[sh'liach k'hilah] outreach (mostly)

[cellio]

A quick aside: one of the articles I came home with is "Music in the Synagogue: When the Chazzan 'Turned Around'", by William Sharlin (CCAR Journal, Jan 1962). It asserts that when the chazzan (cantor, prayer leader) faced the ark (and thus had his back to the congregation), prayer -- both his and the congregation's -- could be more heart-felt, private, and perhaps spontaneous. However, when the chazzan started facing the congregation, everyone got self-conscious. So how do you find seclusion for prayer in that kind of situation? He raises the question but doesn't answer it. I'm not sure I accept his premise; it sounds plausible but I haven't thought a lot about it yet. But he could be right. I certainly did notice on Friday night that I wasn't sure what to do with myself, physically, during the silent prayer at the end of the Amidah, when I was facing the congregation.

On to outreach...

The instructor stressed that "outreach" really means two things to her -- ahavat ger, welcoming the stranger, and kiruv, drawing (everyone) near. Our goal should be to build welcoming communities in general, recognizing that we have a diverse community with different needs. She also scored points with me by saying we need to not neglect the knowledgable, committed Jews in the process, or assume that everyone is a family (with kids). Data point: the NJPS survey in 2000 found that only 20% of Jewish households consisted of two parents plus kids; we (she says, and I agree) under-serve 80% of our households. (She talked about some programs that the Reform movement encourages to aid in all this; we received literature. :-)

We also received some good checklists on the theme of "is your congregation user-friendly?". Some of the points are excessive in my opinion (e.g. they suggest that your yellow-pages ad include a map), but others are things we could definitely be doing better on.

During the conversion class we looked at two texts, Avram's covenant with God and Ruth's conversion to Judaism. I noticed two interesting things here. First, with Avram God is the priority; with Ruth it seems to be more about peoplehood, with God as a side-effect. Second, Avram is given some assurances by God; Ruth is making a leap of faith with no real basis for predicting the outcome. (Will she be accepted by these people?) At least Avram had an invitation. So I guess it makes sense that Ruth rather than Avram is the model for conversion, because most of us don't receive divine invitations to do anything these days, but Avram's story makes a better source in setting priorities IMO. Yeah, we're also a people, but I think God has to come first or what's the point? (I realize this view is controversial with some.)

I found the CCAR guide on conversion to be largely familiar, which isn't surprising. :-) (The guide post-dates my conversion but had clearly been in progress for some years. My rabbi didn't follow it, but he did a lot of the same things and surely had input into the guide.) The format is clever: they have the core guidelines in the center of the page, with commentary, alternatives, and suggestions for implementation around the outside. It sort of resembles a page of talmud, which can't have been an accident.

According to the guide there are six questions a would-be convert has to answer affirmatively before being accepted. (This is a necessary, not sufficient, condition.) My rabbi used those same six but added a single word to one of them when I had to answer them; he added the word "exclusively" to "if you should be blessed with children, do you promise to raise them as Jews?". I approve of his addition. While I'm all for being as welcoming as we can to interfaith families, I have seen too much evidence that a child raised with two religions ends up with zero, and if you aren't ready to raise your hypothetical children as Jews, perhaps you need to rethink whether you'll be able to keep Judaism alive in your home in other ways.

I note in passing that the CCAR resolution on patrilineal descent -- which doesn't quite say what many people think it does -- also requires an exclusive religion for the child. I wonder how widely this one is enforced; the class on education and curriculum brought up the problems of dealing with kids who alternate between your Sunday school and the church's, or who celebrate both Christmas and Chanukah. Of course, sometimes doctrine and poltiics are at odds with each other.

Comments

[kayre]

It asserts that when the chazzan (cantor, prayer leader) faced the ark (and thus had his back to the congregation), prayer -- both his and the congregation's -- could be more heart-felt, private, and perhaps spontaneous. However, when the chazzan started facing the congregation, everyone got self-conscious.

Fascinating parallels to priests turning around to face the congregation after Vatican II. We Protestants are generally not very intentional (or thoughtful, sadly) about precisely how things are done-- but my current pastors kneel at the communion rail, facing the altar, to lead prayer, rather than leading it from the pulpit facing the people. It's a change I appreciate.

We just had a 'church growth' expert in, and some of the things that came out in discussion were similar to what you shared here-- particularly that we under-serve young singles, and retirees.

[cellio]

Fascinating parallels to priests turning around to face the congregation after Vatican II.

It's that recent? I hadn't realized.

