The joys & sorrows of congregational government

[applewuud]

One of the primary aspects of Unitarian Universalism is its democracy and congregational polity...that each individual church is in control of itself. This belief that people as a group can find spiritual truths together, that democracy is ultimately a better path for the Spirit to flow through than some authority, is a major source of meaning for me.

But in practice, congregational life can be awfully challenging at times. Several of my UU friends in other parts of the country have been through ongoing conflicts or dissatisfactions between a small group in their congregation and the minister. These aren't cases of misconduct on either side, they're just...projections, or misunderstandings, petty hurts that turn into major campaigns. Even though only 10% of the people may be involved and the other 90% are happy, it can be enough for the minister to quit, or shut down emotionally. In our desire to be open to everyone's input, sometimes it keeps the organization from making progress.

I was talking to a friend at GA, mentioning the mega-churches that are next to the freeways in Ohio and Illinois, and why there are so few UU churches with 1,000 members or more. He said, "Those churches were started by and are run by the minister and a small professional staff. They pick their own boards of directors the way company CEOs do. When they want to build a new building with a big parking lot and a great sound system, they can get it done without waiting for an annual meeting. UU congregations don't want to give the minister the power to make that kind of progress. The down side, of course, is when that charismatic leader fades, often the church does too."

What do you think of this? Is our congregational polity getting in the way of reaching more people? Are we handicapping our ministerial leadership in some way? Do UU seminaries prepare ministers enough for the nuts-and-bolts hassles of "herding cats"? How can we keep relationships in a congregation healthy? Does our very openness allow dysfunctional people to act out in a way that makes other people want to leave the church or fellowship?

This is where our beliefs meet the test, and I haven't read much about these kinds of things on the forums, yet it's an undercurrent I'd like to explore, without getting into specific church conflicts...just how our general polity affects the management of those conflicts, and ultimately the effectiveness of Unitarian Universalism.

 

[des]

I have had a very similar feeling and experiences as a member of UCC which is also congregational. I was on the Church Council and it was not in any way a good experience. In fact, when my term was over I kind of left the church for 7 years. I have told people at this church that if I were elected I would off myself. Though it isn't *that* bad. It was very frustrating. This church also had the idea that everything had to be determined by consensus, so it was very hard to get anything at all done. (When 10 are gathered in His/Her name in UCC there are 12 opinions. )
The pastor, while serving on the board, would never answer any direct questions, which frustrated the heck out of some.
There were a few very good experiences, we had an alcoholic, homeless guy that was a church employee. We did work with him and it was a very neat thing to be involved with this, even though the last I heard he went back to the streets. I'm sure very few places would have worked harder with him.

As for the conservative churches run as a patriarchal system. It's true, that it is efficient. I don't know that it explains their great popularity unless it is partly that many people really want to be told what to think.

I'm not sure that efficiency is all that it is cracked up to be though.
After all, the kinds of rules that get passed in top-down systems are not always very good, and often very bad. Look what is happening to the American Episcopal church which may get kicked out of the Anglican communion unless they stop marriage of same sex couples. That's a bad thing. If they were congregationally run, that would not happen. (Well an individual congregation could go that way, but not a large no.)

I saw a bumper sticker that said, "We love our pastor". I found that very funny. Of course, I love mine, but I would never put a bumper sticker on my car nor would anyone else. This is from the patriarchal system which teaches people reliances on a single powerful individual-- almost like children. There can be, sometimes are, charismatic pastors in congregationally run churches but the relationship with the rest of the congregation is an adult one.


--des

 

[lilithu]

What do you think of this? Is our congregational polity getting in the way of reaching more people? Are we handicapping our ministerial leadership in some way? Do UU seminaries prepare ministers enough for the nuts-and-bolts hassles of "herding cats"? How can we keep relationships in a congregation healthy? Does our very openness allow dysfunctional people to act out in a way that makes other people want to leave the church or fellowship?

This is where our beliefs meet the test, and I haven't read much about these kinds of things on the forums, yet it's an undercurrent I'd like to explore, without getting into specific church conflicts...just how our general polity affects the management of those conflicts, and ultimately the effectiveness of Unitarian Universalism.

Our congregational polity makes us extremely inefficient. And I can see why people would get frustrated by our inefficiency. I myself have gotten frustrated by our ineffeciency. Afterall, if we were more efficient just think of how much more we could do!! But at what cost? We covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth of each individual. That means addressing people's individual concerns until they feel like they've been heard and respected instead of just imposing a decision upon them. There is no other way.

Having said that, there's a difference between the inefficient process of respecting everyone in our community and the dysfunctional conflictant-avoidant way with which we (fail to) deal with some conflicts. A covenant flows both ways. It's not just a person's right to be heard/respected but also his or her responsibility to hear/respect others. And all of us who have been involved in UU for any length of time have experienced those individuals who insist on being heard without listening to others in return, who seem unwilling or incapable of seeing the other person's point of view, or even just respecting a difference of opinion. I don't know a good, healthy way to handle these situations. Or at least what I do know - addressing the person(s) directly, letting them know that they will be heard but there's a limit, and doing it from a place of love - often seems to hard to do. It would perhaps be beneficial to have trainings on how to handle such situations - effective strategies and opportunities to practice/model.


Having never been to seminary, I have no idea whether our ministers are taught how to "herd cats" or deal with people who have a greater degree of personal issues.

I don't consider myself particularly difficult sarcastic) but like many UUs I am vocal, opinionated, quick to see what's wrong with something rather than what's right with it. Several times, I've been aware, after the fact, that I was "handled" by my senior minister. That is, I went in with a complaint and he redirected me towards thinking about what I can constructively do in the situation. This has had two effects: 1) I've taken to automatically looking for more positive ways to respond to a "problem" and 2) I'm less likely to voice concerns for fear that I'll end up with more work to do.

