An Experiment in Congregational Education: Teacher as Researcher, Student as Theologian

I’m proud to share an article here that I wrote with my friend and colleague Rabbi Joel Mosbacher, published in the Winter 2014 issue of the CCAR Journal. I’d love to hear your feedback in the comments.


Is spirituality educable, or do teachers need a different approach altogether to cultivate spiritual development? Would it be worthwhile for high school students to explore their own ideas about God and existential questions in a supportive, student-directed series of conversations? We believe that more than being taught about God, people come to their own conclusions through a series of thought experiments, conversations and experiences, testing out theories until they find one (or more) that speaks to them. Since people’s ideas of God often change over time, it may be more important to give students the skills to revisit and revise their ideas rather than to instruct them in a particular theology.

The topic of this issue of the CCAR Journal was the impetus for the two of us to work together to explore an approach to talking about God with teenagers. We had worked together as a rabbi and an educator on the same synagogue staff from 1998-2001. Today we live in close proximity in a different state. Joel works in a congregation, and Wendy consults to congregations in the area of education.


We turned to early childhood education for a methodology. In the Reggio Emilia approach, teachers use documentation to measure student learning; share progress with students, teachers, parents and administrators; and make decisions about the next steps in their curriculum. Thinking about spiritual education has evolved: David Hay and Rebecca Nye have described an approach to children’s spiritual development that honors the individuality of each child.1 Because it is likely neither possible nor desirable to outline a series of spiritual steps through which the teacher expects each child to progress, we thought applying the documentation/reflection model to this subject matter and this age group would be appropriate and instructive.

Rabbi Dr. Michael Shire describes “three elements of curriculum design [that contribute] to religious development in Jewish education: encounter, reflection and instruction.”2 Rather than try to provide all three of these experiences in this limited framework, we focused on reflection. Reflection is a chance for students to discuss “religious questions of meaning.” In this phase, teachers act more as counselors and active listeners. Our suspicion was that while high school students may have had both opportunities for encounter and instruction, they may have had less of a chance to reflect and refine their own spiritual ideas.

Our questions were: Can we extrapolate the principles of early childhood documentation and apply them to older children in a curriculum about God and spirituality? What will happen if the teacher takes the role of observer/researcher and the students take the role of theologian? How will the students document their growth and questions, and can we use this documentation to determine what material and discussions to introduce to the class?

We should explain that while we did some research to understand the Reggio approach to documentation, we were not concerned with being purists regarding the theory or method. First, we were extrapolating the idea and applying it to high school students. Second, we think it is important to note that we are not researchers primarily but teachers, and we want to encourage others in our situation to experiment with different approaches to spiritual education that resonate and that might be fruitful for both student and teacher.

Therefore, we designed an experimental elective class for high school students wherein students would discuss their ideas about God and how God acts in the world, while Joel as the teacher would primarily record their thoughts. Later, he would reflect their ideas back to the students. Six students enrolled in the class, and attendance was inconsistent. The class met for five sessions (one that was planned had to be cancelled due to weather). In planning the class, we anticipated the students playing a larger role in their own documentation. We felt this was an important adaptation of the documentation methodology for older students. At the beginning and end of each class, Joel asked the students to reflect on a text and/or question. He asked them to think if the discussions had changed their ideas in any way.

We thought that students might use technology like video diaries or online communal conversation tools to share their reflections, but in practice, while students sometimes submitted their reflections via their phones, mostly they used pencil and paper to record their thoughts. We think this was mostly due to the fact that students did not put much time into this class outside of the classroom, so they used what was most efficient and at their disposal during class time. We should also note that this use of technology would have been new and unusual for both the teacher and the students. We could have been clearer and more insistent about the need to incorporate these reflections and how to do that.

In between each class, we (the instructors) met by phone to review the students’ comments and plan the next class. This collaboration time is an essential step to the documentation process as envisioned in Reggio. While the teacher spends a lot of time observing during class time, he/she should review the observations with a colleague after class to analyze progress and plan the subsequent class. This was a crucial part of the process for both of us. Insights about the material and the class became clear as a result of this collaborative reflection time. Wendy had a unique perspective, not having been to the class but reviewing the notes most of the time. On the other hand, when she did substitute teach, the roles were reversed. Having notes and reflection time allows the teacher to take a step back and analyze the learning taking place during class. The colleague provides insights that come from reviewing notes and listening to the teacher reflect. (We speak more about how this worked in the “Lessons Learned: Collaborative planning and reflection” part of this article.)

We spoke at length to plan the approach to the class, as it was a departure from conventional teaching. We outlined the best way to explain the methodology to the students. Joel explained the class was a place for the students to talk about their ideas about God. He told them that the class was private, but that it was also a research experiment for this article. He explained that students would share their ideas, and he would reflect back to them in the hopes they would see how their own thinking was developing as a result of the class sessions. His role, he told the students, was to guide, help them reflect, ask quiet students to share and make sure nobody monopolized the entire discussion.

After this explanation of the approach, Joel asked the students to write a reflection on the questions: What do you believe about God, and why? What’s your big question about God you hope we’ll talk about? Then he shared a simple translation of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles of Faith. The students discussed the text in a sort of free-flowing, self-directed discussion, during which Joel for the most part quietly recorded their comments on his tablet. For the final five minutes of class, Joel asked the students to write a reflection on how they were feeling about the discussion at that moment. Our goal for the first class was to introduce students to the method and get some feedback from students about our first experimental session. Student journals showed that four of the students felt the class discussion meandered, but that two thought it was still interesting.

We planned for some communication between the students and Joel in between sessions. There was one student in particular who sent his thoughts, but other than that, this did not happen. Students did hand in all of their reflections from each class, and Joel wrote comments on them which he then returned to them in the subsequent class.

In the students’ reflections and in reviewing their classroom comments, we thought there might be a discrepancy behind the idea of God that had been taught to the students in school (particularly God as a character in Biblical stories or as a subject of prayer) and the way that the students experience or don’t experience God in their everyday lives. Therefore we formulated the following question for the second session: How is the God of the Torah the same, and how different, than the God you experience? This was the focus of the second session’s discussion. At the end of the class, Joel asked the students if their opinions had changed. Four of the students said they had not changed their views, but one said, “I’m more open.” The other two students used the reflection to explore the idea of miracles and how God may act in the world. One student wrote additional reflections to the rabbi after the first and second classes. After this class he wrote: “Tonight I feel that a lot of opinions changed in the group. …In theology there can be many answers that are correct… I believe that all questions can have multiple correct answers. Scientists want everything to be all black and white, but in truth there are all different shades.”

