I have just returned from another energizing and engaging week at URJ Eisner Camp. One of the hot topics in Jewish education over the last few years is how do we take the energy of camp and bring it to our religious school programs. My wife Michelle, our former Director of Education, is actually one of the leaders in the field of figuring out what makes camp camp, Jewish camp Jewish, and how we can transfer those models to other spaces.
Outside of education, we can also look at the similarities and differences between (Jewish summer) camp and synagogue. Both are intentional Jewish communities, where a stated purpose is for participants to engage their own Judaism more deeply and to grow Jewishly. However, in some important aspects, camps are not only different from synagogues, but the complete opposite.
Camps are top-down: The program of a camp - from the food being served to who gets hired by the camp is decided by a camp director. All of the staff at camp has one boss, and that boss gets to set the priorities, from high to low. Synagogues are bottom - up: Congregants are the ones who run committees, staff the Board of Trustees, and fill the offices that make the decisions for the Temple.
Camps are encapsulated experiences: Every piece of the camp environment (except perhaps the weather) is controlled by the camp; especially who can be where when. There is no choice not to attend t’fillah (services) or breakfast. There may be electives, but everyone has to be in a sport during sports period. Further, a camper cannot just decide to leave camp. Even communication is restricted - with most camps banning phones and computers. Children have to actually write letters to their parents, who can only see them on visiting day, or in the photos the camp chooses to publish. Synagogues are open and voluntary: Congregants spend as much (or as little) time inside the synagogue, in Temple activities, or with other congregants, as they wish. There is no mandated attendance at services. Congregants can talk to each other, or whomever they wish about whatever they wish - and they often do.
Camps are of limited duration: Attendance is only for a session. This builds up excitement in the off-time, but also acknowledges a limit to the experience. Synagogue affiliation is open-ended: Jewish life is life-long. The level of engagement may change, but being Jewish (generally) does not. Participation needs to remain exciting 24/7/365.
Camps are not the real world: Ask any camper - behaviors that are completely acceptable at camp are not only socially unacceptable back in school, but often unexplainable. Lying in a pile of fellow campers, singing the camp alma mater, and crying hysterically is a normal behavior at camp, but bizarre elsewhere. Synagogues are the real world: While it may be ok to break out into song at services, everyone in the building may not be a “native” and so some behavior may feel embarrassing.
Yet, I would like to take a page from URJ Eisner Camp’s Director, Louis Bordman, that I think applies to both the camp and synagogue intentional Jewish environment. At a faculty lunch this past week, Louis told us about how we wanted to create a simple rubric that helped staff (and later campers) judge for themselves appropriate behavior. He created two separate circles - Camp and Not Camp (in Hebrew lo machaneh). His staff was invited to put post-its with their ideas of what belonged in each circle. In “Camp” went behaviors and things that should be a part of the intentional Jewish environment of camp - things like “respect for others”, “helping those in need”, “being empathetic”, “meaningful worship”, “casual time with friends”, etc. In the other circle, “not camp” went items like “smoking”, “bullying”, “belittling other campers”, “stealing”, “lying”, etc. Once the staff (and later campers) had fleshed out together some of what should be in each circle, it became easier for them to generalize what was camp and what was not camp in other situations. Sometimes they had to be reminded by a counselor, “Hey, is that camp or not camp?”, but Louis found it was a simpler and more intuitive way to encourage positive behavior and eliminate negative, without having to have people remember an expanding list of do’s and don’ts.
I believe that this idea would be useful for the Temple as well. Since we have seen that a synagogue is in many ways the inverse of camp, this job falls on all of us, rather than just one or two of us at the top. We should think about our behaviors in our Temple Sholom community - Is this something that is Temple Sholom or does not live up to our ideal of Temple Sholom? As we head toward the New Year, I encourage us to begin this conversation - what is a part of Temple Sholom and what does not fit in the Temple we hope to build? Let’s work together to put the intention back in our intentional Jewish community.
Rabbi Joel N. Abraham
