Have you ever been to a really good theatrical performance, where at some point, everyone in the theater is totally united in their attention to and involvement in what’s happening on stage? It’s where the “artistic” crosses over into the “spiritual.” That’s “group cohesion.” In my mind, “group cohesion” is what makes a service become “a service,” rather than just “a meeting.”
I try to provide content that I myself am satisfied with, too, for which I credit primarily Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Rabbi Morris Lichtenstein, who gave me well-laid out, systematic ideas to work from.
I’ve also made the effort over many years to learn how to do it. In the beginning, 20 years ago, I remember giving a talk where people were walking out on me. But (and it’s so unlike me), I knew I had to just keep trying.
I’ve also been very willing to vary a service, without letting it feel insubstantial. For example: On “Sukkot” (or “Tabernacles,” as it’s usually called in an “English” bible), one of the observances is to wave a lulav (palm branch), with branches from a Willow and a Myrtle tree, while holding an etrog (a fruit that looks like a lemon on the outside, but isn’t). I did it at one Erev (evening) Sukkot service, although it’s usually done in the morning, because I knew that there’d be people there who wouldn’t otherwise have a chance to do it. I prepared a “meditation guide” handout, which helped the people find further meaning in the act they were doing. Each person got a copy of the handout to take home. I got very positive comments afterwards.
But even the variations depend on the congregation. Even before the service, if possible, I try to “feel out” the group. Not everyone in the group is the same, of course, but groups have a collective “personality.” I find that if I address myself to that, most of the people will feel included. I might introduce various prayers with an explanatory quote. This allows me to “explain,” without necessarily interrupting the flow of the prayers themselves. With one group, for example, I made sure to introduce each quotation or reading by the rabbi’s name: “Rabbi so-and-so said…” This gave them the feeling that they were receiving the knowledge from a tradition, rather than from me personally. For another group, with less interest in tradition, I provided many of the same quotes, but without mentioning as many of the rabbis. This let them focus on the ideas in a way that was more familiar to them (i.e. short quotations).
So, I try to create a service with “substance” and “group cohesion.” The latter also involves a sense of “flow” — it should become something that people relax into and forget themselves, like a concert or a play. At the same time, I have the option of varying how the prayers are done, by doing responsive readings, silent readings, whole-group readings; by chanting (rather than reciting) some of the text in English; etc.
I’ve often woken up the morning after a service with a really happy, satisfied feeling. I think that I was affected in a positive way by my own service — which is how it should be. Whatever the forms and details, a “service” is essentially a personal prayer and/or meditation, in which we meet with G-d’s Presence in and around us.
So: liturgy can and should serve as a “framework” to produce group cohesion via a spiritual experience that all (including the clergy) share collectively. People should go away feeling “changed.”
Of course, it’s probable, even typical, that not everyone who attends a given service will feel the same way. People come in with different needs and different expectations. But that’s OK.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
03/19/2012 at 1:37 pm
pjgbooks
I have found that what I need the most to pray is silence, and tefilah b’tzibur (and our traditional liturgy on the whole) is short on silence and long on words. I’m not talking about “davening” and achieving the feeling of group cohesion through congregational singing. That’s great…but often not balanced with quiet time to talk to God. I have also found that when I felt most challenged and shared this w/ the congregation, they were not only receptive but encouraged me to take more time during the silent Amidah — they really like the idea of waiting for the “last man standing” to finish, even though it can add a few minutes to the service. This open discussion of the goal of balancing individual & communal needs led us to a greater sense of group cohesion. I don’t know if that makes me a better rabbi, Jew or person, but I feel like a more honest rabbi, Jew & person for having invited the congregation to join me in the striving.
03/19/2012 at 3:32 pm
Sidney Slivko
Thank you for this post, Eli. I believe “group cohesion” is the spiritual root of everything Jewish that we do. I used to think the idea of tefillah betzibur was so that my own tefillah would be buoyed along by the collective efforts of others. I am discovering now that it’s really the opposite, and it’s this consciousness which makes our tefillot more effective. What I bring to the tefillah — as a participant or as a shaliach tzibur is what makes the difference in our regular communions. And it goes beyond tefillah, infusing my learning, teaching, sharing a meal, giving tzedakah, posting on LinkedIn or just being who I am.
Realizing that, I feel I am on the way to becoming a better rabbi, a better Jew and a better person.