By Rabbi Jonathan Leener
When I was in high school I continually found myself in debate with my English teachers. “Why does my paper need to be five pages if I can write it in three?” I would argue. I remember feeling so frustrated and unable to comprehend why my teachers valued the quantity of pages over the quality of my work. Strangely enough, I still find myself wrestling with the tension of quality and quantity as a young rabbi charged with engaging millennial Jews as many judge success solely on attendance as compared to how many people actually had a meaningful or impactful experience.
Besides needing a paradigm shift in how we measure “success” it raises bigger questions in how we perceive the work of Jewish engagement. If we see Judaism as a product and participants as consumers than bigger is absolutely better, but if we imagine Judaism as a lifestyle and participants as unique individuals than smaller is certainly better. If Jewish institutions want to begin seeing a reversal in trends of disengagement among young Jews we must begin to believe that less is often more and bigger is not necessarily better.
Within the world of education, smaller class sizes inevitably leads to deeper and more impactful learning, as students receive more individual attention from their teachers, build lasting relationships with their fellow classmates, and benefit from teachers customizing lessons around the needs and wants of students. Can you imagine if we applied this educational model across other Jewish mediums?
Just as an example, according to Ron Wolfson in “Relational Judaism: Using the Power of Relationships to Transform the Jewish Community,” rabbis only met one-one-one with about 10-15 percent of congregants in a year. Listening to a sermon is important but having the space to ask challenging questions, explore personal religious issue, or a listening ear to share disappointing news is even more valuable.
So why are we not applying this model across other Jewish mediums? I must admit that I too am tempted by the “numbers game,” having a crowd gives a feeling of validation and pride. Recently I was lured in and hosted a Shabbat dinner twice the size of our average Shabbat dinners. The results? Underwhelming. Yes, more seats were filled but something intangible was lost in the process as I reduced Shabbat to an event. We need to get back to the basics, creating meaningful relationships and facilitating impactful experiences and less in the event planning business. Relegating Jewish engagement to happy hours and oversized meals will only perpetuate a consumer mentality in how they relate to Jewish life.
The sages also struggled with the proper balance between quality and quantity. Yossei the son of Yochanan of Jerusalem would say: “Let your home be wide open” (Ethics of the Fathers 1:5), while the Rambam demanded a maximum of 25 students under one teacher (Laws of Talmud Torah 2:5). And in general, Rabbi Yosef Caro stated, “It is better to say a small amount of supplications with intention than to recite many without” (Shulchan Aruch 1:4). With the data from the now infamous Pew Survey on American Jewish Life the time has come to radically rethink how we go about engaging Jews, since our previous methods have been unsuccessful. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different outcomes” said Einstein. Let’s start by measuring success less by how many people we engage and more by the quality of those we interact with
Jon Leener a co-founder of Base Hillel and is the rabbi at Base BKLYN in Williamsburg. He received his rabbinic ordination from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and his B.A. in Film from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Top
This is so true, Jon. One might think having 100 people bake challah together is more valuable than an intensive week of Jewish study attended by 25. (It probably is more findable, sadly.) But serious Jewish educators know better, we know which is usually a cute, superficial experience, and what is usually deeply enriching, and even life-changing. Thanks so much for this.
This is a great article and has been implemented at UF Hillel the last two years. Here is a worthwhile ELI Talk in relation to it: http://elitalks.org/al-shlosha-dvarim-power-simplicity.
Thank you for your thoughtful article Rabbi Jon but it depends on who the ‘we’ is. When you write, “why are we not applying this model across other Jewish mediums” there are inherent dangers as well. For one, smaller efforts may be more satisfying, and perhaps more effective (perhaps), but how can we evaluate them to know that? how are we able to know which effort is most effective and deserves greater energy? also, if we are concerned with the trajectory of the Jewish people, at least when it comes to engagement, it will be hard to reach critical numbers that are able to reverse trends without larger strategies and tactics. the challenge is to search for larger, scalable solutions that retain the intimacy you so rightly advocate for.
I love this discussion. OneTable was created to test this very idea – what would it look like for young adults to create micro-communities around the Shabbat dinner table?
