thoughts on pastoral care

[cellio]

I have this perception that there are three broad aspects to the job of a clergyperson. (If I've missed some, please say so.) The first is in the area of knowledge; in the case of a rabbi it's knowing our texts and the rabbinic process and applying halacha and so on. The second is all the performative aspects: leading worship, public speaking (giving sermons and lectures), conducting special events, and so on. The third is the collection of personal-interaction skills that I lump into "pastoral care": comforting those who are troubled, guiding spiritual seekers, visiting the sick, working with congregants with special issues, and so on.

I consider the first two to be tractable -- not easy, of course, but I understand how to get there given suitable time and effort -- but I sometimes think I just don't grok the third. Sure, sometimes, but the path for turning "sometimes" into "most of the time" isn't clear, and I don't know what concrete endeavors lead to improvement here. People are hard.

This shabbat I found myself in two very different situations in this space, and in both cases I felt confident and didn't worry about being out of my league. That was a bit surprising.

The first one was the easier one (and if this were the only one I probably wouldn't be writing this post). Someone who's been thinking about converting to Judaism for at least a year, but has still felt some ties to Christianity, told me he's decided that Judaism is right but he's extremely hesitant to tell his parents and he wanted my advice. While the explicit question was about dealing with his family, I sensed an implicit question of "how do I know this is really the right choice?". I talked with him about family stuff and how my own family had surprised me with how accepting they were, and we talked about some logistics. But as I talked about my own family I wove in a few bits of how I had come to realize that this was the right path for me. I never said "you'll know because of X", because how can I know what will work for someone else?, but I gave him things to think about.

The second is one of the regular attendees and participants in our synagogue. She told me that a dear friend, a gentile, had died and she had gone to the funeral. She said she didn't participate in the liturgy, it not being hers, and that at one point during it she had said the mourner's kaddish quietly to herself. She wanted to know if this was ok.

"Ok" is such a loaded concept. Was she asking me for a halachic opinion? It seemed unlikely that she wanted me to talk to her about the preconditions for saying kaddish, and similarly, it seemed unlikely that she was asking whether one can say kaddish for a friend (rather than just specified relatives). And anyway, she was asking after the fact (b'diaved). Was she asking whether this was offensive to Christians? That seems unlikely, especially as she did it non-invasively. So I opted for the path of comfort and said something to the effect that it's traditional that we say kaddish among Jews, but mourning is primarily about bringing comfort to the mourner and this obviously brought her comfort. I then told her that when my grandfather died (while I was going through conversion), I attended the high-church Greek-Orthodox funeral and then we proceeded to the graveyard for the burial. I found a time where I wouldn't bother anyone else, stepped a few paces away from the service in progress, and said kaddish for him, reading from a copy I'd tucked into a pocket just in case it became relevant.

I don't know if I handled either of those the "right" way or the way my rabbi would have, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that I had apparently-useful instincts and enough perceptive ability to see and think about the underlying questions. And both people seemed to be glad that we'd talked, which is a good sign.

But people are still hard. :-)

Comments

[kayre]

Sounds like you did do a good job handling both situations-- and isn't it interesting that people are turning to you that way now?

Re your classifications... administration is a very very necessary skill for most Protestant Christian clergy, at least. I'm not sure how far that holds true for a rabbi. It's partly those people skills, but partly a separate body of knowledge from the religious/theological one.

[cellio]

Interesting and a bit intimidating, yes.

Administration: ooh, good point! This definitely applies to congregational rabbis.

administration

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

Speaking as someone who worked for a while in a Conservative synagogue and has seen parts of the behind-the-scenes for a couple of Orthodox synagogues: some congregational rabbis are actually bad and/or neglectful administrators, but as long as they have good support things work okay. By "support" I mean stuff ranging from the secretary who knows everyone and everything and writes the rabbi's letters for him to the Jewish-educated lay person who sets the calendar of services and makes sure everyone who needs to say kaddish for a yahrzeit gets a reminder. As soon as a synagogue gets big enough to have an administrative staff bigger than just the rabbi (even if it's just unpaid part-time congregants), the rabbi can become less important/involved administratively.

Re: administration

[cellio]

The support person who knows everyone and makes the machinery run is incredibly value, and often under-valued by most of the congregation.