For the third class, Joel asked the students to write a response to this question: It is said that God revealed the Torah in every language in the world. What does that mean to you? For the self-led discussion, the students considered different ways of understanding God: the Creator who no longer intervenes, a puppet master, a conscience, nature, or the One who metes out reward and punishment. The discussion included a debate about God’s gender and the language we use to describe God, as well as if or how God intervenes in the world. There was also a discussion about the truth of different faiths and whether religion was a force for good or a source of conflict. At the conclusion of class, students revisited the initial question and reflected on the discussion.

In the fourth class, we wanted to steer the students away from generalizations about God as real or not real or religion as good or bad, to focus on their own experiences. We started with the questions: What is the evidence of God in your life? What proof is there that there is no God, if you don’t believe? We were careful in our formulation to include a non-judgmental option for someone who did not believe or was not sure of his or her beliefs. For the text, we read this selection from Harold Kushner’s When Children Ask About God:

“To ask ‘when is God’ suggests that God is not an object, but a quality of relationship, a way of feeling and acting that can be found anywhere, but only if certain things (study, gratitude, self-control, helpfulness, prayer, etc.) are in evidence at that particular moment.…

“Where, then, is God? He is not everywhere. He is potentially anywhere; when people act and treat each other in certain ways, so that the Spirit of God flows between them, we can say that God is then present.”3

Again they were asked to reflect for the last few minutes of class in writing. Wendy substituted for Joel during this week of the class. Her experience was slightly different because she had no relationship with the students. Also, the students didn’t have a text in front of them but instead had it read to them. When the conversation stalled, Wendy asked probing questions. One student, we’ll call him Tom, who had been rather outspoken about his lack of belief in God as well as his belief that religion was a source of wars, voiced the following sophisticated theological idea towards the end of class. It seemed that he was struggling with the idea of free-will and a distant, abstract God. When another student said, “God could be like hope.” Tom replied, “If there’s a parent who doesn’t take care for you or give you anything, then it’s not really a parent. So if you don’t have faith in God, and God never did anything for you, I don’t really believe in God.” Another student shared how her thinking was developing as a result of our discussions in her journal reflection: “This conversation made me think about how God isn’t a Creator, but maybe a creation.” At the end of class, Wendy asked the students to prepare a presentation for the last session that showed how their thinking had developed over the course of the class.

In the final session, students watched a slide show prepared with Prezi that synthesized some of the ideas they had expressed throughout the course. You can watch the Prezi here. In synthesizing the comments from the previous classes, we saw that student thinking was around the nature of God, how people relate to/believe in God, the balance of power and control in our lives, and the nature of evil. Students also had a chance to present their own reflections on how their thinking had developed over the sessions. Some of the students had written reflections which they read; others spoke from notes or extemporaneously.  Here are a few of the students’ final reflections on the class:

“I think the experience has been different. I like not just being taught to… God is such a complex and open topic that it’s good to not just be taught about it. I came to see more of the arguments for and against believing God is real.”

“Before this, I didn’t really believe in the whole God thing, and even though the class was a good experience, my views didn’t change. We did have deep conversations though.”

“Before I took the class, I believed, but I didn’t have an official—a formulated vision of Him. Now I understand Him more, a strong force between people when we pray, the still small voice, and I think that God can work miracles. There are many. We just don’t notice them. I think that there can be an infinite amount of interpretations of the Torah and an infinite amount of manifestations of God.”

“The class itself was helpful. If you want to ensure your beliefs, it was a helpful way to develop those ideas.”

“Taking this course has definitely changed the way I think about God. This class made me realize that everybody has very different views and opinions on God. … When I was younger, I thought of God as a man with a long white beard and a large white robe who sat on a cloud and looked down upon his people. But then my thinking shifted—God was a tree, a lamp, a chair, the sky, God was everything all around us. God helped us to make the right decisions. My thinking shifted again once I started taking this class. I now realize that no matter what, you should rely on God. You can put your faith in God, or turn to God when things are hard or you need somebody to listen. But you should never assume that every bad decision, every wrong-doing thing is God’s fault. … Now I believe that’s what God is: something to listen, something to pray to, something for people to believe in.”

Lessons Learned


Joel felt that being put in the position of researcher, documenter and listener above all else was an incredible experience as a teacher. He was required and prepared to truly sit and listen to what the students were saying. This practice allowed him to listen more carefully for patterns, deeper questions, and significant insights. He also learned to trust the students, realizing that they could be responsible stewards of the conversation and that they were perfectly capable of carrying on a wonderful, often intense conversation without needing a teacher to manage it in any significant way. It allowed the students to practice respectful discourse and listening to one another—crucial skills for teens and young adults. This practice redefined what a teacher is for both students and teacher: not only someone who purports to have all the answers, but also a partner with a different perspective, someone who can offer reflections, invite deep and extended thinking, and learn from that interaction what might best serve the students going forward.

Taking notes during class allowed Joel to notice things that happened in the class that he had forgotten or missed completely. Wendy noticed that in reading over the notes, her perception of the class session changed dramatically. Often our impressions of the success of a class are not based on data; documenting student ideas gave us as teachers something concrete to help us evaluate students’ growth. We think students also responded well to this process; writing down their ideas, and especially reflecting them back in the final session, legitimized those ideas and the exploration of different opinions in a Jewish setting. We believe it helped the students to feel heard when they saw their thoughts presented on screen. Because we want the students to continue to engage in dialogue with us during this critical time in their spiritual development, it was probably more important to us to communicate an openness and acceptance than to instruct them in theology.

Student journaling

Requiring students to write reflections at the beginning and end of the class allowed the students to be reflective, notice things about their own views and how they changed. It allowed them to express things in writing that was hard for them to figure out how to say out loud; and it allowed them to say things privately in writing to Joel that they might not otherwise ever have shared out loud. On their own, more than a few of them were able to name their own growth patterns throughout the class. Others felt their beliefs were reinforced by class discussions. In addition, they seemed to remember and relate to material from previous classes in a much stronger way then they likely would have had they not been given the opportunity to write from class to class.

