conservative Movement Propaganda which I appreciate about as much as Orthodox Propaganda.) Minimally, however, at least Artscroll's footnotes lead to occasionally-obscure mekorot, and while a bit mahmir, their Halachos of Berachos & Halachos of Kashrus books contain useful practical summaries.

    ReplyDelete
  15. wolfman writes:
    Obviously there's taste involved, but Be-Kol Ehad's song selection is paltry compared to either NCSY or Artscroll Family Zemiros [shudder] -- in particular, it leaves out my favorite "Ki Eshmerah Shabbat" and the beautiful "Tzamah Nafshi."

    And, most egregiously, the last three verses of Yedid Nefesh.

    (With the exception of Dorff's book, which has a decent history section but belongs to a strange genre of Conservative Movement Propaganda which I appreciate about as much as Orthodox Propaganda.)

    Is this the one that has the menu of the treyfe banquet as an appendix?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I do think that independent minyanim have a higher level of responsibility for forward-planning if they want even their own participants to view them as more than an experience for unmarried people/DINKs in their 20s/30s.

    In my own life, I view New York as an experience for my unmarried/DINK self in my 20s/30s. :)

    ReplyDelete