Once upon a time I went to a "re-creation" mass -- that is, a local Episcopalian priest (who was friendly with the SCA) agreed to perform a 14th-century vespers service (more specifics forgotten) in as historically-accurate a way as he could, as an educational exercise. The two things that struck me were the chant (I knew about chant academically but had not heard it in all its proper context) and his physical placement. He had his back to us the entire time, facing the altar; I initially thought that it was impresonal and elevating the priest in status, which may well be true, but he pointed out that this was also enpowering for the congregation, and having thought about it more now, I can see that. Obviously it was weird for us modern folks, but it wouldn't have been weird in context.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

A lot of people viewed the priest standing with his back to the congregation as impersonal. In actuality, he was facing the Tabernacle along with everyone else to place the emphasis on God. The re-creation sounds interesting. I've still never actually seen a pre-Vatican II Mass and it seems like it is something that I should experience.

I hadn't thought about the self-consciousness that can result as you mentioned. I mean, I have felt self-conscious when I've had to be in the sanctuary but I figured that we just because I don't do it often.

[cellio]

In actuality, he was facing the Tabernacle along with everyone else to place the emphasis on God.

Something similar happens in Jewish prayer. There are places during the service where everyone faces the ark, including the people on the bima. It is not (now) customary to conduct the entire service that way, though, at lease from what I've seen. I don't know if it ever was.

[goljerp]

It is not (now) customary to conduct the entire service that way, though, at least from what I've seen. I don't know if it ever was.

It depends on where you are. In the O/C/R/R spectrum, I think it's fairly common for the leader to be facing the ark during Shacharit/Musaf in Orthodox shuls.[1] In C shuls, there's more of a mix. The more "traditional" C shuls tend to have the leader facing the ark the whole service, but probably more shuls have the leaders mostly facing the congregation. As far as Reform and Recon go, my experience matches yours (and you have more experience with Reform than I). Another interesting thing is the Sephardic custom of having the leader facing the ark, but leading from the middle of the room, with the seats in a U around him (with the ark in the east). [2] (The top of the U is east).

[1]I don't have tons of experience in O shuls, but every one that I've been to does this.
[2] The sephardic shuls I've been to have not been egalatarian.

[cellio]

The re-creation sounds interesting. I've still never actually seen a pre-Vatican II Mass and it seems like it is something that I should experience.

The priest who did the re-creation has since left Pittsburgh. Unfortunate for us; he's a neat person.

Isn't there a church (possibly schismatic?) in Pittsburgh that still does the Latin mass? I don't know if they are otherwise pre-Vatican-II, but if you're curious about that you might want to visit them once and observe, assuming that going to one of their services for educational purposes would not pose a problem for you. (I can see not wanting to participate, but you could still watch.)

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

There is a church in Pittsburgh that has a sanctioned Latin Mass. I'll probably find myself there one day to see what it is like but the foreignness to it is both appealing and daunting.

[ginamariewade.livejournal.com]

As an aside to raising a child with two religions:
We are raising our son to be exclusively Jewish. Considering that he is the only Jewish kid in his daycare and his elementary school, and one of four in the whole city, he has a surprisingly strong Jewish identity.
My mother is Baptist, and he once sat her down and said "Grandma, you're the only person in my family who isn't Jewish. What's wrong with you?"
She will occasionally slip and take him to church with her. I don't like it and I try to avoid having her babysit on Sundays for that reason, but occasionally it can't be helped. I was worried that it would confuse him, but it turns out that he schools 'em while he's there. He is actually not allowed to come back to Sunday School at my mom's church because he made a big point of saying that Jesus was just a guy and the Devil isn't real.

[cellio]

We are raising our son to be exclusively Jewish. Considering that he is the only Jewish kid in his daycare and his elementary school, and one of four in the whole city, he has a surprisingly strong Jewish identity.

Yashar koach to all of you! It sounds like a challenging environment.

I was worried that it would confuse him, but it turns out that he schools 'em while he's there.

Good for him! :-) That's pretty good for a six-year-old.

I assume that your mother means well and, not being immersed in Judaism herself, just doesn't always know what is or isn't going to fly. It can take time.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

Just raising a child in a household with the parents holding different religious beliefs is difficult, especially if they contradict on another. I don't know what happens if a Jew and a Catholic marry because both groups make you promise to raise the children according to their faith. I guess one parent tends to be less attached to their faith than the other and they give in so things work. I would just hope that they wouldn't then lie to the rabbi or priest when making that promise. Building everything on a lie just seems like a bad way to start.

[cellio]

I assume that most couples in this situation have the best of intentions and don't realize how challenging it is to raise a kid in a house with two religions. And for most couples, one person is more strongly committed religiously than the other is; after all, if you have, say, a very-strongly-committed Catholic and a very-strongly-committed Jew, what are the odds that they would actually have married each other? Interfaith marriage results when religion is negotiable, and thinking abstractly about future kids can be rather different from confronting the issues around actual kids.