For example, one of the students (we’ll call her Rachel), took the class at the same time she was preparing her speech for her bat mitzvah. Initially, she brought a draft of the speech that seemed insincere. In the course of a meeting with Joel, he realized that she was expressing doubt in her belief in God and a hesitation in expressing that, both to Joel and perhaps to her parent. In the meeting, Joel told her that sometimes the most devoted Jews ask the toughest questions. It seemed to him that the conversations in class and the conversations in bat mitzvah preparation were complementary, even one in the same. As Rachel volunteered with victims of domestic violence for her mitzvah project, she questioned why she should believe in a God who commands us to honor our parents while there are abusive parents in the world. In one-on-one meetings, Joel was able to introduce texts in which the rabbis struggle with the definition of honor. Because of the two sets of conversations, Rachel seemed more open to acceptance of different interpretations of God and eased her fury against a God who would ignore this suffering. In the final session, she said, “I didn’t believe in God before, and I still don’t, but now I understand how people might believe, especially when you’re struggling.”

As the teacher, Joel felt having their writing was immensely helpful as he tried to gauge what they were and were not internalizing, what they were and were not learning from each other, and what they were and were not “getting” from the texts. It also allowed Joel to write to the students privately after class. This served many purposes: responding to individual questions and thoughts, extending the learning beyond the short number of in-class hours, legitimizing the students’ ideas and pushing them to think even more deeply, and building the relationship between the students and the rabbi. We would like to explain these last two points with a few examples.

By writing on the student journals, Joel was able to affect the class dynamics. In the first few sessions, the boys tended to dominate the conversation, while the girls would sit more quietly. After discussing this in our reflection/planning meeting, Joel decided to address this in his written notes to students. He was able to privately invite the boys to make room for other voices to be heard and at the same time strongly encourage the girls to make their voices heard.

The chance to build a relationship with a clergy person and role model at this stage in one’s spiritual development seems very important to us. When Wendy substituted, she noticed that the student who had been most engaged in discussions and had written to Joel in between classes approached the director of education before class. He asked if he could switch to a different class! After class, Wendy stopped the student, explained what she had observed, and asked why he wanted to withdraw. He said that he took the class to study with the rabbi, but that many of his friends were in a different class. We believe that this illustrates how the significance of building strong relationships with clergy in Jewish educational settings cannot be overstated.
Collaborative planning and reflection

For both of us, there was a critical value to debriefing and reflecting with a colleague during the process. These discussions gave Joel an opportunity to be self-reflective about his role in the classroom and, as we mentioned, gave us real data to consider in planning future sessions. Since Wendy only had the benefit of notes, she was able to see the big picture of what happened in each class and tie together themes that had arisen over a series of classes. Together we decided what the next session should look like. We were also able to discuss class dynamics and ways to respond to individual students and issues. The class was able to evolve over time, and had we had more students and more sessions, we believe we would have seen an even more fruitful, deep and varied discussion among the students, with different students challenging different ideas. Having experienced this kind of collegial reflection, Joel now intends to incorporate this practice more often in all of his teaching. No doubt this will benefit Joel as well as the teachers with whom he collaborates.

Future Experiments

We would be excited to see this experiment replicated in different settings. There are a few changes we would suggest to the methodology.

Certainly, this was a small experiment, both in terms of the number of students in the class and the number of weeks that the class ran. We would expect to see more development if there was a more critical mass (making it harder for a few students to dominate the discussion) and if the class met more often and over a longer period of time. It was also somewhat challenging to have seventh graders and tenth graders in the same room. They are, obviously, at very different stages of their own personal and spiritual development, and there were times when those different stages clashed—sometimes the older students had questions that the younger students could not even comprehend, and sometimes the youngest kids asked questions that the oldest kids were challenged to allow for. For example, one student introduced a thought experiment about sacrificing one life to save three others, and if God participates in making such judgments and sacrifices. A younger student chimed in after a while with: “Why is everyone saying ‘He’? How do you know that God is a boy?”

The topic of God and God’s role in the world is also rather broad. We think the class could be improved with a clearer focus on the topic, although we hope that the teacher would allow for discussions to evolve organically. With more time to plan, the teacher could choose texts that honed in on the specific theme of the class, bringing different perspectives on that theme to each setting.

We would also like to see the students play a greater role in their own documentation. This is somewhat dependent on the culture of the institution, how often the group is meeting and how much time students can be expected to focus on this content outside of classroom hours. In this vein, we suggest that the teacher devote time to writing responses to each student after each class. Joel started doing this about halfway through the course, but he feels it was one of the most successful parts of the experiment because it allowed students to deepen their own thinking and for him to individualize his responses to each student. It would also be interesting to introduce other creative opportunities during the class sessions for student reflection, different modalities that would include art, writing, and oral reflection. Video diaries would allow the students to see themselves expressing their ideas at the beginning, middle, and end of the process. As this is just a snapshot of the students’ development, and we want the process of reflection and testing out of spiritual ideas to be ongoing, we would like to figure out ways to follow up with students after the classes have ended. Perhaps a segment of the synagogue or school blog could include reflections and stories of experiences, and students could be invited to contribute from time to time. We would like some way to check in with them after a period of time elapsed, to see what they have retained and how they have grown.

Other Applications

This experiment has caused us to ask some questions in general about religious education. The most valuable parts of the class were collaboration and listening. In our supplementary schools, when so many feel the pressure of limited time and the need to “cover” material, how would the experience be different for teachers and students if teachers felt their role was that of a guide and observer, with an emphasis on “uncovering” student beliefs? What would the effect be if teachers were assigned colleagues with whom to reflect and co-plan their lessons?

We are reminded of this tale:

“A man lost his way in a great forest. After a while another lost his way and chanced on the first. Without knowing what had happened to him, he (the second) asked (the first) the way out of the woods. ‘I don’t know,’ said the first. ‘But, I can point out the ways that lead further into the thicket, and after that let us try to find the way together.'”4

In the area of the mysteries of God, can we be partners with our students on a journey, like the two Jews in the tale? Perhaps our spiritual learning communities can be strengthened with a greater emphasis on listening, asking, and learning about and from one another.


1. David Hay with Rebecca Nye, The Child as Spiritual Being, rev ed. (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2006).

2. Michael Shire, “Nurturing the Spiritual in Jewish Education.” HaYidion. (Winter 2010): 13.

3. Harold Kushner, When Children Ask about God (New York: Schocken, 1995), 54, 55.

4. Rabbi Hayyim of Zans, in Martin Buber, Tales of the Hasidim: Later Masters (New York: Schocken Books, 1948), 213.

Teach for Right Now

This post about short-term goals versus long-term outcomes was published in eJewishPhilanthropy. I believe if we focus on why Judaism should matter at each stage we are teaching it, we will be more successful. Of course, the implication is that we have to address the current needs of adult learners in the present, not project ahead to what their children and grandchildren will look like when we are teaching them as high schoolers.

