Congregational Survey

Filling it out took more than Survey Monkey's estimated times.  A synagogue where my wife maintains a significant attachment and where I accompany her infrequently opted for a self-assessment as their new Rabbi, a potential superstar of Conservative Judaism, gets his bearings.  This has been a very successful congregation, having only its third senior Rabbi since I was married in their sanctuary by the first of them.  Whenever I go there I see a lot of people around.  Whenever I witness a Purim spiel, the presentation far exceeds what my own congregation could produce, or even aspire to produce.  I think If I were designing my ideal synagogue from a Dilbert cubicle with a yellow pad and Bic crystal pen, I would come up with something along the lines of what they have.  Tradition maintained, gender equality for real, a spectrum of special events, regular study worthy of college graduates attending, knowledgeable congregants taking their turns on the bimah and in the seminar rooms, a kitchen, functioning committees, and a leadership that instinctively reviews their membership list to invite those most capable of helping to join in.

Undoubtedly, if they did all these things as well as what their officers set as their goals, they would not need the survey.  But what I was asked to assess reveals what they aspire to, whether or not fulfilled.  They want a diverse congregation, one that has people glad they came to their event or service.  They have generated a very large menu:  services for all religiously specified times, chances for people to partake of them in the form of individual honors or participation, a plethora of educational forums, opportunities to socialize with each other across demographic categories or within a multiplex of identifiable personas from LGBT to empty nesters.  Their congregation carries their banner outside their deeded property in the form of promoting Jewish initiatives of easily recognizable categories with partner agencies.  They need the facilities they have generated, communications within the organization and beyond, enough financial stability to invest in new initiatives, and a team of people to create a congregational vision that they can implement.

This place has certain advantages over my shul.  Size, wealth, property, diversity.  But they also have a mindset advantage.  They consider what excellence entails and what might be possible.  As we degenerated to a handful of Influencers, some of whom I'd not put on my Admirable A-List, they understand the benefits of their cast of thousands.  They want to have people partake of their programming but they seem to also invite more talent to create that programming.

One of the bestsellers of my formative years, a book that I read for the purpose of assembling a suitable early career wardrobe, was John Molloy's Dress for Success.  While I learned about colors, patterns, and fit, he had other guidance that was transportable to other settings.  When I could not afford top-notch, how do I get the best that my realistic resources could attain?  He suggested looking at the best then, "shopping down."  For a house, go to open houses of mansions and see which parts of their offerings are best to duplicate.  For decor, I visit historic mansions, see what people do with their space when money is no object, then assess what might be possible for me.  When I need my next car, look at the luxury vehicles, then purchase my sedan with the features that are best for me.

I could approach my congregation the same way.  It's a place of waning appeal, much like the many parallel Christian congregations that once had a hundred worshipers a week, now only twenty, and older ones at that.  It's a megatrend.  Yet as the survey of the successful congregation striving to be even more successful indicates, there are still some why not's of what might be possible.  What might it take to have better outreach into the larger community, to invite people who never thought they would be passively invited onto committees, to have committees or other activities with names but no people start having people, to become the go-to congregation with experts in Anti-Semitism or Israel advocacy?  We may have to schect some Sacred Cows to do this, retire a few Influencers who won't look outward or at least create more accountability.  Probably very little reason we cannot have carpools to bring members of limited mobility to our activities.  And we could budget beyond our subsistence, paying rent and salaries from our never to be replenished profits of our building sale, to targeted purchasing of the things that make us a more inviting place.  The larger congregation has more resources.  They also seem to have more mindset, more determination. And they look at their people as potential creators, not only as consumers.  That's the difference.