(Years ago, when I was not religious, I wondered just what the big deal was about interfaith marriages. I mean, each person can worship as he likes and not harm the other, right? Now I understand -- and it's not just about the kids, either. As I was studying for conversion I realized that I absolutely could not marry a non-Jew -- even if I ended up with a non-religious Jew, there needed to be at least that level of common understanding. It's hard to explain and it sounds snooty when I try, but it's not being snooty. In my case, I realized it would be a slap in the face of my adopted people to join them and then marry out.)

I don't know what happens if a Jew and a Catholic marry because both groups make you promise to raise the children according to their faith.

Well, that's the case if clergy officiate. No one can stop the couple from going to the JP. Or, for that matter, a rabbi can't stop the Jewish partner if the couple decides to get married in the church, or vice-versa.

Most rabbis won't participate in interfaith weddings; I assume the same is true for most priests. Some will, and some do "joint" weddings where they have clergy of both faiths involved, but I don't know how the negotiations for that tend to work out.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I think I can mostly understand what you felt about needing to marry a Jew. I've had similar feelings. I can certainly understand that it seems unlikely that two people strongly attached to their differing faiths are likely to see each other as marriage potential.

Nowadays I think more priests do interfaith weddings. I don't know all the details though. I have seen one case where a Protestant and a Catholic were married in the Protestant's church by a minister with a priest present representing the Catholic Church. My understanding (with admittedly little actual knowledge) is that most Protestant denominations don't require that children be raised in that denomination so that might make it easier.

I've had kids in Sunday School whose father was Jewish but their mother was Catholic. They were worried about whether or not their father was going to hell (which I cannot answer because that's between him and God but I can certainly say that being Jewish isn't a cause for hell). It's so confusing for kids.

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

Most rabbis won't participate in interfaith weddings; I assume the same is true for most priests.

Catholic priests will perform a service for someone who is marrying a non-Catholic, but the couple is usually required to participate in the Catholic pre-marriage preparation class/counseling

Also, if the couple would prefer for the ceremony to be performed by a minister of the non-Catholic fiance(e)'s faith, the marriage can still be seen as 'ok' in the eyes of the Catholic church as long as the couple goes through the hoops of asking for permission and, again, attends the Catholic premarriage preparation class/counseling

one thing that is important in that pre-marriage prep stuff is having conversations about "ok, say you have kids.... what are you going to teach them about religion? search your heart, what are you really feeling about this"

and as for your comment that you realized you couldn't marry a non-Jew.... I've dated non-Catholic guys and my most recent boyfriend and my current one were raised Catholic.... it's.... amazing the difference. Yes, it can be very tiring to have something that is important to you seem like it comes from Mars to someone who is very important to you

facing which way

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

However, when the chazzan started facing the congregation, everyone got self-conscious.

Background note: I was raised "Orthodox" (although rather unorthodox in some ways), and my husband's family goes to a Conservative synagogue (and I worked in one for a while), so those are the types of services I'm most familiar with.

The idea of the chazan facing the congregation is new to me, so I'm curious when/where this started. The closest thing I've seen is the torah reader facing the congregation (in a Conservative synagogue), but for the prayer parts of the service the chazan was facing the ark along with everyone else.

Re: facing which way

[cellio]

The idea of the chazan facing the congregation is new to me, so I'm curious when/where this started.

I don't know when/where it started. It certainly seems to be the norm in Reform, but two of the three local Conservative synagogues do it too, except during the Amidah, Barchu, and Aleinu, where everyone faces the ark. That's what I've seen in most Orthodox services I've visited too, though I don't have a lot of experience there, particularly with the farther-right Orthodox.

Apparently the trend had become common at least in the Reform movement by 1962, because that's when this article was written.

The closest thing I've seen is the torah reader facing the congregation (in a Conservative synagogue),

Wow. Every torah reading I've seen, including those few Orthodox, has been with the desk facing the congregation. (I've never been to a Sephardi synagogue, where I understand they put the reading desk in the middle of the room, facing front.)

but for the prayer parts of the service the chazan was facing the ark along with everyone else.

Including for things like nisim b'chol yom and p'sukei d'zimra?

Re: facing which way

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

It certainly seems to be the norm in Reform, but two of the three local Conservative synagogues do it too, except during the Amidah, Barchu, and Aleinu, where everyone faces the ark. That's what I've seen in most Orthodox services I've visited too, though I don't have a lot of experience there, particularly with the farther-right Orthodox.

