By Rabbi Lance J. Sussman, Ph.D.
Three years ago, my synagogue agreed to install large retractable screens on either side of the Ark and mounted projectors on the back wall of our 900 seat sanctuary. With almost no resistance, we quickly transitioned from late 15th century technology to early 21th century modalities of communicating.
It was a relatively easy process. In addition to her musical talents, our Cantor discovered she had an inherent talent for developing liturgical power point. What size font, which colors, Hebrew versus transliteration, translation versus epitomes of the text, iconic images versus new art and still life versus video instantly presented themselves as questions we needed to address. One by one, we worked our way through the various technological and philosophical issues.
We also had to decide whether to look for commercially made liturgical power points or develop our own. What we discovered was that we had ample talent to do our own thing from our staff to our lay people professionally involved in digital illustration to our Bnai Mitzvah students eager to personalize their own services.
The results were phenomenal. Our religious school created liturgical power point classes. Students began debating among themselves how to illustrate the Shema, the Amidah and their own special prayers of thanks. Regular worshippers and first time visitors alike began to look up during services instead of down into their prayer books. The elderly shared that they were glad to be rid of heavy siddurim and quite happy to look up at the large letter liturgical texts well within their visual capacity.
Of course, there was some resistance. One Bat Mitzvah told me she did not want to use Visual T’filot because “Moses did not have power point.” Of course, Miriam did not have a Bat Mitzvah either, a point which impressed the student but did not cause her to change her mind. Others said they did not mind the visuals but wanted the option of using “real” books as well. No problem there. We never even discussed removing our seforim and have learned to integrate the use of print and digital in worship.
Today’s reality is that if you go to a major league ball game, you still watch half the game or more on a screen. There are digital billboards on major highways and flat screen menus in neighborhood greasy spoon diners. The digital revolution has already won the day, it is high time for the modern synagogue to catch up with its host culture.
I also have members who come to services with app based liturgy loaded into their i-Phones, i-Pads and tablets. We are even considering switching from the weekly memorial plaques and their old fashion orange light bulbs to a flat screen with images of the same. Early modern Judaism transitioned from handwritten books to printed books; post-modern Judaism can go digital as well.
In fact, on a cost-benefit basis the move to digital makes a great deal of sense. It is much cheaper to install a screen and a projector than it is to buy a thousand new machzorim for the high holy days. All the unselected material can be shifted to files, texts can be customized and “new” material from original poetry to Rashi commentaries can be inserted effortlessly.
We have also learned how to use mixed media Shabbat announcements and what to display for the purpose of memorialization. My congregation finds comfort in the image of a lit yahrzeit candle before Kaddish but does like seeing “the list” up on the screens.
For nearly twenty centuries, rabbis and others have debated the value of visual representations of hiddur mitzvah and the dangers of avodah zara. Today, art and illustration is widely used in Jewish life and universal visual T’filot is the next logical step in the adaptation of Judaism to the modern world.
We live in a visual world. It is time to visualize our prayers and “text” our sacred images. The polarity of service and party will lessen, behavior during services will improve and Judaism will find a new place in the eyes, minds and hearts of the Jewish people.
Visual T’filot is fun, engaging and authentic. If you are not sure how to proceed, just ask any 10 year old in your community what to do. They are ready. Are you?
Lance J. Sussman is Senior Rabbi of Reform Congregation Keneseth Israel in Elkins Park, PA. He has taught classes on Jewish History at Princeton, Temple and Rutgers University. Sussman is currently writing a book on “Jews, Judaism and Law in America.”
Top
Great article! Are there windows in the sanctuary? How do the projectors work for daytime services?
Shalom Rav,
Bravo and kudos for understanding the value of tech as a means to an end in a traditional (in the sense of longstanding) synagogue milieu.
Measurably successful megachurches have been doing this for at least the past 35 years. There so much more that synagogues ought to study and learn from megachurches. There is no need to reinvent the wheel on all of the readily available learning that’s already been field tested and found to be measurably successful.
