Meaningful Conversations

Liz Gronert and Bob Rubinyi with Eric Bressler

 In 2021-2022, Liz and Bob planned and conducted a series of Zoom meetings with Bet Shalom congregants that they called “Meaningful Conversations.” Over the course of a few months they facilitated discussions between people with opposing political orientations. They finished by summarizing their work and making some recommendations about next steps (see their summary after the interview). I interviewed them to share their highly relational project with the congregation.

Eric: Tell us a little about your backgrounds and your involvement at Bet Shalom that relate to “Meaningful Conversations.” Did you already know each other?

Bob - I knew Liz from participating in Torah study with her about 20 years ago, and I remembered that she had a conservative perspective. I always enjoyed hearing her contributions to our Torah discussion. Given her interest in social action projects, I remember trying several times to recruit her to that committee. 

Liz - Definitely fond memories of those times!  My youngest daughter Sarah just turned 21 and was the first baby named at the “new” synagogue. 

Why did you two decide to take on this challenging project? What was its impetus?

Liz - To be honest, I wasn’t 100% sure when it first came up. There was a time when I questioned if our family would continue with Bet Shalom. It seemed that there was an assumption that if you are Jewish you are something other than conservative politically, and that wasn’t a fit for us. However, Bet Shalom has always been really important to us. Though my involvement has changed over the years as my kids have gotten older, Bet Shalom is a huge part of our family’s fabric. I figured this was an issue that others were probably having and feeling as well, and if we could do anything to help within our own congregation we should move forward.

Bob - I was very angry and upset at the events of January 6, 2021 and the increasing polarization in our country and community that had led to that. I really wanted to do something to bring people together at Bet Shalom from diverse viewpoints to hear each other out and model respectful discussion. In the past I had participated in Braver Angel workshops and the “Respectful Conversations” model used by the Minnesota Council of Churches. I thought, “Why couldn’t we do something like that at  Bet Shalom?” Rabbi Locketz brought Liz and me together and suggested that we work together to put together a series of conversations. He used a High Holy Day sermon in 2021 to talk about polarization and what our congregation could do about it. 

How were the conversation sessions organized?  Who were the participants and how did you find them?

Liz - Rabbi Locketz sent out an initial email to the congregation in late 2021 to invite congregants to volunteer to participate.  Bob and I sent out a follow-up email to solicit additional volunteers. In early 2022 we reached out to an initial set of congregants, striving for equal liberal/conservative representation, and arranged a series of 90-minute Zoom discussions. We put together a series of focused questions that asked about people’s beliefs and values, when they felt they were unfairly stereotyped, and when some of those stereotypes might have some truth to them.

Did you encounter any obstacles?

Liz - Even though Bob had experience with this type of project in other ways, we really did need to think carefully through every step. We wanted to allow for very open and honest discussions while ensuring respect and focus on our purpose. I heard from some conservative congregants that they did not feel at home in our congregation. Some expressed there would be no point to doing these conversations because nothing would change. Others said they had had bad experiences already and weren’t going to place themselves in that position again.

Bob - Conservative congregants were more reluctant to volunteer, probably because of their past experiences being in the minority in our congregation and not wanting to “out” themselves.

Liz - Another obstacle was that since the world outside of Bet Shalom is so polarized, it  influenced whether people from any political leaning would want to participate. 

What were your main conclusions?

Bob - Our major take-aways were:

  • Our participants liked having meaningful, deeper-level discussions with congregants who had different viewpoints on issues of public importance. They enjoyed getting together and having people listen to them without dismissing them based on political labels and stereotypes. Some just appreciated the opportunity to get together and dialog on important issues. 

  • Many wanted to continue these types of discussions on an ongoing basis, often with exactly the same group with which they shared their initial conversation. There was a real hunger for this type of meaningful and respectful engagement with others.

  • We also asked about what drew congregants to Bet Shalom in the first place. Their reasons included child care; being part of a Jewish community; Bet Shalom’s friendliness, intimacy, and welcoming attitude; and our support for interfaith Christian/Jewish couples.

  • Virtually without exceptions, participants were courteous and respectful of each other and had a genuine interest in fully participating in this type of dialog.

We provided a thorough summary to the rabbis, reproduced below if you are interested in our more detailed findings. 

How did the relationship between you two change as a result of the project?

Liz - I’d always had a lot of respect for Bob, not just for his beliefs but how he lived those values.  Working with Bob on this project reinforced that people truly can come from different places in the political spectrum and have respect and understanding for one another. This is an area that Bob is very committed to, and it came through in all of our activities.

Bob - I really enjoyed working with Liz on the project. I had a chance to get to know more about her as a person, her interests, and what values and beliefs led her to more conservative positions. It confirmed my understanding that we had a lot in common in terms of our values,  even if our political affiliations were different. I also became a lot more sensitive about thinking about what it’s like to be in the minority within our own faith community, and the importance of respecting other people despite our political differences. 

Did any of the participants have any previous relationships that deepened or new ones that formed from their interactions?

Bob - We did have an amazing session where, by coincidence, several of those participating came from the same area of Omaha, Nebraska. Part of the conversation explored those common connections, and those folks sought to keep in contact after the session. A number of other participants told us after the session how they really enjoyed it, and that it was the first deep level personal conversation they had had with others in our congregation on any subject. Many of our participants asked us to continue the conversations with the groups after the initial sessions.

