What’s (Not) Missing From the “J” (No. 4)

Logo of the "J"
No endorsement implied

As readers of this blog know, I have not exactly been a happy camper regarding the condition of both the local Conservative Movement in San Francisco and the state of local synagogues generally. I therefore decided to see if I could spark a discussion of what, for me at least, is a very important issue. With that objective in mind, I suggested in a prior letter to the "J," the local Jewish community newspaper, that conventional synagogues had something to learn from the independent minyan movement. My prior letter (and some background) can be found in my post of March 1, 2013, What’s (Not) Missing From the “J” (No. 3)

My letter to the “J” provoked two responses.

The first was from a board member of the synagogue of which I am (still, for a while longer) a member. Here’s a link to his letter in the “J’s” electronic version, Jweekly.com. For your ready reference here is the text:

Traditional synagogues remain essential

I was very interested in Robert White’s March 1 letter titled “Moving beyond the conventional synagogue,” as I am an active board member of the congregation of which he is a past president. I applaud the efforts of those involved in expanding participation in Shabbat minyan, as I believe this leads to a more experiential Jewish life. However, I was unclear as to the advantages of an independent minyan, other than an absence of organizational and financial concerns that are part of maintaining a traditional synagogue.
I thought Mr. White was rather dismissive in appreciating the benefits of having a full array of offerings when he stated “While one can argue that synagogues are, at least, full-service institutions …” It is these very services, including daily minyan, lifecycle support, rabbinical access, High Holy Day services, Jewish schooling and festival observance, that are lacking to some extent with an independent minyan.

Therefore, at various times, it is essential for nearly all of us to avail ourselves of the offerings found in the institutional setting. Given the frequency of events (both predictable and unpredictable), operating a traditional synagogue is a 365-days-per-year effort, and this requires funding.

Furthermore, I disagree with Mr. White’s description of synagogue budgets as “bloated.” I commend participation in a Shabbat service, but I strongly assert that in a metropolitan area such as ours, the traditional synagogue is essential to fulfilling our needs, and that in turn, requires financial support.

Leonard S. Yaffe, M.D. | Tiburon

I thought the letter was surprising for its failure to recognize the reality of day-to-day synagogue life both generally and at the synagogue where Dr. Yaffe sits (and I once presided) over the board. So, struggling to stay within the 200 word limit for Letters to the Editor, I wrote back to the “J,” which graciously printed my response. You can find it in this week’s Jweekly.com (it’s the fourth letter down). For convenience, I reproduce it below (goodness knows where they came up with the odd caption/title):

Minyans are a fine, and perhaps vital, option

I read Dr. Yaffee’s letter (“Traditional synagogues remain essential,” March 8) with considerable interest. I wish I could agree, but available statistics and the realities of synagogue life suggest otherwise. For example, a survey conducted by the Jewish Federation of the East Bay in 2011 stated that only 21 percent of East Bay Jews are dues-paying members of a synagogue. I think it is therefore fair to ask for whom are traditional synagogues essential and why do they appeal to relatively few Jews?

Daily minyans are wonderful but they are poorly attended and often struggle just to reach a quorum. Moreover, very few synagogue members actually attend them. Much the same is true for Friday night and Saturday morning services. The difference, unfortunately, is only one of degree. There are plenty of other examples.

My point in raising these issues is that conventional synagogues face irrelevance absent a thorough re-examination of essential premises and a concerted effort to look for and inculcate new ideas and new thinking. I don’t suggest that independent minyans are the answer, or the only answer. I do suggest they are one place to look for ideas to revitalize an institution that should be essential but increasingly is not.

Robert White | San Francisco

Here are some of the “other examples” that I had in mind in addition to the reality of anemic attendance both generally and at the synagogue where Dr. Yaffe sits on the board.

If a proficiency test were administered to the graduate of a synagogue religious school, would that test demonstrate proficiency in basic Hebrew, understanding of (simple) prayers, competence in Bible study and basic Judaism? In asking this question (and fearing the answer), and as I noted in my prior post, I have tremendous respect for the many hard working and well meaning Jewish educators I have known over the years. However, they work against impossible odds in trying to inculcate both Jewish values and Hebrew language to distracted and dubiously motivated students in two or three afternoon or morning sessions per week.