The conversation around evaluating Jewish education programs often turns to this claim: “We won’t know if our programs are successful for ten to twenty years, when we see if the children we are teaching raise their own Jewish children or live Jewish lives as adults.” This mentality is misguided. We are not preparing future Jews in our educational programs, formal or informal. Every student we teach is Jewish now. They deserve a more meaningful life enriched by Judaism today. That is the rationale for Jewish education, plain and simple. If your school or camp or youth program can offer that, you will have a compelling case for the added value of participating and the program and community will be better for it.

For example, why have worship services during religious school? It is not to prepare the child to lead services at the age of bar or bat mitzvah or to participate in services as an adult. We have worship services for second graders because second graders are spiritual beings who need an outlet for their own hopes, thoughts and prayers. Services during religious school look different when informed by this philosophy. Furthermore, they do a better job of preparing a child to participate in services as an adult. What is the reason so many adults don’t feel comfortable in services – because they can’t read the Hebrew fluently, or because they don’t know how to relate to the idea of God, prayer and quiet reflection in a communal setting?

This mindset also helps direct the choice of content taught, which is so important given our limited time with students. For this reason, I’m not a fan of model seders or mock weddings. They tell a story of “what Jews do,” when in the case of a seder, many of our students will have a chance to actually do it, and we could be focusing on how to make that ritual meaningful, and in the case of a wedding (Jewish or otherwise), we have no way of knowing if our students will have one or what it will look like. In any case, unless a member of the school community is actually getting married, the simulation doesn’t have much relevance. On the other hand, when we teach values, they have immediate relevance. One thing that is so powerful about camp is that when you learn about being part of a community, standing up against bullying or being a mensch, you’re likely to have a chance to enact that value in the next 24 hours. Similarly with Jewish ritual.

Another example of the application of the “teach Judaism for right now” mentality is teaching Jewish text. The study of Jewish text is not meant to be solely an academic exercise. Our educational settings need to have a mission that is distinct from say, a college Jewish studies program. One can get a PhD in Jewish Studies with a fondness for all things Jewish, a deep knowledge of Jewish text and history and fluency in Hebrew without actually being Jewish. Our emphasis needs to be on being Jewish and exploring what that means, not learning about Judaism. To return to the idea of text study, Jewish students need to be taught how to interpret Jewish texts, engage with them, relate to them, and teach about them. Students shouldn’t be spending most of their time listening to the stories of the Torah, or even listening to drashot from the rabbi. Jewish educational settings should give students a chance to think about the stories and interpret them. Practicing this habit translates into the immediate relevance of our sacred texts as well as good practice for a bar or bat mitzvah speech and a lifetime of meaningful engagement with text.

When we focus on what a life enriched by Judaism actually looks like for our students of all ages, we have a way of assessing if we are reaching our goals. Do the students ask good questions that get to the heart of the stories, rituals and history and try to relate them to their lives? Do their behaviors reflect Jewish values? Do they have a community to turn to when they have struggles or celebrations? Do they help each other out when they see someone in need? Do they want to come to religious school? Do they have Jewish friends? Do they know whom to ask when they have a question about how to behave or the meaning of some challenging circumstance? If these are our questions, we can change how and what we teach to find out the answers. Asking these kinds of assessment questions can help us improve Jewish education and the way we relate to every member of the community.

Mission Possible: Setting Realistic Goals For Congregational Schools

What is a mission statement for? Is the mission of your congregation or educational program so expansive that you can never hope to fulfill it or assess your success? Here’s my take on this problem, published in The Jewish Week.


Does your synagogue’s religious school have a mission statement? In my years serving as a congregational educator and a consultant to synagogue schools, I’ve seen a few that look like this:

“At Temple Olam HaBa, we teach the values of Talmud Torah (study of sacred texts), Avodah (worship), and G’milut Chasadim (ethical behavior). Our students develop a deep love of Israel, a habit of lifelong learning, and a commitment to the Jewish people. We grow menschen who know how to treat one another and make the world a better place.”

Sound familiar? I like the sound of it, but given that virtually every Jewish topic could arguably fall within the above mission, it doesn’t offer much guidance.

The function of a school’s mission statement is to guide educators and volunteer leadership as they make decisions about what is taught and how. Synagogue schools need this guidance because they operate with a very limited number of hours and resources. Take, for (a generous) example, a three-hour-a-week Sunday program that meets during the academic year for 28 Sundays. In one year, students who attend every session will get the equivalent contact time of 14 days of public school. If they attend from third through seventh grade, they’ve got just over three months of schooling under their belts. So, how exactly is the school going to achieve the goals outlined above?

Let’s compare this mission to those of youth soccer leagues, which — due to their popularity, scheduling demands and families’ seeming tendency to prioritize them above religious school — are the bane of many Jewish educators’ existence. Here’s the AYSO (American Youth Soccer Organization) mission statement:

To develop and deliver quality youth soccer programs, which promote a fun, family environment based on our six AYSO philosophies (EBOPSP): Everyone Plays, Balanced Teams, Open Registration, Positive Coaching, Good Sportsmanship, and Player Development.

This statement is short, sets clear priorities and outlines ways of fulfilling them. The endeavor is focused on things that families value: fun, family, social behaviors and healthy habits. In the 2005 book Blue Ocean Strategy, W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne describe an alternative to competing with similar businesses in your current industry, allowing you to find an untapped market. One of their “paths” is to look across alternative industries, rather than focus on rivals within your own industry. Consider what kids and parents are getting from those activities that often take them out of religious school — good habits, sound values, friends and fun.

What if a religious school, or rather, all of a synagogue’s youth programming, were, like soccer leagues, designed around a few simple concepts? First, there would be a focus on developing the skills, vocabulary and habits to live a meaningful Jewish life, not only in the future, but right now. This would involve some basic familiarity with Jewish ritual and Hebrew as well as a positive disposition towards participation in Jewish life, and a sense that there is more to be learned and that pursuing that learning is enriching, relevant and meaningful. For that message to be communicated, we need relevant Jewish experiences for children, and we need adult role models who are leading meaningful Jewish lives, pursuing Jewish learning, trying new Jewish practices and being recognized by the community for doing so.

A second area of focus, although not second in importance, is building friendships. Ron Wolfson’s new book Relational Judaism has renewed our interest in this priority, but we have long known, through the work of researchers such as Sylvia Barack Fishman, that Jewish friendships in youth are a factor in whether an adult chooses to raise children Jewishly. Fishman has also demonstrated that participation in Jewish education helps create Jewish friendships (“Generating Jewish Connections,” 2007).

