![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
synagogue leadership behind the scenes
I'm a member of this year's nominating committee. This year we're also nominating the executive committee (last year was just board members). The executive committee consists of the president and three VPs (with an obvious line of succession), and also a treasurer, financial secretary, secretary, and a couple assistants. My understanding had been that getting onto the VP track leads to eventually being president, but that the other positions are not tied into that.
At this week's meeting of the nominating committee, though, the chair said something like "so-and-so (currently on the exec committee) is interested in keeping his current job but isn't interested in moving up the ranks" (so he was willing to step aside). That's when I learned that, actually, it's assumed that once you're on the executive committee you'll eventually move up to a VP and thence to president. How odd.
Our committee suggested that it's more important to have people who are both competent and interested holding positions like treasurer, and if such people don't have other aspirations that's fine with us. Two past presidents of the congregation thought this was right too, so it's obviously not a hard-and-fast rule. But still -- the skills that make one a good treasurer aren't obviously related to those that make one a good secretary or a good president. I'm still planning to insert myself into the budget committee, mind, but now I know that I probably shouldn't let them eventually make me treasurer. :-)
This morning at breakfast after minyan there was some discussion of that congregation's current rabbinic search. (Their rabbi gave notice a few weeks ago.) One of the minyanaires who (I gather) is on their board or executive committee had copies of a survey the Rabbinic Assembly asked the congregation to fill out. (The RA matches available rabbis with congregations.) She was soliciting feedback from the people there. I asked to look at the questions because I'm curious, though it would be wrong for me to contribute answers. (I'm not a member of that congregation. I'm just this person who shows up and now leads services.)
There were some interesting questions, including many that I wouldn't have thought to ask. (Obviously they have many more clues about this than I do. :-) ) They asked about congregational customs in a number of areas, including the role of women. (This is a Conservative congregation, so not automatically egalitarian.) They asked about attitudes toward intermarriages, conversions, and (I think) gays. They asked what activities in the last year the congregation is most proud of, what things the congregation does not want the rabbi to change, and what things the congregation does want the rabbi to change. They asked what the most recent major decision regarding worship was and how it was made, and what major decision the congregation expects to be next. These are all good questions -- in addition to providing raw data they give the potential rabbi a feel for what the congregation is like even before a phone screen happens.
I was amused by one question: "After leading services, what are the three most important jobs of the rabbi?". This is interesting because of the built-in assumption. Actually, at many congregations the rabbi doesn't lead services, or does so only for Shabbat and Yom Tov (that's the case at this one). And if a congregation has more than one rabbi, I gather that it's fairly common for leading services to fall primarily to one. I know a congregational rabbi who never leads services (except in an emergency); she was hired to oversee the religious school, not to lead worship, and she likes it that way.
no subject
The question about new ritual directions was the only time I've had since being here to really represent the things I've made happen: restoring cut parts of the service, doing Tachanun, generally trying to straighten the place out. It probably made us sound more haymish than we are. I sometimes wonder how the rabbi feels about that now that she's here -- now that she discovered that there was one meshgganah who made things strict, and everyone else, who doesn't give a damn. Well, that's grist for my shul blog over the next couple of days. Stay tuned.
no subject
That reminds me. Having seen this change in both the Reform siddurim and in Sim Shalom, I noted some differences. First, Sim Shalom doesn't introduce the gramatical weirdness ("avahot v'imahot"), but it does add their names. I like that. In the ending section, Sim Shalom adds "fokeid Sarah" while Reform uses "ezrat Sarah". Any idea where "fokeid Sarah" came from?
It probably made us sound more haymish than we are.
Oh, I don't know. There are, what, 900-1000 Conservative congregations in North America? I'd guess that a fair number of them have undergone liturgical changes in the last decade or two, and that a fair bit of the time it's to swing back toward tradition and away from liberalism. In addition, a change in rabbi is the perfect way to help change along. So I wouldn't be surprised to find that they see those kinds of reports on many of the applications from congregations for new rabbis. While congregations can differ with their rabbis over things like money, and of course rabbis can retire or move for family reasons, in most cases if there's a rabbinic vacancy it's because there was a dispute, and (I suspect) in most cases that dispute was about what happens on the bimah.
Well, that's grist for my shul blog over the next couple of days. Stay tuned.
I will. :-)
no subject
We are now in an odd liturgical situation where the rabbi, who is female, adds the names of the Matriarchs but not fokeid Sarah to the end part of the bracha, because those end parts are historically much more ancient than the other material in the brachot. It makes sense, but it doesn't match *any* text that we have, including the ones pasted in the back of the book.