Another example involves my comment about “bloated budgets,” which was also mentioned in Dr. Yaffe’s letter. That synagogue now has between four and five times as many staff to service roughly the same population as was historically served over the past 50 years. (And I would not be surprised if this is the case with other synagogues.) Why? In a prior post (The Role Of Hebrew In the Prayer Service -- Fifth In A Series (Solutions & Suggestions) I suggested a reason – synagogues have adulterated their basic mission by pursuing non-core goals and becoming something other than a place for prayer, study and lifecycle events – basically (at least outside of Orthodoxy) they have become a sort of redundant community center/social welfare agency with diffuse and largely unattainable objectives.

So if I were still sitting on the board of the synagogue of which I am (still, for a while longer) a member, frankly I would be petrified about the future and I would be looking around for ideas. What I would not do is be complacent because some day someone is going to need a daily minyan or a synagogue religious school. As to the former there are less such “someones” by the week and there are not all that many to start with. As to the latter, I fear that the graduates of such schools offer little hope in terms of Jewish continuity and there is a far more effective alternative, referring to Jewish day schools.

But before I go on, I should mention the other Letter to the Editor that appeared in last week’s “J.” It came from Theodore R. Bresler, the gentleman whose letter to the “J” occasioned my initial response. (You can find his original letter in What’s (Not) Missing From the “J” (No. 3)) Here is what he wrote:

Donations vs. dues

I enjoyed reading Robert White’s letter to j. regarding functional religious communities beyond the conventional synagogue.

He criticizes my letter of Feb. 22, pointing out that the conventional synagogue is not the only model of religious community that works. He particularly refers to the Mission Minyan as an example of an alternative successful type of religious community.

While the Minyan has no dues, its website asks for donors and sponsors to pay the $110 per week it costs for the room it uses on Friday nights. The Minyan 1) meets every Friday night at a specific location in San Francisco; 2) seeks to match guests and hosts for home hospitality every Friday night; 3) meets every other Shabbat morning; 4) meets regularly for special learning sessions, holiday programs, social action projects and social services.

While the Minyan is not a “congregation,” it does provide regular, ongoing activities far beyond what is provided by the seven-person group that received so much recent attention from j.

Yes, Mr. White, institutions such as the Minyan can work with proper financial support. They are more worthy of our commendation than the recently featured San Jose group.

Theodore R. Bresler | Fremont

I thought about writing a response to Mr. Bresler’s letter but held off as I really wanted the “J” to print my response to Dr. Yaffe. In addition, I could not have asked for better free publicity for the Mission Minyan. (Readers interested in the Mission Minyan may also be interested in my post, The Role Of Hebrew In the Prayer Service -- Fourth In A Series (Discovering the Mission Minyan))

But here is what I drafted but did not send to the “J” in response:

There is a world of difference between an organization asking, in a totally non-coercive way, for an occasional small financial contribution and the extraction of dues by the typical synagogue, which includes withholding High Holiday tickets (aka “pay to play”), social pressure, guilt-tripping, and when all else fails, triage funding by threatening or feigning the equivalent of sudden death of the institution.

The difference in board cultures (and I have now experienced both) is extraordinary when there is no agenda item heading up the list entitled “fiscal emergency.”

Robert White | San Francisco

I should add that there is also a difference being “on the board” – when your organization is premised on shared labor, “board service” is more like being part of a co-op, you are that much more of a stakeholder as others can help in kind but not in cash. We all have to pull together and that means actually doing things as opposed to writing a check. Truly a different experience, one which, in due course, I will report back on to my readers.

But now for the bottom line (or, as they say in colloquial (vulgar) Yiddish, tucchus af’n tisch). If my experience over the last few years has yielded any useful information, I would boil it down to the following:

1. The most successful synagogues, by far, either possess (1) a charismatic rabbi able to motivate the congregation into assuming a more religiously engaged lifestyle by the power of his or her example (or eloquence, or teaching, or all of the above); and/or (2) a core group of highly motivated congregants who are both numerous enough and sufficiently influential to set the tone for the institution. Synagogues lacking the above stagnate. Religious communities with both are extraordinary but having the one or the other can be more than enough for a satisfactory religious and communal experience and there is a synergy between the one and the other.