I use this thought experiment to validate the importance of friendships and community: If you were uninspired by the rabbi, but had friends at the synagogue, would you quit or remain a member? What if you didn’t like the cantor’s singing, but had friends there? What if you thought the school was mediocre, but had friends there? What if you were transfixed by the rabbi’s sermons, transported by the cantor’s singing and thought the school was academically rigorous, but had no friends at the synagogue? Loved the building? You get the idea: We go to synagogue (and stay with it) to be part of a community that cares about us.

Together the priorities of friendship and practical skills shift a school’s emphasis from content to community. The content stemming from this approach is made up of values and rituals that build community, teach us how to live together and enrich our lives. The language of a mission statement around these ideas might still seem grandiose, but the ideas can serve as a practical guide.

When I served as principal of a religious school, one of the teachers expressed her frustration that her students didn’t know Abraham’s father’s name. “What about the name of the child sitting next to him?” I asked her. If we try to cover all of the richness of Jewish tradition and history in the equivalent of three months, we are bound to fail. To meet the needs of today’s Jewish parents and their kids, we need to tighten our mission to build strong friendships and a meaningful connection to Judaism that will last.

Five Selfish Reasons for Inclusion

Our tradition clearly teaches us the value of inclusion. But people often feel it is too hard or effects too few people. My contention is that everyone in the community benefits when people with disabilities are included. Here are five “selfish” reasons for including people with disabilities in your Jewish community.

  1. Inclusion builds a stronger community. When people see that the synagogue and its educational offerings are making accommodations to include people who have special needs, they understand that this is a community that cares for its members. Whenever any one of us has a need, and there will be a time when each of us will need to rely on the community, we can each have confidence that the members of the community will rise to the occasion to help us out. Members know that they are supported and that they should support others when they can.
  2. Inclusion refocuses our values. Whenever I’ve studied special needs education, I have noted that the top priorities seem to be to teach children to 1) get along with others and 2) be as independent as possible, which includes finding a purpose and being of use. These are the great life questions that Jewish tradition comes to teach us how to answer as well. In today’s world where it’s so easy to think that the most important things are high test scores, “résumé builders,” and breaking records, we need to remember that without friends or a sense of purpose, it’s all for naught.
  3. We all have needs. I don’t like when people say this as a way of downplaying (or even unintentionally equalizing) the significant challenges that people with disabilities face compared to the other, more routine ups and downs we all face. But the fact is we all need to be accommodated in different ways at different times. In particular when it comes to Judaism, few of us feel very able at all. For most of us, Hebrew is a language that challenges us when we study or pray. For many of us, the vast majority of the wisdom of our tradition eludes us. Nobody has completed the work of repairing his or her ethical self. Jewish tradition teaches that we have purposely been created imperfectly so that we can do the work of improving ourselves. “All that was created during the six days of creation requires improvement. For example, the mustard seed needs sweetening and the lupine needs sweetening, wheat needs to be ground, and even a person needs improvement.” (Genesis Rabah 11:6)
  4. People with disabilities have contributions to make. By virtue of their experience, people with disabilities and their families have much to teach about patience, perseverance, love, standing up for justice, tenacity, and rising above circumstance. In addition to that, they have unique passions and insights to share. I grew up in a congregation with an extraordinary man (I’ll call him Sam) who lived with cerebral palsy into his 70s. He loved classical music and baseball, and he used to win free tickets to shows and games off of the radio. He would bring congregants and friends with him on these outings who benefited from his vast knowledge, enthusiasm, and excellent seats!
  5. Inclusion pushes us to be our best, in all the ways I’ve mentioned and more. I asked my dad to talk to me a bit about the remarkable couple that was part of our congregation for so many years. The husband Sam I mentioned above. His wife also has cerebral palsy, and they adopted two children with disabilities. My father talked about the things he learned from this family that defied all odds. Sam pushed for his own inclusion in every aspect of synagogue life. When they took a trip to New York to see a Broadway show, Sam called the bus company and got a bus with a chair lift. After the show, he rode his electronic wheelchair around Times Square and met the bus in time to head home. It is because of Sam that the synagogue now has a ramp up to the bima and activated doors. My father reflected, “There really wasn’t anything he thought he couldn’t do.” I thought, “Or that we couldn’t do.”

When people say that something isn’t accessible to a person with disabilities because the disability is too difficult to accommodate, they aren’t understanding the challenges that the disabled person is facing every day. If Sam could eat his breakfast and get to an orchestra performance and raise two children, we could drive him to a Brotherhood meeting or build a new building that was handicap accessible (even if the synagogue was exempt from ADA laws). We can include everyone, and we should. We’ll all be better for it.

A Movement of “Both/And”

There was a great series on NPR last week about young Americans moving away from religion. One of the points they made is that while many young people are moving to the left, organized religion is moving to the right. For the first time, the number of Protestants is seriously dipping. I think it’s time for liberal religious traditions (in my case I’m concerned about liberal Jewish movements) to make a compelling case. Here’s my stab at it.

It seems that to be a religious person today in the United States, one has to follow extremist leaders and their doctrines or focus on the positive aspects of religious communities and traditions while ignoring the rest. You don’t have to make that choice if you are part of a liberal Jewish movement. Liberal Judaism is a faith tradition not of either/or, but of both/and.

  • We both accept scientific fact and believe the stories of our tradition contain existential truths.
  • We are both intellectually curious and spiritually aware.
  • We are energized and inspired by both change and tradition.
  • We value and respect both individual needs and the needs of the community as a whole.
  • We care about both universal causes including hunger and civil rights and have a high concern for Israel and Jews everywhere.
  • We both embrace creative expression, learning and exploration, and we are supported by long-standing Jewish communal institutions.

Being both/and is not trying to be something for everyone. It is not wishy-washy. It is a philosophy for a progressive, integrated and modern Jewish community, one that adapts while still preserving its essential core. Judaism offers us a way to grapple with life’s most challenging and invigorating questions. It gives comfort where there is none. It pushes us to be better than we might. Our tradition is robust, and it is relevant to the issues we face today. The more people who seriously participate in its evolution, the stronger it becomes.

What would you change? Do you think people could get behind this? Whom do you know that is making a compelling case for liberal Judaism?