These kinds of ambiguities are one reason I'm a liturgical dinosaur. I don't favor any real changes to the traditional liturgy, except perhaps deleting shelo asani ishah.
a fair bit of the time it's to swing back toward tradition and away from liberalism.
Right, but what I was saying was that this was instituted by me personally and not by any grand movement in the congregation. I was thinking something like, if I'm usually one of the two or three core members of the minyan, my opinion should at least be heard on something like doing Tachanun. And they went along.
In any event, the rabbi surely knows now what kind of a tsimmes she got into.
Did you see the long update I put in my shul blog last week? No one commented on it... I'm gonna write another one tonight. Lots of "fun" going on...
no subject
That does make sense, though. I like that. Bet I wouldn't be able to make that change at the minyan I lead, but oh well.
except perhaps deleting shelo asani ishah.
I like the "turn negatives into positives" approach to fixing that (picking up the "not a gentile" and "not a slave" ones at the same time -- and besides, can I really say "...who has not made me a gentile" when God did make me a gentile before we changed that?).
Did you see the long update I put in my shul blog last week?
How odd. No, I did not at the time, though I have just rectified that. I wonder what happened. (I did see the short one.)
no subject
You know, I seem to recall that there is a major debate about that very point in the medieval sources. I am okay with turning negatives into positives ("sheasani") too. That's about the extent of liturgical tinkering that I'm okay with.
no subject
I know that the Rambam was asked (by a convert) if he could cite the avot when they aren't his ancestors, and the answer boiled down to "they are now". But that's a different case, though perhaps related.
rabbis (not) leading services
I think most/all of the services I'm familiar with have been based on an alternate set of assumptions: (a) any adult (male) should be able to lead (especially relevant for grade/high school services), (b) the workload should be spread around, and (c) various people have various services/holidays/anniversaries (e.g. yahrzeit, bar mitzvah shabbat) that they feel a special attachment to. There's also the fact that, at most of these services, the main difference between what the leader says and what everyone else says is that the leader says it out loud and keeps the pace for everyone else. There are a few sections (e.g. kedusha) where the leader has more/other things to say, and the rarer the service the more likely that there will be parts that aren't so familiar to everyone in the room, but most of the everyday stuff is stuff that everyone knows. This means that "all anyone needs" to lead is lack of stage fright/self-consciousness, a decent voice, and the ability to lead at a decent pace.
no subject
Well, I hate to say it, but this is probably a pretty good assumption for most "normal"[1] Conservative shuls in the U.S. The average congregant in a "normal" C. shul expects the Rabbi to be on the Bimah on Friday night and Saturday morning services. If he[2] isn't leading prayers (he might be accompanied by a cantor[3] or congregant who does the actual singing), he's at least standing up there, announcing pages, leading spoken readings in english, etc.
The average congregant probably doesn't care as much about weekday services (often you have shuls where shabbat services are packed but they barely get a minyan for morning and evening minyan - if they hold them at all), so the fact that the Rabbi might or might not lead 'em isn't a big deal.
Educational director/Religious school leader is a different position -- although C. shuls like having Rabbis doing this, they don't expect that person[4] to be leading the main services regularly (other than an occasional youth service).
As far as what happens when a shul has a "senior rabbi" and "associate rabbi" (who is not the educational director) -- I don't have as much experience with C. shuls like that. I have a friend who was just hired as associate rabbi, and I think she's sharing the leading duties with the senior rabbi... although I think she leads fewer Sat morning/ Friday night services than he does.
Of course, my current shul has a bunch of lay-led minyans... but I'm in Manhattan, and so excluded by my definition of "normal" below.
[1] OK, this begs the question of what "normal" means. I guess what I mean is an affiliated shul outside of manhattan -- probably in a suburb or small town/city -- with a building of their own. This excludes most havurot, independent shuls, wandering minyanim...
[2] Or maybe she -- look, this isn't me saying what should be, this is me describing what I've seen
[3] There seems to be less resistance to female cantors.
[4] A lot of women Rabbis have been pursuing this path, for whatever reason.
no subject
This seems to be the case at Tree of Life. But the rabbi usually isn't even there for weekday services (a point of contention in the congregation), and if he is he isn't on the bimah (which is fine with the congregation). When they had two rabbis, the associate was only on the bimah if it was a school-oriented service (he was in charge of the school). So if they were trying to fill that position, they might not care about service-leading nearly as much as education and administration.
