Breaking the impasse at Melbourne’s biggest progressive synagogue

Mediator JIM CYNGLER assesses what has gone wrong at Temple Beth Israel and explains how a conflict transformation process could help a synagogue in crisis

After 93 years of successful, thriving community life, Temple Beth Israel (TBI), the mothership of Progressive Judaism in Victoria, is divided. An internal war is raging between the synagogue’s board and emeritus rabbis John Levi and Fred Morgan, who are supported by several past presidents.

The TBI congregation grew from small beginnings to approximately 3000 families at its peak in the 1980s. It was the progenitor of all Progressive Jewish organisations in Victoria.

The complainants want to stop what they describe as the “polarisation” of the TBI community, the shattering of communal life and the loss of many members. In the past 12 months TBI has also seen the departure of its two rabbis and an investigation into cantor Michel Laloum.

The complainants assert the board did not follow normal workplace processes regarding a complaint made against Cantor Laloum, in failing to notify him of the allegations made against him and in giving him an opportunity to clear his name.

They also believe the board has acted without sufficient fiscal responsibility in commissioning a workplace investigation and possibly making a severance payment to former senior rabbi Gersh Lazarow, after he admitted to plagiarism. They claim the board has acted disrespectfully towards congregants who raised legitimate questions of the board.

They state concerned congregants “no longer feel at peace in the sanctuary and just don’t come”.

They want the board to resign and allow a new board to return TBI to its traditions and values.

The board, in response, has acknowledged that “many members are tired of the conflict and unsettling events” and that members want the board to build “a growing, well-run synagogue with great programs and strengthened links with longstanding partners”.

The board says it has implemented important initiatives over the past year and welcomed a few of its detractors on to the board.

It says the board “is made up of a diverse group of highly committed, competent and hardworking members” and “TBI is facing a generational shift in in how it deals with workplace matters and the standards to which our religious practitioners are held”.

It says its focus is to “improve culture, respecting the rights and dignity of all members in our community and ensuring that a consistency of standards is upheld for members, volunteers, staff and religious practitioners alike”.

The turmoil appears to centre on a clash of core values.

The complainants see traditional values as fundamentally important. For them, TBI is chiefly a congregation where congregants have their spiritual needs met. Where care of the congregation and the rabbinic team is critical for the bonding and continuance of a successful congregation.

Citing the importance of generational change, the board sees its role as the implementation of processes, procedures, and standards that all members, rabbis, and staff are measured against. Values relating to the operation of a modern efficient community organisation.

The complainants say the board should resign en masse. The board says those with opposing views should nominate for the board at the AGM in October. These approaches are high-risk with a likely outcome of alienating those who support the values expressed by the losing side and could cause an irreparable schism and a further diminution in membership.

This winner-takes-all approach sees the conflict as a zero-sum game. You win I lose. I win you lose.

What are the risks for TBI and for Progressive Judaism in Victoria if this turmoil continues or indeed escalates?

And are there effective alternatives to the protagonists’ approach?

Compromise is often suggested as an alternative, in which each party gives up something they see as important to achieve an end to the dispute. A “successful” compromise is often described as one where each party leaves feeling unhappy. Compromise is often used when the key elements of the dispute can be framed in material terms such as money or other tangible assets. It poses problems if the parties need to have ongoing connection.

Another common conflict resolution technique is "interest based" negotiation. This process is often referred to as "win/win" negotiation. It looks at the interests and needs of the participants and attempts to arrive at an outcome, using problem-solving techniques. Again, this process is best suited to conflicts where the interests and needs of the participants can be converted to material issues.

Potentially any of these approaches could cause the mothership to founder, to irreversibly split, leading to the creation of two communities when previously there was one.

This dispute is about the deeply held values of the two sides:

Are these two sets of values in opposition? Are they mutually exclusive? Is the zero-sum outcome the only possible result?

I have had 30 years of experience working with communities in conflict, both within the Jewish community and more broadly across communities. I have found that a clash of values or different priority of values are at the heart of most conflict.

Not all conflict arising in religious communities results in the decimation of the congregation, and community, the demise of spiritual connection. However, it does happen. In Brisbane in 2007 a congregation split over religious values, one group preferring a Conservative approach to religious practice, the other group more Progressive. Unable to resolve the split, a second congregation was established and the membership split, an outcome that diminished each congregation for 10 years until a reconciliation finally occurred.

A different approach to working with a conflict of values is to use conflict transformation processes, which are focused on supporting stakeholder engagement and self-determination. These processes give stakeholders an opportunity to voice their concerns and listen to each other’s concerns of the potential or actual harm perceived, as well their hopes and aspirations.

I have used this approach successfully in complex community conflicts where significant divisions within the community are apparent, relating to families, connection, management of community resources, and others.

The process supports a collaboration of understandings, values, vision and mission and helps the community develop a shared vision. People feel listened to and the anger that had previously been a feature of their interactions dissipates. The divisions are overcome in a cohesive and constructive way and a third way is established reflecting the core values of all the participants.

The TBI community is confronted by difficult choices with potential existential impacts. However, with conflict comes opportunity: to open rather than to close; to listen not just talk. An opportunity to make decisions reflecting the values and concerns expressed, and for the mothership to strengthen and grow.

Photo: Stained glass window at Temple Beth Israel (TBI)