Our Jewish Podcast, Episode 1

Here’s the latest experiment, a first try at a collaborative podcast. My friend and colleague Rabbi Molly Kane and I are the hosts of Our Jewish Podcast. This first episode features:

  • God Help Us: A segment where we answer letters and give advice from a Jewish perspective
  • This Jewish Life: An interview with a remarkable Jew, this time my friend and epic bike rider, Rudy Van Prooyen.
  • The Puzzle: A Jewish trivia question from our renowned Puzzle Master, Jerry Kaye.

If you like the music, check out Ben Lapidus’s album Herencia Judía.

The podcast is about 15 minutes long. Take a listen and tell us what you think here or at

A Growth Mindset is Key to a Culture of Learning: A Case Study

It’s easy to get frustrated with the challenges of Jewish schooling, particularly supplemental schooling. It’s tempting to write off parents and children who miss school by saying their priorities are mixed up or they just don’t care enough about what we do. We could play down the curriculum, asking what can possibly be taught in the existing format with so few hours. In tough economic times, many congregations are cutting education budgets, including staff and days of school. A different option is to take a hard look at what families are choosing and what they need, and then take that information to to learn and grow. For a case in point, see this blog post I wrote for eJewishPhilanthropy about Barnert Temple and how they’ve thought about reinvisioning their school.


Imagine you are in the leadership at a large, successful suburban congregation. Your religious school has a good reputation and the students who come give positive feedback. Recently, a consistent group of sixth graders have stopped attending altogether on Sundays. What is your reaction?

When this scenario played out at Barnert Temple in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, the rabbi met individually with each family to asses where the congregation was failing to meet the needs of those families. Then they created a pilot program to better suit them. In an email their educator sent out following the meetings, she wrote, “Thanks to your honesty, we believe that Barnert is going to move into a new era that will offer all families a more accessible, relevant and meaningful Jewish experience.” This episode is a window into the culture of ongoing learning at Barnert Temple. I believe this culture is directly linked to the prevailing mindset in this community, what Stanford University psychologist Dr. Carol Dweck calls a “growth mindset.”[1]

In her writing, a growth mindset is contrasted to a “fixed mindset.” In a fixed mindset, people believe their strengths and weaknesses are a given. In a growth mindset, people believe that they can develop their abilities through hard work. A person with a growth mindset is open to feedback, seeks out challenges and learns from mistakes. A person with a fixed mindset is constantly concerned with proving him/herself and therefore shies away from any challenge in which s/he may fail. People with a fixed mindset also surround themselves with others who make them look good, while those with a growth mindset want to be around people who push them to think differently and improve.

For an example from Jewish tradition, we can look to Hillel and Shammai. Take the famous story of the potential convert who challenges each rabbi to teach him the Torah while he stands on one foot. (Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 31a) Shammai chases the convert away. We guess his thought process was something like this: This person is ignorant. He has no respect for the depth and breadth of Judaism. He would only dilute and corrupt Judaism if he were converted. He is making a fool of me and all that I stand for. This kind of thinking comes out of a fixed mindset. When faced with the same challenge, Hillel responded, “What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; go and learn it.” What mindset does this reaction reveal? The whole Torah on one foot? Now that’s an interesting challenge! I’ll give it a shot! This man is showing an interest in Judaism. Once he is attracted to Judaism and its philosophy, he will be able to learn more and become a true student of Torah and member of the Jewish community. This is the thinking of someone with a growth mindset, particularly revealed in Hillel’s concluding statement, “Go and learn it.” Hillel believes that learning is possible, even for this person, and that it will be transformative.

As Dr. Dweck explains, organizations can operate under either a growth or fixed mindset as well. In order to learn more about Barnert Temple’s culture and approach to learning, I interviewed eight people in the leadership, including both Rabbi Elyse Frishman and Rabbi Rachel Steiner and the Director of Lifelong Learning Sara Losch. The five volunteer leaders I interviewed (three women and two men) all are part of a self-study in the area of education. This group has been convened in order to look at trends in Jewish education as well as patterns and challenges of Barnert’s education offerings and then make recommendations for improvement. Through my interviews, I found that the growth mindset pervades their work and that this approach has a ripple effect through the congregation.

By highlighting the characteristics at this growth mindset congregation, I hope to show how other organizations can adopt this approach, becoming learning communities with an eye towards evolving and improving.

