Writing backwards...part I

It may be helpful to note what I've come to understand.

First...for now...this is a place where I have been moved to document the issues concerning our affiliation with Temple Shalom.

In the recent months where the clergy has been turned over, I'd considered this to be a substantive problem for three identified core reasons:

a) the change represents a total loss, i.e., the net after...from our point of view...is reduced from the "net" before. In particular...first...speaking personally...I had a long standing strong bond with Rabbi Serotta. Also, our boys, and particularly Evan, our older son, had a strong affinity for him, too. The decision, moreover, to remove Rabbi Serotta mostly seemed to be consistent with the idea that...since we're making a change of the furniture...let's just change the wall paper, too, and re-do the whole thing...maybe saving some money in the process.

b) Noted below...to me...there is a real question about the authority assumed having not been theirs to assume. Though I understand how this can be seen differently, I don't think many would say this process of change was done where the board had the imprimatur of authority that everyone would agree was theirs to have.

c) Maybe difficult to say, but maybe easiest in substance to understand...this decision of change was based on making a "thing" out of discontent. It objectified and made solid the inability for individuals to get along. Three letters were sent out from the board. In the first and third, both...a "lack of peace" was described that needed to be attended to, and also, it was described that efforts at mediation were brought forward, and without success. A recent conversation with a Temple member who I knew less than casually was somewhat revealing. Perhaps it was for him that the changes were made (or rather...allowed to be made). He was inclined to grant that if we knew what the board knew, and he understood we did not...then he presumed that the decision made would have been the one he would have made (and thus, cognitive dissonance is managed). But...in fact...the board was not so secretive. They DID ...this time...decide to reveal that it was because of the lack of harmony that they made the changes they did. In doing so...they validated that the animosity between our clergy was not only real, but actionable. And...although...maybe...this is the only outcome we could ask for in a real world...I do have operational questions, about what specific consequence oriented outcomes were out clergy given. Given the outcome...I would guess none. In the previously described example with Adas Israel, we could see, with their decision to remove both clergy who fought...one might have hoped that before that, they would have at least considered telling them that that outcome would be next, before "making it so." In this case, with what worked out to be a "victor," it is not clear what consequence assigned to who would have been purposive or effective.

But...bottom line on this last point...when we have the country of Israel warring among its neighbors...how can we expect any good result from that situation, when we do not require it of the people we employ ourselves.