2. The configuration of the space matters, but not the way conventional synagogues, planners and donors think it does. Exponents of the “if you build it they will come” theory of architecturally compelling buildings are wrong. They don’t come and the horrendous debt incurred by four of the last five Bay Area synagogues to pursue major building projects just distorts communal life by making money the be-all and end-all of leadership functions and congregational activities. Instead, space matters in the sense of creating an intimate space for collective worship. Small is actually better in this instance.

3. Quality matters. With the reduction, if not outright demise, of the traditional cantorial role, much more is expected of lay religious leadership. When that leadership is knowledgeable, competent and tuneful, the resulting experience can be every bit as gratifying, if not more, than a service with a traditional cantor. Competence can also bridge the gap between satisfying the demands of tradition and the desire of membership to have a time-manageable experience in synagogue. The absence of such competence results in an offputting and alienating religious experience. Competence and a motivated core group go hand in hand.

4. Intensive full-time Jewish education is the hope of the future for both Jewish congregational life and Jewish life in America generally. Synagogue Hebrew schools are structurally unable to produce motivated and knowledgeable Jews, certainly not all by themselves, and parents and synagogue leaderships are kidding themselves if they pretend otherwise. Hebrew day schools can, as can summer camps and trips to Israel. That is where communal money should go, not on buildings hardly anyone actually uses or the provision of religious services used by a small minority of synagogue members, not to mention off topic programming that is better done by Jewish community centers and other organizations. Reorganization of the conventional synagogue is absolutely essential to use community resources effectively and achieve the long term goals necessary to provide for a vigorous Jewish life in America.

[The points made above are discussed in greater detail and in a broader context in The Role Of Hebrew In the Prayer Service -- Fifth In A Series (Solutions & Suggestions), with a follow-up to be found in Afterwords, Short Takes, Reflections & Corrections (No. 1)]

Having made these general points, here are some concrete suggestions for the here and now.

Right now in San Francisco there is a single minyan that conducts an actual Ma’ariv (evening service). I’m aware of three synagogues that have a regular morning minyan and one that conducts afternoon (Mincha) prayers. All struggle from time to time. If a daily minyan is essential as Dr. Yaffe says, why not establish a community-wide and community-supported daily minyan? Maybe two, one egalitarian and one traditional. Why not pool the clearly inadequate numbers supporting these scattered minyans and make something that works? If locating these services at one or more local synagogues is problematic for any reason, the Jewish Community Center Library was designed to function as a chapel (complete with Ark and Torah in place). Having some experience in communal fundraising (and a keen appreciation of the power of Jewish guilt), I am extremely confident that fundraising for a community-wide minyan would be successful, in fact downright easy. Moreover, it’s an ill kept secret that synagogues with struggling minyans sometimes pay people to attend. (In the synagogue in which I am (still, for a while longer) a member, this practice actually provided a fine transition into the community for some Soviet emigres of retirement age.) “Rent” a few people to ensure that these minyans always have a quorum and you have a reliable morning and evening solution to a problem that some (although not nearly as many as there should be) regard as essential.

Here’s another idea. As noted above, I believe that a strong and influential “core group” of religiously energized and motivated Jews is absolutely essential to inject some energy into religious life. If you can’t grow them, maybe you invest in such people. It would take money but how about a program of “Jewish community fellowships” to bring motivated Jews into a particular community by helping to subsidize their living in (horrendously expensive) San Francisco and giving them an incentive to get involved in local Jewish communal and synagogue life? Something like this actually happened in connection with one of the local Orthodox synagogues, which appears to be well on its way to a complete recovery from a near death experience (the congregation could not, at the time, even pay its rabbi’s salary). “Salting” the congregation with a number of educator/rabbis and their families, I am told, helped jump start a remarkable recovery.

But now it’s time to move on (in more ways than one). I’ve said my piece, even spending a bit of money to advertise the blog to reach some additional readers regarding a subject that I believe is vital to the future of Jewish life in San Francisco, if not the Bay Area, if not broader still. I was glad to see the readership increase and only time will tell if any of this matters. But at least I’ve tried. As always, I invite comments, left either on the blog or via e-mail.  See you next week.