  1. Group process, not groupthink. Carol Dweck warns that when a CEO has a fixed mindset, “Everything starts revolving around the boss.” (123) When all that matters is boosting the boss’ ego, critical thinking goes by the wayside. In contrast, growth mindset leaders surround themselves with people who give meaningful feedback and represent different perspectives. The education self-study is just one in a series of think tanks and learning efforts devoted to improvement, including a worship think tank, identity think tank, groups to create vision and mission statements, and a recently created strategic planning committee. In the words of the lifelong learning chair, “We tend to like these kinds of participatory, soul-searching processes.” One of the most veteran members of the congregation involved in the self-study told me, “I think one of Barnert’s strengths has always been its willingness to approach self-examination.”
  2. Diverse voices. Central to the group process is representing a wide range of opinion and experience. The people on the task force came from a wide cross-section of the membership. In addition to this large group, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted. A task force member told me, “One of the untapped resources in our congregation is the background, knowledge and skills of our congregants in terms of education…. We once counted 300 people involved in committees at the synagogue.” What allows the senior leadership to open up major synagogue policies and philosophies to such a process? Rabbi Frishman told me, “As I think the work we are doing is really on the cusp, there are no answers to the questions we are answering, so if you invite the right people, they are going to have ideas that I haven’t thought of.” The growth mindset believes in the potential of honest searching and learning to yield meaningful answers. As growth mindset leaders do, Rabbi Frishman has built a team of people who are different than she is: “I love that. The team has to be different. We often make each other uncomfortable, but I’m really OK with that, because we really bring different things to the table.”
  3. The senior leadership sets the tone. As you can see, a big part of an organization having a growth mindset is a leader with a growth mindset. “People in a growth mindset don’t just seek challenge, they thrive on it. The bigger the challenge, the more they stretch.” (20) Rabbi Frishman in many ways embodies a growth mindset. “Do you always take the same road home?” she asked me. “I don’t. I like to always try a new way. I could just get in my car and ride through a new area.” Elyse came into a congregation that did not look like the current one. Although she credits the search committee with taking a forward-looking risk by hiring her, she had to work tirelessly to change the culture against significant resistance from veteran members.
  4. Mistakes are learning opportunities. Therefore, the leadership is open to critique. A mother of two described to me two challenges and how the leadership responded. “Whatever the issue is, they welcome it, they attack it, and they bring it to the forefront. There’s nothing hush-hush. For example, when my kids were in preschool, a lot of things happened by word of mouth, and working moms weren’t getting the word. When I didn’t hear about my son’s performance, I called the school office pretty upset. What did Sara do? She held off the play until I could get there. Then she met me at the door with a coffee. Another time one of my sons didn’t want to go to Hebrew school because he didn’t believe in God. So, I called. The staff responded by developing a whole unit on questioning, explaining that it’s part of Judaism. They taught it to the whole grade.” A culture marked by a growth mindset means not only that people feel comfortable coming forward with critiques and concerns, but also that leaders feel supported in taking risks which ultimately move the organization forward. As Sara Losch told me, “I don’t have to hit a home run every time at the plate.”
  5. Change is the only constant. People with a growth mindset thrive on challenge. They seek out opportunities for growth. More than once, people told me Barnert Temple was not a place that “liked to cruise.” As a result, members of Barnert Temple have learned to be comfortable with change as a mark of learning and evolution. One man I interviewed described his reactions to recent staff changes, explaining “Everything remained the same at the temple where I grew up. We felt we were looking for a solid, no change experience and were a little bit shocked by a change. It took a year to get used to it. I don’t know what else could possibly change, but we’ve seen over the past three years a significant amount of change, and it’s good change, and it feels like we’re growing the temple and the temple management and clergy are not just sitting on their laurels. They’re constantly trying to adapt and move the congregation forward.” Rabbi Frishman has a unique outlook when it comes to evaluating her success: “People look at our congregation and say: It’s not broken, and we say: You don’t see what’s going to happen in ten years. We know for sure based on everything we’re reading, this is not where we’ll be in a few years. If you don’t work on it, it’s going to disintegrate. I’ll know I’ve been successful if the children here join synagogues, or if synagogues don’t exist, they are connected to the Jewish community some way.” This is a stark example of the remarkable attitude a growth mindset provides. Rabbi Frishman’s openness to growth and the possibilities of change allow her to consider a world with no synagogues and still envision a successful outcome as a synagogue rabbi in that world.
  6. Learning is ongoing and for everyone. Here is where the growth mindset meets the learning organization. Carol Dweck writes, “Seymour Sarason was a professor of mine when I was in graduate school. He was a wonderful educator, and he always told us to question assumptions. ‘There’s an assumption,’ he said, ‘that schools are for students’ learning. Well, why aren’t they just as much for teachers’ learning?’” (201) Barnert Temple is a place where the staff, adults and children all engage in learning. Sara described to me a calendar full of learning and professional development opportunities for herself. In fact, she said that when she wasn’t initially going to conferences due to personal health reasons, “there was disappointment from Elyse and my chair.” A man I interviewed said he remembers the congregation where he grew up as a place with a lot of activities for kids, but that the plethora of adult learning opportunities at Barnert Temple sends a message about the ability of adults to grow as Jews. Rabbi Frishman models this; “I don’t see how we can ask people to grow if we don’t grow. People have to know that I’m always growing. I say it to members all the time. I am a better human being because of my partnership with them. I expect the same from them.”

The good news about a growth mindset is that anyone can learn it. You can change your mindset, and you can change your school or organization to be a place that encourages a growth mindset. To return to our ancient rabbis, while Shammai may have been more accurate to insist that the Chanukah lights diminish, Hillel embraced the challenge and potential of a new reality. Each Chanukah we broadcast the message of the growth mindset: embrace change, learn from challenges, and light increases.

[1] Dweck, Carol S. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House, 2006. (All references in the article are to this book.)

For more about Barnert Temple, visit

To learn about Carol Dweck’s mindset and find tools to teach the concept, go to or

Emphasize Bar and Bat Mitzvah MORE

Here’s a blog post I wrote after attending the Speakers’ Lab panel entitled, “Is Jewish Education Broken?” Amid all the talk of re-imagining bar/bat mitzvah, I think we need to remember this is one of the few Jewish life cycle events that people still observe. Jewish weddings may or may not happen. Brit milah is up for debate. Jewish funerals occur, but shiva is often truncated. Are we sure we want to mess with this?

At a recent Speakers’ Lab event sponsored by the Posen Foundation, scholars and educators Zvi Bekerman, Benjamin Jacobs, Jonathan Krasner, Tali Zeklowicz and Jonathan Woocher tried to answer the question: Is Jewish Education Broken? The issues raised left me with a surprising conclusion: we need to emphasize bar and bat mitzvah more, not less.

Zvi Bekerman made a compelling case about “doing Jewish.” He pointed out that “Most Jews throughout Jewish history knew nothing about Judaism and were still Jews. It’s about doing.” He criticized liberal Judaism for its emphasis on feelings and beliefs about Judaism. What then is left that helps a Jew act as a Jew in the public sphere? Later on in the conversation, the speakers turned to the topic of bar and bat mitzvah, saying synagogues have been held hostage to preparing children for this ceremony without ever “interrogating” this life cycle event for its educational value. The contradiction jumped out at me—here we are intellectualizing one of the few Jewish rituals that many American Jews still embrace. Yes, there are options for non-synagogue based rituals, but that’s just a testament to the demand for a way to mark this life cycle event in the context of Jewish tradition. People still want to do this. And I mean do it. Not talk about it. Not experience positive feelings about it. Not reflect on it. They want to do it, and they want to celebrate it, and both should be embraced. That is what community is for—bringing people together and acknowledging significant steps on a collective and individual journey.

But where is this journey headed? Currently, bar and bat mitzvah is a big dead end. The problem is not primarily what comes before, but what comes after. Tali Zeklowicz made the strong point that everyone in the room had evolved their sense of Jewishness as recently as the last five years. And yet, apart from the occasional reference to college students, the conversation about Jewish education in North America focused entirely on the structures and methods we use to educate children. We cannot keep relying on children to perpetuate Judaism as children. Adults opt out of Jewish life, by and large, until they have children, and then they focus on a Jewish education and context in which to raise their children.  Judaism is a sophisticated and robust culture, theology, philosophy, outlook and way of life for adults.

Reflecting on my own role models, I realized I watched my mother prepare for and celebrate her bat mitzvah (in 1981), as well as my college roommate (in 1991) and a graduate school friend (in 1998). Now I’m watching my husband prepare for his, to take place in 2013. That means since I was 9 years old, every 10-15 years I have seen an adult (when I was a child) and a peer (as an adult) embark on a course of serious study and mark it with a bar or bat mitzvah ceremony.  How about this as a model? Every 13 years, an adult engages on a new course of serious Jewish study and marks it publicly. She or he experiments with incorporating new Jewish practices. As a community, we celebrate and acknowledge adult Jewish learning, and we hold up individuals as examples.

