Synagogue vitality is so difficult to define that it is nearly an oxymoron. I have long envied churches who had a clearly defined, concrete vitality benchmark – worship attendance. This yardstick does not work for synagogues who put far less importance on weekly worship attendance than churches. Also, benchmarks change – worship attendance is no longer seen as the primary standard for church vitality. New measures need consideration and the definition gap between synagogues and churches is shrinking, as evidenced by the recent
Faith Communities Today (FACT) Special Report on Vital Congregations
.
One of the problems in comparing diverse religious communities is coming to any common definition of vitality. While the definition remains a moving target, there is an important consistency: vitality and sustainability are not the same. Historically, synagogues considered themselves vital if they were sustainable, i.e. financially viable. In contrast, a dictionary definition of vitality is “the state of being strong and active; energy … the power giving continuance of life, present in all living things.” The ability to remain in existence (sustain) is clearly not the same thing as remaining vital. Similarly, maintaining membership numbers were a measure of sustainability, but again, not necessarily one of vitality.
From a UJA-Federation funded project, Brandeis University created the
Thriving Synagogue Learning Tool
. As defined by this tool, “…thriving synagogues are vital today and show promise of a strong future… A thriving synagogue readily attracts, involves, and retains members and participants. It is financially sound. Thriving synagogues are dynamically heading toward their future. They have a clear sense of purpose and a vision and plan for fulfilling it. They are on the move, and members and participants are excited about the possibilities for the future of their synagogue.” This definition makes clear that vitality is a measure of a congregation’s present and future, one that is sustainable because it is dynamic, has a clear sense of purpose, and a plan for its future. As one synagogue leader interviewed in the FACT study remarked, “If it’s not broken, break it! The difference between being in the groove and being in a rut is simply perception.” Another stated, “Congregations that are spiritual, and are meeting the needs of their members and helping them find meaning in their lives, they’ll be sustainable.”
Not surprisingly, the FACT study shows that vital communities are alike across religious traditions. The study clearly showed that members of religious communities want engagement in their community. Moving from programming to engagement is the most cited result of the Synagogue Studies Institute’s (formerly part of Synagogue 3000) research from the late 2000’s and spawned major changes in the liberal movements, as well as in local synagogues. The FACT report is clear that one of the primary movers of a congregation from low to high vitality is moving from minimal to deep engagement. And, key to this engagement move are leadership, relationships, and practices.