Liz- As far as previous relationships, we had a very nice mix of congregants who’d been members for awhile and newer members. Some people participating knew each other marginally from participating in other congregational activities. Certainly they hadn’t engaged with this level of conversation. 

Were there any quintessentially Jewish moments?

Liz- Hmm. Quintessentially Jewish moments. Isn’t the whole thing a Jewish moment? We are repairing our world by taking a look at this topic and looking at healing where it is needed.

What are the main things you’d like to see come out of this project?

Bob - We had some specific recommendations for the rabbis and the congregational leadership based on our experiences with the discussion groups. First, we felt it would be important that the synagogue develop a communications effort to stress how we welcome all congregants and value and respect diverse viewpoints and the commitment of each of us to "walk the walk" on that. Second, we thought that Bet Shalom should do more of these types of conversations emphasizing listening to others, especially with newer members or those who have not participated for a while. Third, provide additional focused opportunities for small groups of congregants to talk about specific public policy issues with a moderator.

Liz - Something that I’d like to see come out of the project is acknowledgement that we are not all the same, and that’s okay. As a congregation we value and make sure it is known that we are inclusive in so many important ways. That’s really important and how it should be. Does that actually extend to all the ways we might be different? Will the congregation as a whole offer that to those who they disagree with politically and see common values like these groups did? I hope so.


Meaningful Conversations - Findings & Recommendations

Liz Gronert and Bob Rubinyi, Project Organizers

Background: Rabbi Locketz, Liz Gronert and Bob Rubinyi met initially in July 2021 to discuss a project at Bet Shalom Congregation to bring together congregants with differing political opinions for a series of conversations designed to reduce polarization and build a more welcoming congregation. Rabbi Locketz addressed these themes during one of his High Holy Days sermons. Later in the fall, Rabbi Locketz, Liz, and Bob met to develop an initial email letter that was distributed to all congregants in November 2021, inviting them to be part of the project. In January 2022, Liz authored a follow-up email that was specifically designed to recruit additional conservative congregants. In February 2022, Liz and Bob, working with Rabbi Crimmings, decided to hold three initial, one-on-one conversations (each matching a conservative and a liberal member of the congregation (in one case a couple) during late February and early March 2022. Following these conversations, Liz and Bob moderated three additional four-person group conversations during May and June 2022. Everyone who volunteered was invited to participate in one of the conversations.

Findings: Here are the principal findings from the three one-on-one and three four-person group discussions held during spring 2022:

  • In general, participants appreciated the opportunity to have meaningful, deeper level discussions with congregants who had different viewpoints on issues of public importance. There were some different take-aways from participants

    • Some just appreciated the opportunity to get together and dialog

    • Groups with less diversity had more difficulty in recognizing positives about those with different viewpoints and also greater challenges in identifying how they might be able to improve their own behavior. They also expressed a stronger interest in getting together with those with viewpoints other than their own to specifically address public policy issues.

    • Many congregants on both sides of the political aisle spoke about the negative feelings of being stereotyped politically (e.g., “You liberals” or “You Trump supporters,” or “We’re all Christians here”), and not recognized as individuals with complex and nuanced viewpoints and histories. Upset that people don’t listen to each other calmly in their everyday lives.

  • With virtually no exceptions, participants were courteous and respectful of each other and had a general interest in participating in this type of dialog

  • A number of participants indicated that they had hoped to have discussions around more specific public policy issues. More of a monthly dialog vs. a highly moderated discussion.

  • Many participants expressed an interest in continuing to participate in these types of discussions, but with a greater focus on specific public policy issues instead of general beliefs, values, and general political philosophy (as we did in the first round).  Two groups indicated they’d like to continue to meet with their same grouping on a regular basis.

  • Some people said they only wanted to meet together in person and others only remotely via Zoom

  • Some congregants shared that they are looking for more meaningful connections with each other. There were a number of people who joined us just to be with other people from the synagogue.

  • We really emphasized the personal invitation. We think that may have made a difference in engaging the congregants who joined us.

  • It can be very intimidating for congregants who recently joined the congregation to just show up to a large event vs. receiving a more personalized invitation from the event leads

  • Bet Shalom does not currently have an up-to-date congregant directory that can be accessed online, slowing down the initial work on the project

  • Why did they join Bet Shalom - child care; be part of a Jewish community; appreciated Bet Shalom’s friendliness, intimacy, and welcoming attitude (mainly long-time members who joined at the “church”/Hopkins location); interfaith (Christian/Jewish couples)

  • Why participate - want to have civil, substantive, issue-based conversations with family and friends (vs. name-calling) - hard to do these days; want to learn more about the issues and other viewpoints; a lot of self-censorship going on among conservatives

Recommendations: Based on the experiences holding the initial series of one-on-one and small group conversations, Liz and Bob recommend the following next steps:

  1. Develop a campaign at the synagogue to stress how we welcome all congregants and value and respect diverse viewpoints

  2. Consider organizing a series of one-on-one meetings, especially to welcome and engage newer congregants and/or those who have not participated in congregational life for a period of time. Bet Shalom did this in the early 2000s with a very positive response.

  3. Seek congregant leadership for a Phase II project that would reach larger numbers of congregants

  4. Invite (first round and) additional congregants to be part of a second round of these conversations that would follow the outline of the first series but with some specific public policy issues, emphasize listening skills. Need to think about how this needs careful planning and facilitation on “hot-button” issues. 

  5. Consider following-up with participants in the first round to see if they might want to participate in professionally facilitated conversation groups focusing on key public policy issues.

Molly Bryant