Educational director/Religious school leader is a different position -- although C. shuls like having Rabbis doing this, they don't expect that person[4] to be leading the main services regularly (other than an occasional youth service).
Ah, ok. From the outside, that looks like "senior rabbi" and "associate rabbi", and the associate rabbi's job includes the school. I'm not used to seeing "education director" in place of "associate rabbi". And actually, in my own (Reform) congregation, we have a "religious school director" who is different from the associate rabbi who runs the school. The director is an administrator; the rabbi oversees the educational content.
[4] A lot of women Rabbis have been pursuing this path, for whatever reason.
That seems obvious to me. Traditionally, women aren't supposed to work but teaching children is an exception. So women gravitate toward teaching positions. Now the Conservative movement as a whole no longer has that "the woman's place is in the home, or well ok in the school" attitude, but for many Conservative Jews, their (Orthodox) parents did have that attitude. And there are still a few C shuls out there with a mechitzah, and a bunch more that don't let women onto the bimah. So put all this together and I think you have a greater-than-US-average likelihood of women who aspire to synagogue positions heading for the school.
Interesting blog ...
This is Krista (Nathaniel-from-work's fiancee). I read your LJ from time to time via his friends page and I've really enjoyed your insights into Judaism. Another blog that I've discovered, and I thought that you might enjoy reading, is one kept by an "Orthodox Jewish Father" at http://frumdad.blogspot.com/
Hope you find it interesting :-)
Re: Interesting blog ...
no subject
Actually, the approach is somewhat Masonic; I wonder if there was a structural influence one way or another.
The standard Masonic Lodge (in the US, anyway) has three top elected officers: Junior and Senior Wardens and Master. Each has technically-defined responsibilities, but are clearly understood to be a line of succession -- the election process is mainly an annual reality-check on this succession.
However, the line of succession actually goes quite a bit further down, into the officers appointed by the Master each year. In practice, it usually goes further down as Senior and Junior Deacons, Senior and Junior Stewards, and Inside Sentinel if you happen to have enough officers to have one. Again, each has officially-defined duties, but the succession is clearly understood: if you get appointed Inside Sentinel, and everything proceeds smoothly (which is less common than it used to be), you wind up as Master in seven years.
That said, even we don't include the Treasurer or Secretary in the standard succession. On the contrary, they tend to be the "continuity" posts, and are often virtually appointments for life -- it's not too unusual for someone to hold one of those jobs for 20 years. As a result, they are the positions that have limited formal power but enormous influence over the running of the Lodge; in practice, they are often more powerful than a wishy-washy Master. It's possible that encouraging members of the Executive Committee to move up the line is a way to avoid this particular effect...
no subject
Interesting. And I wonder if this pattern is specific to my congregation, the Reform movement, American Jewish congregations in general, American congregations in general... too little data.
However, the line of succession actually goes quite a bit further down, into the officers appointed by the Master each year.
Interesting -- so the Master has direct appointments into the line of succession, but those positions become elected when they get high enough up the chain? I guess that's not any different from officers in other organizations appointing their own deputies or assistants who, it is understood, will succeed them (though some other body has to ratify that succession).
What does an Inside Sentinel do, if you don't mind sharing?
Master. It's possible that encouraging members of the Executive Committee to move up the line is a way to avoid this particular effect...
That could be. All positions on our executive committee have term limits, but there is nothing from stopping two people from trading a pair of jobs back and forth to address this. The only positions where I've seen this routinely happen are the financial ones -- not because anyone's holding the job for 20 years, but because it does require specialized skills. I gather that even with that, though, there's pretty good cycling in those positions over the long term.
no subject
Correct. Basically, the theory is that the Master gets to establish the likely chain of succession, but that has to go through three years of reality-check before you actually hit the big chair.
What does an Inside Sentinel do, if you don't mind sharing?
Precious little, actually. Basically, he sits inside the untyled door, and is responsible for opening and closing it.
(The Lodge canonically has two doors, one tyled and one untyled. The tyled one is guarded by the Tyler, outside the door, who guards it and makes sure that only members enter and exit through it, with the appropriate ceremony. The untyled door is for cases where that isn't appropriate -- in particular, when a candidate enters the room, since he isn't technically entitled to enter through the tyled door yet.)
Subsequently, the official responsibilities become a little realer. The Stewards are basically in charge of the hall, making sure that things get set up and taken down; the Junior Deacon is in charge of candidates; the Junior Warden is responsible for taking care of meals and suchlike; and so on. Granted, in practice this is significantly less responsibility than the members of your Executive Committee would have, but the concept is a bit analogous.