I think this "administration" area folds into a larger one suggested by aliza250, synagogue management and politics. Both of these are about making the machinery run, understanding organizational behavior, etc.

Re: administration

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure those two areas fold together so well: some people are really good at managing people/politics but can't keep track of paperwork or scheduling or supplies, while others are great at keeping track of stuff but not so good at dealing with people. Personally, I'd much rather be (and would work much better as) an office manager than a politician, and I'm sure there are people who feel exactly the opposite.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth -- there are specific pastoral counseling programs and courses you can take: my mother's in one.

[cellio]

Good point. I've heard of such things locally that are specifically oriented toward hospitals, but presumably there are more general programs too.

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

People are hard.

Your experience kind of skirts thoughts I've been having about propriety. I want to repect the beliefs of others, but I've given more thought to some examples than others and I'm still unsure of the propriety of given actions.

I won't say "Semper Fi" as a response because I have not earned that right, I am not a Marine.

I don't feel quite the say way about "Hoo ah," the then neither does the Army.

The Air Force battle cry seems to be "I want my MTV" in a plaintive voice, I'll go with that.

But when a pagan friend says "Blessed Be" or "So Mote It Be" would the proper response be "Blessed Be" or would "Amen" be out of line? The desire would be to express agreement with the sentiment expressed, in respect and reverence, without trying to mock their beliefs.

I've wanted to say Kaddish at times, quietly, respectfully, as comfort for myself.

I question myself frequently because what comes out of my mouth all to often does not match what is going on in my mind. Thats why typing is easier for me. Those underlying questions you talk about, the current behind the question, those are for me the hardest things to read. But it sounds like you do it naturally and well.

[cellio]

But when a pagan friend says "Blessed Be" or "So Mote It Be" would the proper response be "Blessed Be" or would "Amen" be out of line? The desire would be to express agreement with the sentiment expressed, in respect and reverence, without trying to mock their beliefs.

I probably don't know enough about paganism to be credible here, but my instinct would be "amen". Partly because that word is nearly universal; it doesn't actually convey a specific religious affiliation. Partly because if I say words from another tradition I add ambiguity when I don't want to convey (in this case) that I'm a pagan. So I would respond from within my tradition, not the other person's, where feasible.

Part of "where feasible" is "doesn't give offense". I wouldn't say to the pagan "may God will it" or the like, because the pagan might believe in many gods or none at all. But I don't see this problem with "amen", which has the semantic content "may it be so" or, sometimes, "I agree with you". (That said, if you bow your head and cross yourself, that may add semantic content that would be better left out. But I don't think you'd do something like that.)

By the way, not being from that community... "so mote it be"? I understand it literally, but what's the origin and what makes this specifically pagan?

I've wanted to say Kaddish at times, quietly, respectfully, as comfort for myself.

Kaddish is interesting. As you probably know, it's not about death. It's an affirmation of God's greatness, period. Mourners say it as a sign that even in their despair they recognize God's sovereignty over everything. (The kaddish is also used at other times, and there are several variations of the text for different purposes.) I think privately, people should find comfort in whatever words do it for them, and there are only issues at all if you're doing something public (that is, in front of other people who might care).

Those underlying questions you talk about, the current behind the question, those are for me the hardest things to read. But it sounds like you do it naturally and well.

I think I am getting better at it (my rabbi remarked on it last summer after the Sh'liach K'hilah program), but I don't know why or how.

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure of the origin of "So Mote It Be," but the only times I've heard it I believed it to be in a pagan context.

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

According to Wikipedia, "Amen" is actually from the Torah and adopted by the Christians. "Amen, So Mote (May) It Be" is used in Freemasonry rituals. Neo-pagans chose to use the 'non-christian' portion to give the same meaning.

As someone who was raised strict Roman Catholic, is currently a "signed the book" U.U. and attends as many Pagan circles as possible, I'd have to say that if someone responded to "So mote it be" with "Amen" there wouldn't be a problem. The intent would be understood.

I'm currently in another discussion on another board over a similar topic. A woman who is an open pagan oftens does the sign of the cross when a fire-truck passes by. Her reasoning is that the firefighters may not understand her pagan gestures, but will understand the christian gesture and hence her intent even if they aren't christian themselves. It's a universal enough gesture that it gets her intent across, "I'm praying for you as you head towards danger" She said one time, she was still at the same place when the trucks came back and they stopped the truck to thank her.