Thanks again Rabbi/Dr. Lance for your’s and your congregation’s willingness to use amoral tech in a way that brings Judaism (in contra-distinction to an amorphous to meaningless “Jewishness” that’s too often substituted) to your community.
Biv’racha,
Jordan
This is very ‘megachurch’ however, current research shows millennials moving away from tech and megachurch trends. We should stop trying to ‘catch up’ to the past and find the cutting edge. This is most likely successful because it employs DIY ‘toolbox’ Judaism—crafting a personal Judaism from meaningful Jewish traditions, wisdom, and practice—rather than the (expensive tech trend
Shalom Karla,
Would you please post a link to the research to which you alluded above?
Measurably successful megachurches like Willow Creek Community Church in So. Barrington, IL, Saddleback, in Lake Forest, CA, and Northpoint Church in Alpharetta, GA, to name a few, have “moved beyond,” and continue to reach and teach their next generation congregants. Which is why I’ll stick stick with the idea that megachurches are worthy of study for both their past and current measurable successes.
Biv’racha,
Jordan
1. Text on screen may also be better for those, especially elderly, who often don’t turn pages as quickly as younger worshippers. Easier for all to be on same page.
2. New technology doesn’t seem to fill seats (see photo) the way it allagedly does at the mega-churches cited in article. Tech may have advantages but clearly it’s not the answer (or necessarily even a major part of the answer) to how to convert significantly more congregants into worshippers. Is there hard data that shows otherwise?
3. Text on screen can be distracting because viewer sees more than the screen. More temptation for eyes to wander.
Shalom Norman,
You wrote, “2. New technology doesn’t seem to fill seats (see photo) the way it allagedly does at the mega-churches cited in article.”
Not allegedly! For real!! And to the extent of over 20,000 people per week in churches like Willow Creek Community Church in So. Barrington, IL, Saddleback in Lake Forest. CA, and Northpoint Church in Alpharetta, GA, to name a few. To be more accurate would be to say that the use of tech, the arts
(music, art, multi media, dance and drama), as an adjunct and complement to a practical, relevant, application oriented “bimah” teaching message/sermon about how Christianity continues to speak relevantly to life as it is lived and experienced in 21rst century North America as the world in general. It is this teaching that brings the folks through their doors. Their consistent excellence in that teaching is what brings people back. Tech etc, are a means, NOT an end.
In contradistinction to Marshall McLuhan, the media (tech, the arts, etc.) are NOT the message.
Biv’racha,
Jordan
Josh: Great big stained glass windows, lots of ’em. In fact, they perhaps should be more famous than the projection system, they’re artistically significant. The projection is easily readable under any daylight conditions. And with the lights still up in the room. It’s nice and bright.
Norman: I liked your comment for its cleverness, but the next logical inquiry in my view is to compare how KI would look without technology to how it looks with it. Not whether a particular picture shows no empty seats. KI is growing, I understand, which is no small feat in this particular moment of time. Since I’m one of those new members – our daughter is not yet enrolled in school there – it feels good that my congregation is keeping up with new opportunities to be meaningful, accessible, and delightful.
Some additional thoughts: Any congregation considering using text on screen should include transliteration as well as Hebrew and English if it is serious about welcoming the large numbers of attendees who are unable to read Hebrew. In Reform congregations this might mean 50% or more of those present who are converts who haven’t learned Hebrew, persons considering conversion, non-Jews in interfaith relationships, Jews by birth who never learned Hebrew, or members of visiting church or college groups. Of course, this recommendation applies to prayerbooks as well Aside from the technology question, the lay and clergy leaders of most congregations would benefit from reading and discussing Rabbi Lawrence A Hoffman’s “The Art of Public Prayer-Not for Clergy Only,” which identifies obstacles to meaningful worship and presents ways to eliminate them. As a layman/congregant and frequent leader of worship I have found the book very useful.
Visual T’filah changes the experience for those in the seats; it does not get them into the seats. As with all of our congregational programs we continue to one of many alternatives from which our members choose. When we offer something relevant and compelling they will choose us. Until then, the competition will win.