by Michael Wasserman
In the American synagogue, dissatisfaction with the standard dues-for-membership financial model is growing more widespread. Dan Judson (“Scrapping Synagogue Dues: A Case Study,” eJewishPhilanthropy, Jan. 12, 2012) has written about one synagogue in the Boston area that eliminated membership dues. More recently, Beth Cousens and Adina Frydman (“Connected Congregations: Moving from Courageous Conversations to Courageous Actions,” eJewishPhilanthropy, June 10, 2013) have written about the New York Federation’s efforts to help local synagogues develop alternatives to the dues-for-membership model.
As a contribution to that conversation, we offer the example of our synagogue, The New Shul in Scottsdale Arizona. The New Shul is an independent (traditional-egalitarian) synagogue of approximately 150 families, which supports itself entirely on voluntary contributions. My wife Elana Kanter and I, both of us Conservative rabbis, founded The New Shul in 2002, and have co-led it for the past eleven years. Our goal in founding the shul was to create a deeper, more authentic sense of community than we had experienced in mainstream synagogues, in part by re-defining the meaning of money in the member-synagogue relationship.
It has become the norm in American synagogues to take the dues-for-membership model literally, to think of membership as something that one buys, much like a health-club membership. When paying dues, congregants ask themselves what they are getting for their money, and synagogues try to make their services and programs worth the price. The implicit paradigm – and sometimes the explicit one – is the consumer market.
But the consumer model, even at its best, is incompatible with true spiritual community. To conceptualize the synagogue as vendor and the congregant as customer erodes the sense of shared responsibility on which all true community depends. Consumerism is a very poor foundation on which to build a sense of meaning.
Our intention in founding The New Shul was to use structural change to generate a different kind of synagogue culture, in which members would see themselves not as customers but as partners in the work of community building. One of the shul’s founding principles was that membership would not be for sale. We would break with the consumer model by removing the price tag from membership.
How does voluntary giving work in practice? Every August, the shul sends a letter to all those who have defined themselves as members. The letter outlines the shul’s financial position, explains how much money the shul will need to operate for the coming year, and asks everyone to do their part. Each family responds by pledging an amount of their own choosing. Attendance on the holidays, for those who have not defined themselves as members, is similarly based on voluntary contributions. There are no tickets, only a request on the shul’s website that those who are not members send a contribution.
Giving, both by members and non-members, is broad-based and supports an operating budget of approximately $250,000 per year. That includes debt service on a building that the congregation purchased in 2007.
The effect of The New Shul’s financial structure is a profound shift in psychology. Its members do not see themselves as buying anything. They do not ask what they are getting for their money, because no one ever told them what to give. The spiritual consumerism that takes such a toll on mainstream synagogues is absent. As a result, the path is clear to build a deeper sense of community based on shared responsibility. As one member put it, “there is no ‘they’ here, only ‘us.’”
Criticism of the dues-for-membership model tends to focus on the issue of affordability.
Frequently, the challenge is defined as bringing down the cost of membership. But there is a more fundamental critique: that selling membership regardless of the price degrades the meaning of belonging. As long as synagogues are willing to define themselves as spiritual vendors – no matter how affordable their wares – they will find it difficult to generate the sense of meaning and belonging that contemporary Jews are seeking. Removing the price-tag from membership is not just a matter of increasing access – though it is that too – but a matter of transforming what we offer access to. By breaking with the consumer model, treating members as true partners rather than as customers, synagogues have the potential to attract and cultivate new energy, creativity, and commitment.
Michael Wasserman, a graduate of Harvard University and the Jewish Theological Seminary, is a founder and co-rabbi of The New Shul in Scottsdale Arizona.
As a member of The New Shul community, I can attest that what Rabbi Wasserman says is true. I have never felt that I was a consumer but a valid participant in creating the special “kavanah” that is unique to The New Shul. I especially appreciate the lack of “donor plagues” that you see plastered all over some synagogues, including the bimah. I find that sort of commercialism crass and clearly anti-thetical to what a spiritual community is meant to be. The trust that Rabbi Wasserman and Rabbi Kanter-Wasserman places in the community is a more powerful incentive to support the community than any fund raising campaign. I’m grateful to them for their courage and their faith in all of us.
I read your article with great interest. I do believe that the sense of community is what you feel the moment you walk into The New Shul. There is definitely a shift in the mind-set, to ownership and involvement, than I have experienced elsewhere. Lee Goldstein-Holcomb
Michael, I was so glad to read about your “mishkan” congregation, a community where members really have a voice, role, and opportunity to contribute and be seen and heard. The more we discuss these examples, we more we can see that real communities can grow of all sizes, in all places. Thanks for sharing your story!
Michael, it is great to continue to hear about synagogues trying and experiencing early success with new models. As you know there is a lot of fear in changing to something untested and new despite the fact that the “tried and true” seems to not resonate anymore. Readers: Let’s keep those examples coming! There is strength and courage in numbers.
Michael, It is very exciting to see that there are synagogues willing to take this bold and creative approach to financial sustainability. It is becoming clear that our congregations need to help shift the mindset to belonging and supporting from buying.
Beautiful essay, with a vital message. I wonder if the model would work in a larger city like Los Angeles, where community-building can be so challenging unless it is the community itself that initiates the new synagogue.
I wonder if you break down the budget requirement into an average cost per family and if each family then pays its share, or if some pay none or less than their share while others pay more.
This is a wonderfully thought provoking article! Since the New Shul is indeed a rather “new” shul, I am wondering how this idea could be applied to an established shul of 95 years; “established” in every sense of the word. Cemetery, preschool, religious school, old building, multiple dues categories, only conservative shul with 2 minyanim each day, mortgage, demographic hole in the 24-35 years, tradition, tradition, tradition (cue the music, please)
Ruth,
Stay tuned as we begin to learn from a cohort of 6 NY congregations as they begin their transformation towards becoming a Connected Congregations. Starting the late Fall we look forward to launching a platform for other congregations to learn along side. Follow the conversation on twitter #connectcongs . Adina