Archive for November, 2009

 

In Search of New Rituals

Posted on: November 25th, 2009 by Hayim Herring

I’m in search of new rituals. I’ve been asked to write an article on the development of new rituals, which is certainly a broad topic, and the most enriching way to do so is to tap into your knowledge. I don’t want to define what a new ritual is too tightly because I’d like you to think expansively and consider the range of innovation in rituals which we’ve witnessed over the past several decades. But, here are a few flexible guidelines to stimulate your thinking about this intriguing topic.

By new ritual, I’m thinking:

I’m sure that there are other possible criteria, but again, these illustrations are to help jog your memory about new rituals which you are practicing, have observed or perhaps even created.

I’m also interested in learning about the origins of these rituals from you. For those who identify with a religious denomination, did they originate from within your denomination on the grassroots, regional or national level? Or did several synagogues within the denomination begin observing it and then the national structure helped to disseminate it? To what extent did wider social trends help to foster the ritual (feminism, inclusion of the GLBT community in Jewish life, eco-kosher)? How did you learn about these rituals?

Once I hear from you, I’ll compile a list of what I’ve learned and post it on Tools for Shuls. I’m eager to hear what you have to say and thank you in advance!

Rabbi Hayim Herring

What’s the Best Assessment Tool? Part II – Interviews

Posted on: November 16th, 2009 by Hayim Herring

The last Tools for Shuls post on assessment examined using questionnaires to gather information about the perceived success of a project, process or event.  This post focuses on another common tool that synagogues and other organizations can use with relative ease: interviewing.  Questionnaires are great for quickly gathering information from many people.  The trade-off is you only receive top-line, superficial information.  For greater depth, use interviews as a method of gathering information.  To get the most useful results, you’ll often find that a mix of both is the best choice.

For example, let’s say that you’ve surveyed a group of adults who have just attended a spirituality retreat.  The retreat was designed to offer participants an introduction to a range of spiritual practices including yoga, meditation, study and cooking.  You can use a questionnaire to get a general sense of how people responded to the various activities.  But, given the complex nature of the experience you were trying to create, you’ll probably want to interview participants so you can really understand why certain experiences resonated for some and not for others.

While interviewing is a formal process, we interview people informally on a regular basis.  After all, interviewing is simply asking someone for a restatement, clarification or explanation of an experience or idea.  There are several characteristics that turn those questions into an interview.

Interviews are a series of questions that are purposeful, systematic and structured.  “Structured” means that all of those interviewed will answer a core set of questions, with the interviewer probing more deeply for items of special note.  By using a core set of questions, you can be assured that you are comparing similar information.  Interviewing also requires trained listening (knowing when and when not to probe further,) and objectivity (recording the views of the interviewee without coloring them with your interpretation).

In addition to carefully determining the questions, there are several important choices you’ll have to make if you interview congregants. Who will do the interviewing?  Will you train fellow congregants or use an outside person or organization?  How many people do you need to interview to get reliable information?  Will you record the interview or take hand written notes?  At a minimum, you should consult with a congregant who is an expert at conducting interviews to help guide you with these choices.

Now, it’s my turn to “interview” you: do you have experience in your organization in interviewing members?  What triggered the use of interviewing?  Did you use members or non-members as interviewers?  What made the process work—or not?  Please share your own experiences.

Thanks,
Rabbi Hayim Herring

image from flickr.com smiling_da_vinci

A Serious Man: An Ad for Rabbinical School?

Posted on: November 2nd, 2009 by Hayim Herring

My wife and I finally had a chance to see the Coen brothers’ new movie, A Serious Man. In addition to enjoying the Coen brothers’ movies, we had to see it because it’s set in our neighborhood, St. Louis Park, MN. Some scenes were shot in a local synagogue and the old Talmud Torah building in which the Coen boys studied (affectionately called, “Talmud Torture”). And several of those who had minor parts are friends or acquaintances.

Enough people have reviewed the film so all that I’ll say generally is it is indeed like a modern day take-off on the Biblical book of Job, with a lot more irony and less resolution. What I want to explore in greater depth, though, is the treatment of the three rabbis.

The old European rabbi (Marshak) is barely accessible to the public and one approaches him with foreboding. But, Marshak expresses a deep humanity to the fully-acculturated and Americanized bar mitzvah boy. When the modern-day Job, Larry Gopnik, tells his tale of personal and professional disintegration, the Junior Rabbi (Scott) responds with a sunny theory about life’s meaning. When Gopnik finally meets with the Senior Rabbi (Nachtner), he offers Gopnik what we learn is a canned story that is either utter nonsense or a deep parable for theological counsel, further exasperating Gopnik. And Marshak—he closes his door to Gopnik, as if to say that Gopnik will have to accept whatever questionable wisdom there is from the present generations of rabbis and not look wistfully toward some nostalgic age when rabbis allegedly knew the true meaning of life’s pains.

In short, you’re served rabbis who are detached (Marshak), demented (Nachtner), or deluded (Scott)–not exactly an advertisement for rabbinical school. Yet, their words of “wisdom” reappear in various scenes in the film, in the mouths of Gopnik and other characters. Now remember—this is a Coen brothers movie, so you have to be prepared for their ability to play with our minds, and leave us guessing whether a scene is meaningful, meaningless or just plain paradoxical. But is there some truth to their portrayal of rabbis? Do rabbis appear that detached and inaccessible from others? Does trying to live life on a different spiritual plane (which anyone can attempt) make those who do the envy of others because it looks like they’ve “figured things out”? If you were writing the script, how would you portray the rabbis?

At the end of the movie credits, there’s an advisory which reads, “No Jews were harmed in the making of this film.” But, did the Coen brothers help or harm the image of the rabbi and American-style liberal Judaism? What do you think?

Thanks,

Rabbi Hayim Herring