liturgical obligations

[cellio]

I was recently in a discussion about the choices that worship leaders make, and I realized that the Reform movement's approach imposes a higher literacy burden than I think most realize.

In an Orthodox service, the decisions made by the sh'liach tzibbur, the leader, pretty much boil down to what melodies to use. The actual text is fixed; you do what the the siddur tells you to do (and remember seasonal variations if the siddur doesn't mark them). I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying it's not too complex. While (in my experience) most Orthodox Jews who would be in a position to lead services are thoroughly fluent, technically the leader doesn't have to know what it all means and why the service is structured that way and so on.

Now consider the Reform movement, which from the beginning declined to follow the fixed liturgy. The early reformers eliminated some parts of the service (like musaf and many of the kaddishes) because they were repetitive, changed the texts of some prayers for ideological reasons (like objecting to resurrection of the dead), and introduced English readings that did not necessarily strictly follow the Hebrew they replaced. My impression is that they did the vast majority of this thoughtfully; later generations might disagree with their reasons, but they had reasons.

At least since the publication of Gates of Prayer, a siddur that offered many (and quite varied) alternatives to the leader, Reform services have tended to vary from one time to another, skip some of the Hebrew readings, use very "creative" English readings, and vary the music (which sometimes means varying the text because you want to use so-and-so's setting and it's a little different). The publishers of the siddur stuck to the same service structure, but at least from what I've seen in the last 12 years or so (as long as I've been watching), leaders have used it pretty freely. So it wasn't uncommon to do the Sh'ma/v'ahavta in both Hebrew and English (despite the repetition) but skip ahavat olam entirely, for instance. (Why yes, that does bother me, but that's a different essay.)

Mishkan T'filah, the new Reform siddur, corrects some of the problems in GOP. The theory is brilliant: here is a two-page spread including the Hebrew, a decent translation, and some alternative English readings; choose exactly one thing from this spread and then turn the page. But some of the English readings really aren't connected to what's supposed to be going on at that point in the service, so I see leaders break the pattern -- skip a few pages, then do both the Hebrew and one of the English readings from one spread, and so on. (That the editors sometimes violated their own format doesn't help this.) I was recently talking with a lay person who sometimes leads services in her congregation, and she told me she picks and chooses "just like [she] did with GOP". She didn't realize that she was repeating some things and entirely skipping others.

Why didn't she realize this? Because she is not highly fluent in the service -- she doesn't understand why the (Shabbat) amidah has seven sections and what each of them is for (and why that one English reading is terrible in that place...), or that kri'at sh'ma has more structure than "something before, sh'ma, mi chamocha" and that skipping parts breaks the theme, or why the v'shamru earlier in the service doesn't cover you for the sanctification of the day later even though they're both "yay, shabbat" texts, and so on. She hasn't studied this stuff and doesn't engage with it like I do. And I realized: most Reform Jews don't study this stuff. In another movement they might not have to, but in the Reform movement, the leader is more likely to be making decisions about the content of the service and so, in my opinion, has an obligation to become fluent. By the nature of its siddur and its history, the movement imposes, or ought to impose, a higher burden of fluency than would have been necessary if we'd just stuck with the traditional text.

Of course our rabbis are fluent, and often they are the ones leading services. We have occasional geeks like me who are also fluent and have occasional opportunities to lead. But sometimes we have people who have occasional opportunities to lead who aren't fluent and don't even realize it matters. As a community we apparently aren't willing to say to those people "get fluent or follow instructions without varying or get off the bimah". So we get services that are sometimes haphazard and disjointed, which makes it really hard for people who do know what's going on to achieve kavannah (intentionality).

Once people know a little about the service structure I suspect they're more likely to not mess with it, but how -- aside from one conversation at a time -- do we get people to that "a ha!" moment that causes them to even notice the issue?

Comments

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

May I point people here?

[cellio]

Feel free -- it's a public post.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Geeks in general are more likely to notice, care, and be interested in said structure.

I mean, the services all make sense -- once they're explained. It doesn't take long to explain -- warm-up prayers on a set of themes in order, barchu, a service built around a Sh'ma, a service built around an Amidah, cool-down prayers on a set of themes. And throw a kaddish between each chunk in order to let people know when you're swapping from bit to bit.

I mean, more or less. That's, of course, incomplete and all, but it's sort of a basic framework.

And having the basic framework helps make everything click into place. You can probably explain that in fifteen minutes.

And . . . you could probably explain it as part of a service you're leading. "So, now that we've finished out 'waking up and stretching' prayers, get ready for the Barchu to start up the serious stuff!"

We do a very abbreviated prayer service at the end of each Sunday school class -- only about ten minutes. In effect, it's basically only one prayer from each section of the service -- but, in doing that, we can explain what each section IS.

[cellio]

Now that you mention it, I think my last paragraph missed the mark a little. It's not hard to show people the structure; my rabbi does stuff like what you suggest during the service sometimes, particularly if there are lots of visitors. The "a ha!" has to be in deciding that it matters. I think some people hear this structural information but don't care enough to retain it; they see the service as a collection of nice readings and songs and hey, if there's more structure to it than that, that's an interesting bit of trivia but nothing more -- and nothing that's going to affect them should they be in a position to make decisions about the contents of a particular service.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Okay. I think step one, then, is to figure out WHY it matters. It does, to you. (And to me.)

Is it possible to articulate why it matters to you? If you can make that concrete, you can share those reasons with others, and, by sharing why it's important to you, you can show people that it can be important to them, too.

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

Your point about geek thought processes is, I think, right on the mark.

We were at a Chanukah concert last night at TBS in Cambridge and afterwards there was a latke party with candlelighting. And what happened is what usually happens at such things --- everyone started singing along with the berachot, and there was no pause between berachot or between the second beracha and Maoz Tzur to answer "amen."

So clearly most people there don't understand the operational theory of berachot (first, that only the person actually doing the mitzvah makes the beracha -- and so everyone else who sang along was making a beracha levatelah -- and second, that when you hear someone else make a beracha you're supposed to answer "amen").

And furthermore, they don't want to. Singing along gives them the warm fuzzy feeling of participating that they wouldn't get from the cool intellectual satisfaction of standing silent and then responding "amen."

I don't think this is a R/C/O thing, either. I've seen plenty of orthodox people and shuls that operate on the warm fuzzy don't-bother-me-with-that-"what's-correct"-stuff side. On the other hand, cellio raises a cogent point that because R and to some extent C give more liturgical flexibility, they afford a leader who doesn't know or doesn't care more of an opportunity to come up with a liturgy that doesn't hold together at the structural level.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I think it's really a confusion between the modalities of t'filah and b'racha. You're in shul. You do communal prayer in shul. These are prayers. Therefore, you do them communally.

[(Anonymous)]

Could you enlighten us on what the structure is?

[cellio]

The Wikipedia article is pretty good (go about half-way down the page to "daily prayer"). Are you looking for more detail than that? I can provide but don't want to overwhelm.

[cellio]

Additional comments here.