[cellio]

According to Wikipedia, "Amen" is actually from the Torah and adopted by the Christians.

It's certainly from Jewish liturgy and adapted by Christians; I don't have a concordance handy to see where in our texts it comes from, but I'm sure it's in there somewhere. It's a verb meaning, basically, "may it be so" or "let it be". (It's actually an imperative form, I think.)

Thanks for the information about Freemasonry and neo-pagans.

Her reasoning is that the firefighters may not understand her pagan gestures, but will understand the christian gesture and hence her intent even if they aren't christian themselves.

That's an interesting idea, using the gestures of the dominant religion to communicate rather than to participate. It's a thoughtful gesture, and I'm glad she got positive feedback the one time.

I think if I were trying to accomplish that effect I would hold my hands in the usual "prayer posture" and bow my head.

amen

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

My concordance lists amen as appearing in torah (I didn't note the place(s)). The only grammatical info I can remember re amen is the opinion(?)* that it's related to emunah ("faith") and/or emet ("truth"). If it is a verb, it seems to match daber ("speak"), so perhaps the literal meaning would be "make true" or "believe (imperative)".

*I don't remember where I heard this so I can't say how reliable it is.

[indigodove.livejournal.com]

People are hard. But it's a skill one can (and you clearly are) develop. A lot of it is listening to what someone is saying both for the text and the subtext, if you will.

It sounds like you were able to give these folks what they needed, and often in pastoral care, that is what matters.

I used to help train crisis line folks on active listening. If you don't know about it and would like to know more, I'd be happy to stop by some Saturday and fill you in.

[cellio]

I used to help train crisis line folks on active listening. If you don't know about it and would like to know more, I'd be happy to stop by some Saturday and fill you in.

Thanks; I would appreciate it. I've heard the term and can make inferences about what it means, but hearing about it from someone who actually knows would be better. :-) (I'll send email.)

[aliza250.livejournal.com]

There's a fourth aspect -- interceding in all the various synagogue politics issues that come up. But I think I've mentioned that to you often enough now.

There's actually very little to differentiate the Mourner's Kaddish from the regular Kaddish that punctuates a traditional service; does your synagogue include a regular Kaddish in its liturgy? If so, that leads nicely into various thoughts about the intent behind a prayer vs. the actual words of a prayer.

(It's also worthy of discussion that the Kaddish, the Targum, and other Aramaic texts were written in the vernacular of their times, to make them more accessible to the common populace, but now the average Jew, even the average educated Jew, finds Aramaic less accessible than Hebrew. Rabbi Cellio may get some good sermon ideas out of me yet ;-) )

In any case, I think you did good in both cases - helping people to get comfort from their religion in their times of need.

[cellio]

You're right; even though I know better, I overlooked the whole synagogue-management aspect. Four major areas, then.

There's actually very little to differentiate the Mourner's Kaddish from the regular Kaddish that punctuates a traditional service; does your synagogue include a regular Kaddish in its liturgy?

Chatzi, but not d'Rabbanan or Shalem. (The current Reform siddur doesn't include either. I don't think Mishkan T'filah does either, but I now have a draft copy I can check to confirm.)

Good point about intent versus content, and also accessibility. Yes, it's ironic that it was written to be accessible but now it's even less accessible to most folks than the rest of the siddur.

Rabbi Cellio may get some good sermon ideas out of me yet ;-) )

:-)

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

You can add the ketubah to the list of things that are (usually) in Aramaic because at one time that was the language of the people. I think I amused G's rabbi at our wedding by clearly following what he was reading (I understood a lot of the words, plus I knew the context *g*), but I know that most people find the reading of the ketubah to be a boring interlude in the wedding ceremony.

The siddur I usually use (and have since 5th grade) is Israeli*, and it has translations into Hebrew of various Aramaic bits: kaddish, yikum purkan (3 paragraphs between the haftorah and ashrei), etc.

*They publish different versions for use in Israel/by Israelis and outside/by outsiders, but in at least one place they forgot to change something for the outside version (which is what I have). The main differences (should be) things like directions & torah readings for holidays, where the in-Israel version wouldn't mention the second day of yom tov.