Currently the demand for high quality, sustained adult Jewish learning in the liberal Jewish community is pathetically low. If we want to fix a broken Jewish education system, we need to start with ourselves.

Today’s “former congregant”

The world is a different place than the one that created today’s synagogue structure, and the would-be congregants of today are different than the congregants of days gone by. I wrote about this for my friend Arnie Samlan’s blog. Click the link or read on here. I’d love to hear what you think!


I recently learned the phrase “the former audience,” a term used to describe people who react to and act in a story as it unfolds rather than observing it. People today are empowered. “We did it!” Dora the Explorer sings from my TV to my preschool kids. (Talk about a “former audience”– now you have to talk to the TV instead of just watch it!) Today we can organize with like-minded individuals for a few minutes or many years, in person or online. We can raise money for our own causes and communicate with massive amounts of people through extensive networks.

Might leaders of synagogues think about “the former congregant”? As my colleague Rabbi Arnie Samlan points out, people don’t want to only receive services any more. They want to be a part of something bigger and take an active role in determining its direction.

Here’s my start at a chart comparing the former congregant of today to the congregant of generations past.

Jewish Congregants of Days Gone By Jews Today: The Former Congregant
Had limited options for taking part in the Jewish community (either affiliated or unaffiliated) Can be part of many Jewish organizations, self-organized groups, or networks of friends targeted to their specific needs and interests
Had limited options for donating funds to Jewish organizations (synagogue, Federation, JNF) Can choose from a myriad of organizations with specific causes and political leanings
Identified with a Jewish Movement Doesn’t find messages of large institutions compelling or clear, may feel equally comfortable or uncomfortable in a variety of Jewish settings
Turned to Jewish professionals located inside institutions for information and services Has access to a wealth of straightforward information as well as independent experts available for hire
Exposed to a more didactic model of Jewish education May have been taught to interpret Jewish tradition and own it, exposed to a range of models of Jewish learning in camps, day schools, or family education settings, for example
Had fewer things competing for attention and leisure time Can play a game on a hand held device, talk to a friend or send a message to a network in the middle of a service, class or conversation

There are two crucial reactions for today’s Jewish leaders given this reality.

  1. Figure out what your organization’s added value is. What do you have to offer that “former congregants” can’t do or find themselves? This can be anything from quality conversational Hebrew instruction in a community of friends to ongoing opportunities to make a meaningful contribution to the local community. It can be spiritually uplifting worship or a place that stands for counter-cultural values. Decide why people would need or want to be a part of your organization, and do that well.
  2. Share. Adopt a generous attitude towards resources, partnership, information and leadership. Holding your cards close to your chest is a sure way to find yourself alone at the table while the rest of the gang has left to join a pick up game of basketball. Instead, practice “open source Judaism.” Allow leaders to emerge, help them to implement their ideas and bring together their networks.

Yesterday’s congregants have changed. Today’s congregations have to.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Twenty-five years ago, I joined the cause to free Soviet Jews. Now I have Russian speaking children. Lately I’ve been reflecting on what this cause has meant for me not only personally but also as a Jewish professional and leader. Here’s the blog post I put together for my colleague Rabbi Hayim Herring. Click on the link or read on. I’d love to hear what you think!

On December 6, 1987, I joined 250,000 others in a March on Washington to free Soviet Jewry. Seventeen years later, almost to the day, I met a man from the FSU who became my husband. This cause played a big part in my youth, but I didn’t think about how it had changed my adult life and the lives of so many others until I stopped to reflect on the march and the movement that surrounded it. Much about the Jewish community, the world, and the way we organize has changed, but I think some truths about leadership and contribution have stayed the same.

What has stayed the same? People want to be part of something that matters. The Washington Post article I saved from December 6 mentions that “many ‘grass-roots’ Jews who never before have carried placards in pro-Soviet Jewry rallies, or even been members of Jewish groups, will be taking part today, including some who are traveling long distances.” The cause was compelling, and people wanted participate. Clay Shirky calls this “the plausible promise” – “a message framed in big enough terms to inspire interest, yet achievable enough to inspire confidence.” (Here Comes Everybody, pp 17-18) In 1987, people needed to show up on the National Mall to send a message. For some people, this was harder than others, but they did it, and they were counted.

What has changed? Now it’s a lot easier for people to quickly self-organize behind a cause. Living in an area affected by Superstorm Sandy, I saw this unfold over the past month. I’ve seen calls to help victims of Sandy in the following places and more: the local Starbucks drive-through, my gym, an online mom’s group, my childrens’ music classes, individuals on Facebook, Donors Choose, The American Red Cross via ABC television, synagogues, Federations, JCCs and smaller Jewish organizations. I’ve also read about people frustrated that they couldn’t find a place that needed their help. It wasn’t a coordinated effort, and the question still stands as to whether or not it was or will be more effective, but it is a good example of how people today come together around a cause.

There are some lessons here for Jewish leaders. Today’s Jewish organizations must be nimble enough to respond to issues and organize immediately, without being bogged down in red tape or outdated policies. They have to put the power back in the hands of the people in order to stay responsive and relevant. Otherwise, people will do it on their own. They will use the technologies and networks they have at hand and respond right away. That’s how people are making a difference today.

The metaphor that comes to mind is the sukkah. Although it appears fragile, it has persevered as part of our tradition. The walls are flimsy and permeable (if not absent) for the weather to penetrate. The spirit of the holiday teaches us to invite people in. At the same time, the frame is solid enough to offer some structure, and through the roof there is a vision of a higher truth. Finally, it can be constructed or taken down in a matter of hours. Jewish organizations need to be able to respond to the world while providing a vision and a framework to direct the energies and passions of the people.

More important than the organization is the purpose. “Save a Soul…March on Washington.” This message outlines the cause and what people can do about it, all on a button. Could your organization’s cause fit on a button? Do people know what it is? Can they explain it to others? Jewish organizations must be able to formulate a compelling, straightforward and achievable message. Recently a friend from the FSU learned that I had been at the rally in 1987, right around the time when her family emigrated to the US. “I didn’t know you did that,” she said. “Thank you. It made a difference.” In the end, isn’t knowing you made a difference all that really matters?