What would it take to support them so that they felt confident enough to create warm, welcoming experiences for their peers ultimately leading to a lifelong practice?
Driven by these core questions and the advantages of new technology, along with the trending interest in home-cooked intimate dinners, we launched a new platform.
We are now averaging 1,000 people each week – not at one large dinner – but at 80 intimate dinners across the country. Luckily Shabbat happens every week so we have more and more opportunities to learn about the impact of the dinners on the hosts and guests. I can verify that while larger scale Shabbat dinners are fun and social, it’s the intimate ones that create greater opportunities for feeling a sense of belonging and are more likely to lead to repeat practice. As we glean more data about the needs of the participants and how Jewish practice may become a more natural, integrated part of their lives, we will happily share this data and look forward to continuing this thoughtful conversation.
Shalom Rabbi Jon,
You wrote, “…as a young rabbi charged with engaging millennial Jews as many judge success solely on attendance as compared to how many people actually had a meaningful or impactful experience.”
What do you mean by “a meaningful or impactful experience?” Without defining this phrase, which necessarily involves some sort of measurement, how do you really know what works? You wrote,
“…rabbis only met one-one-one with about 10-15 percent of congregants in a year.”
Perhaps this is because for most North American non Orthodox Jews, Rabbis are seen only in the context of their ability to lead/perform Jewish life cycle events. You continued,
“Listening to a sermon is important but having the space to ask challenging questions, explore personal religious issue, or a listening ear to share disappointing news is even more valuable.”
It’s only valuable to those who perceive it as such, which is a minority of North American Jews. You continued,
“With the data from the now infamous Pew Survey on American Jewish Life the time has come to radically rethink how we go about engaging Jews, since our previous methods have been unsuccessful.”
Agreed except for your characterization of the Pew study as “imfamous.” Rather than “imfamous” how about “undeniably needed wake up call?” The brutal honesty of the Pew survey (now nearly three years old) was a most necessary first step. There can be no change without first acknowledging the facts on the ground; the reality/truth of the status quo. Only those who have a vested interest in the status quo not changing (and I’d venture to say that that number remains too high) would characterize the Pew study as “imfamous.” You continued,
“Let’s start by measuring success less by how many people we engage and more by the quality of those we interact with”
What do you mean by “the quality of those we interact with?”
Shabbat Shalom/Shavu’a tov to all of us,
Biv’racha,
Jordan
Great piece Jon and important issue.
As you’d suspect, I still lean towards quantity, but totally out of consideration of quality.
I always felt that the Monday night Israeli dancing I helped start at Columbia University in 1968 or so was such a worthwhile program in part because it brought so many Jews together in a Jewish context. They inevitably created and sustained friendships (and romances) and became identifiable for recruitment as activists. The 300 or so who showed up were the key to its success.
To take another example: Suppose we get 2000 18-26 year olds to go on mediocre Birthright trips and just 60% return to Israel. If we invested more funds in better staff, maybe we can boost the return rate to a whopping 90% (I’m using return as an indicator of quality of impact). But suppose great trips cost twice as much as mediocre trips. Well, 60% of 2000 = 1200, and 90% of 1000 = 900. I think we’re better off with the cheap, mediocre trips.
I’m not saying you’re wrong with your emphasis on smaller and better. All I’m saying is that there are lots of ways to look at the matter.
And, congratulations for raising the provocative issue and stimulating a very productive discussion!
Steven
Thank you Rabbi Jon
I agree that small intimate groups create a special opportunity for engagement both with the text and with the people. However, in order to “scale this” we cannot rely on the Rabbi to be the only teacher. We need to train and support non-clergy to lead groups and meaningful programs. We at Chai Mitzvah have been creating this platform since 2009, engaging over 2,000 people in small group learning and experiential Jewish opportunities led sometimes by professionals, and others by lay leaders we support through the 9 month program. These groups become so strong, that after the program is over, they invariably want to stay together. A testament to the impact of creating space for meaningful conversations and connections. Audrey Lichter, Executive Director of Chai Mitzvah