Friday night

[cellio]

At the oneg I received a rather effusive compliment on my torah reading on Rosh Hashana. I'm impressed that this long after the event someone sought me out to praise me. Nifty.

During the service I realized why I have a reaction that I do to one small bit. Our service leaders almost always face the congregation. There are points in the service where one is supposed to bow toward the ark (which is at the back of the bimah); the norm is for the leader to turn around at that point and do so. Someone on our bimah (not my rabbi) sometimes does the bow but doesn't turn around (so bows toward the congregation). This bugs me. I understand why it was happening (the reasons no longer apply but the pattern persists), but it still bugs me.

Last year after the Sh'liach K'hilah program there was a discussion in comments in my journal about which way the chazan faces, though not this particular detail. The article I'd read (that started the discussion) asserted that when the chazan faces the ark (to lead much of the service, not just these bowing bits) it facilitates more private prayer than when he's facing the congregation. That may be true, but it's just part of it.

When the chazan stands in the front of the room, faces the ark, and bows, he is leading us in prayer. He is our representative, our sh'liach tzibur, almost our stand-in, before God. Whose representative is he when he bows toward us?

I had this epiphany Friday night. It is as if the person bowing toward the congregation is representing God in the transaction. And that's just wrong. We do not presume God's participation and response in our prayers.

I don't mind the chazan conducting most of the service facing us; I understand how seeing a back for the entire service could be alienating to some. But there are parts where I'd rather the person turn around and be our representative.

Comments

[cellio]

I am but a neophyte when it comes to the study of liturgy, but I suspect in a lot of cases the key question boils down to "what exactly are we doing here?". That is: are we petitioning God? Are we having a conversation with God? Are we having a conversation about God? Gesture, body language, use of liturgical items ("rite aids" :-) ), physical placement -- all are tied up in this to greater or lesser degree.

In the case of our forward-facing bow-er, I think the question hasn't been asked and that other practical considerations entered the picture. First, until we modified our sound system recently, turning around meant not being amplified, which made it hard for some people to hear. (Inserted by reference: commentary on whether a service leader ought to be able to fill a sanctuary without amplification.) Second, I think there was an effort to explicitly model this behavior (to get more people to bow at the right times), which works better if people can see you do it. I don't think either of these is a factor now, but by now the habit has set in. I wonder if I should talk with someone about it.

There are similar liturgical lines of thought to consider when one talks about which way the priest should face during the consecration.

Interesting! I didn't realize there were differences of opinion there, but it makes sense that there would be a split between "standing before God" and "showing the people".

Another factor I wonder about: if God is everywhere, at some level it doesn't matter which way you face. Some might argue that. But to me it does matter because we have established the conceit that we address God by facing a certain direction; of course God will still "see" us if we're pointed the wrong way, but doing so introduces ambiguity ("am I facing God, or the congregation?").

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

You opened (but didn't spark) one of my favorite pet peeves-- Celebrants in a religious service who haven't a clue what's going on beyond what's in the lines of the script (or the "what do we do next and and Oh? is it supposed to represent something?" folks).

Not only do they need a cluex4, but as part of the liturgy is to create a communal energy (otherwise, why are we there as a community/congregation?) to use in some way (praise upward, communion, sending the dead off with comfort for us and them, invocation of the Holy, blessing of a child, or whatever) I find that their leadership leaves the participates unfocused, each with their own little celebration/ritual going on, which defeats the purpose of coming together altogether. No communal energy, no communion.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I guess it's the layers thing that was mentioned above. If someone only looks at the surface, it might appear to not matter. However if one looks at deeper meanings, stuff like that matters a lot.

[cellio]

Yes, I agree. Ritual, by definition, has intended meaning, and that means that "small" differences in ritual might signify big differences in either actual or perceived intention. This matters.

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

This assumes that the conceit has been established. If your church/sect/congregation has done so, then I can well understand how introduciong the ambiguity would make one twitch.

I wonder how twitchy some folks get at a particular new church I've been to. My old parish in Williamsburg (St Bede's R.C.) built a new church a little while ago, and this spring I actually went to Mass there with my dad. The pews at the new church are arranged in a FULL CIRCLE around the altar at the center! (I suppose that in this situation it doesn't matter which way the celebrant faces...)

[cellio]

This assumes that the conceit has been established.

True. It's a traditional understanding across Judaism in general, though of course individual congregations or Jews might differ. Still, I think even the most secular Jews would, if asked, be able to tell you that we pray facing Jerusalem.