Huh. Most of my experience is with "modern Orthodox" and slightly more to the right. (Much further to the right is likely to have problems with my learning gemara, wearing pants, and/or following my family's tradition and not covering my head/hair all the time even though I'm married.)

I've put an entry in my LJ asking what others have seen.

(I've never been to a Sephardi synagogue, where I understand they put the reading desk in the middle of the room, facing front.)

I've seen this in at least one Sephardi synagogue and various Ashkenazi synagogues too. I've also seen the chazan put in the middle of the room, facing front, which would mean he's facing some of the congregation, but they're facing front too*, so I think there's less of the issue of self-consciousness that you mentioned at the start of this thread.

*or sideways towards the middle, except for one place where the congregation is seated on all sides of a hexagon, facing in, so a few are face-to-face with the chazan.

Including for things like nisim b'chol yom and p'sukei d'zimra?

Yup, including the brachot at the beginning (is that what you mean by "nisim b'chol yom"?), korbanot, and p'sukei d'zimra.

It occurred to me that the rabbi (and sometimes a few other people) are often seated at the front of the room, next to the ark and facing the congregation. I wonder if this is connected to having the chazan face everyone else, possibly starting with small congregations where the rabbi led the services because few if any others knew how...

Re: facing which way

[cellio]

Huh. Most of my experience is with "modern Orthodox" and slightly more to the right.

As something of an outsider to orthodoxy, I can't always correctly identify the substrains. I have been to multiple congregations that called themselves modern orthodox, to one that was definitely farther to the right (I don't know if "black hat" applies, though there were many in attendance), one Lubavich service where the mechitzah was so high and opaque that I couldn't actually see what they were doing on the men's side, and a couple ambiguous ones. Much of this was a few years back, though, so my memories may be fuzzy. I know the torah reader in at least one of the MO congregations faced the congregation, for what little that's worth. (I've been there a few times.)

I look forward to hearing the results of your survey. Most of my experience is concentrated in one city.

Yup, including the brachot at the beginning (is that what you mean by "nisim b'chol yom"?), korbanot, and p'sukei d'zimra.

Yeah, that's the part I meant. (I've heard the term applied specifically to the sequence that includes all the "...who opens the eyes of the blind", "...who gives strength to the weary", etc brachot.)

Korbanot? (I know the word, but not in a liturgical context.)

It occurred to me that the rabbi (and sometimes a few other people) are often seated at the front of the room, next to the ark and facing the congregation. I wonder if this is connected to having the chazan face everyone else, possibly starting with small congregations where the rabbi led the services because few if any others knew how...

That makes sense. Our rabbi faces the congregation during most of the service. (We typically have a rabbi and a cantorial soloist on the bima -- also a couple other people, but they sit to the sides and sort of face in at an angle, so they're not directly facing the congregation.)

Re: facing which way

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

Korbanot? (I know the word, but not in a liturgical context.)

Saying the sections from the torah that describe the daily sacrifices (and the additional ones as appropriate on shabbat, rosh chodesh, etc) between nisim b'chol yom and p'sukei d'zimra.

I think many/most Conservative & Reform leave this out, the same way they changed the wording of the relevant section in the shemone esrei from future to past (making the korbanot only a thing of the past and not something to be resumed in the future).

Re: facing which way

[goljerp]

Something I've seen several times at Conservative minyanim (which is where most of my experience is) is that the leader sits down on a chair, back to the ark, for p'sukei d'zimra, but gets up and stands facing the ark once Shacharit begins. (Mostly this is at a minyan where the minyan sits in a "U" shape, with the ark on the east wall at the top of the U, so the leader's never totally hidden from everyone. I'm not sure if the seating arrangment began because they wanted it, or because it was the way to get the most seats into the space they have.)

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

I note in passing that the CCAR resolution on patrilineal descent -- which doesn't quite say what many people think it does --

So what does it actually say and what do most people think it says?

[cellio]

Most people think it says "a child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother is Jewish (period, stop)". What it actually says is this:

The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people. The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who participate in them, both parent and child, to Jewish life.

Depending on circumstances, mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, bar/bat mitzvah, and kabbalat torah (confirmation). For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi.

So according to this, we have a requirement of exclusivity, a requirement on the parents (not just the child), and the possibility that a child born to a Jewish mother might not be considered Jewish by the Reform movement (if that child is raised, say, as a Christian). I knew about that last, and I knew about the requirement for public and timely identification, but I did not myself know about either the exclusivity clause or the requirement on parents.

Naturally, this has the potential to be messy in many ways. Egalitarianism is a core principle in Reform, so I understand why they did it, but it is not without its troubles.

(The resolution is dated 1983, by the way.)