The effects are both good and bad. There are times when it's inappropriate to "punish" someone for pointing out an inequity - to make them responsible for it just because they name it. But my point is that my minister does have some tools in his bag on how to handle conflict. Whether he learned that in seminary or not, I don't know.


As for our polity getting in the way of reaching out to more people, how about we work on the fact that we don't actively reach out to people first? We UUs, as a whole, do not tend to talk about belonging to our congregations in other areas of our life, like work etc. We as a whole do not invite friends to visit. We as a whole to do not make a point of welcoming visitors when they do come to our congregations. We as whole do not do things to actively engage the communities surrrounding our congregations.

So it seems to me that congregational polity is the least of our worries in terms of obstacles to growth.

 

[des]

Was it Churchill who said, "Democracy is a very bad form of government but all the others are so much worse." I think it applies to church government as well. Would you want to be run by a hierachical leadership?
Of course, I don't think freethinkers, radicals, and various misfits would tolerate it.

Just never ask me to do it again.

--des

 

[applewuud]

As for our polity getting in the way of reaching out to more people, how about we work on the fact that we don't actively reach out to people first? We UUs, as a whole, do not tend to talk about belonging to our congregations in other areas of our life, like work etc. We as a whole do not invite friends to visit. We as a whole to do not make a point of welcoming visitors when they do come to our congregations. We as whole do not do things to actively engage the communities surrrounding our congregations.

Regarding outreach and congregational polity: some ministers find that their congregations subtly undercut efforts at outreach. Churches act like family systems, where an effort to change by one family member can be counteracted by others who bring the system back to its old, familiar pattern. Company CEOs who make their company more profitable get their process rubber-stamped by the Board; ministers who bring a lot of strangers into their church sometimes make the established members nervous. There's something to be said for professional leadership with proper oversight.

Having said that, there's a difference between the inefficient process of respecting everyone in our community and the dysfunctional conflictant-avoidant way with which we (fail to) deal with some conflicts. A covenant flows both ways. It's not just a person's right to be heard/respected but also his or her responsibility to hear/respect others. And all of us who have been involved in UU for any length of time have experienced those individuals who insist on being heard without listening to others in return, who seem unwilling or incapable of seeing the other person's point of view, or even just respecting a difference of opinion. I don't know a good, healthy way to handle these situations. Or at least what I do know - addressing the person(s) directly, letting them know that they will be heard but there's a limit, and doing it from a place of love - often seems to hard to do. It would perhaps be beneficial to have trainings on how to handle such situations - effective strategies and opportunities to practice/model.

This to me is the heart of the reason to actually belong to a UU church or fellowship, instead of just staying home and reading philosophy and theology. It's a spiritual challenge to have to work stuff out with people, even those who are mostly like-minded.

Learning to work with people in a congregation, with respect for differing beliefs but still having to move in a direction, is rehearsal for working in the larger society. If a UU or UCC church can't hang together, how could there be any hope for different denominations and religions to work together?

 

[applewuud]

I have had a very similar feeling and experiences as a member of UCC which is also congregational. I was on the Church Council and it was not in any way a good experience. In fact, when my term was over I kind of left the church for 7 years. I have told people at this church that if I were elected I would off myself. Though it isn't *that* bad. It was very frustrating. This church also had the idea that everything had to be determined by consensus, so it was very hard to get anything at all done. (When 10 are gathered in His/Her name in UCC there are 12 opinions. )


--des

This is one of the "sorrows" we could discuss...burnout. For myself, I try to limit my volunteer work to things I know I can tolerate. I'd much rather spend 3 hours working on the building, doing something tangible, than sitting in a meeting. So that's what I keep myself to, even though what the Board or Council does is critical as well.

 

[des]

Your statement re: working together, well we do do that. But I agree on the tangible stuff. With a stressful job now (teaching high school special ed.), I will only work at tangible jobs. I won't sit in meetings as I have enough of that during the week. But I do many other tangible type stuff.

--des

This is one of the "sorrows" we could discuss...burnout. For myself, I try to limit my volunteer work to things I know I can tolerate. I'd much rather spend 3 hours working on the building, doing something tangible, than sitting in a meeting. So that's what I keep myself to, even though what the Board or Council does is critical as well.

 

[uumckk16]

Speaking of challenges of congregational government...how about the long process of finding a new minister? :cover:

Our minister resigned last month after a bit of a controversy...therefore it was, of course, unexpected. We won't get an interrim minister until September at least, and from there it'll be years before we get a new minister.

I guess this is both good and bad...at least we end up with someone who will work well with our congregation!

 

[des]

I was involved in two churches looking for a pastor. AFAIK, the first one still has not (well a bunch of shorter term ones I think). Of course there are high qualification standards, like the ability to herd cats.
My current church just went thru the process. One result I guess is that he feels very welcomed! However, in a small church this can just really deplete the membership, people tend to not like ambiguity.

It must be much easier when some board on high sends you a pastor, like him/her or not.

My understanding is that some churches have imput but don't do the whole thign.


--des

Speaking of challenges of congregational government...how about the long process of finding a new minister? :cover:

Our minister resigned last month after a bit of a controversy...therefore it was, of course, unexpected. We won't get an interrim minister until September at least, and from there it'll be years before we get a new minister.

I guess this is both good and bad...at least we end up with someone who will work well with our congregation!

 

[uumckk16]

I was involved in two churches looking for a pastor. AFAIK, the first one still has not (well a bunch of shorter term ones I think). Of course there are high qualification standards, like the ability to herd cats.
My current church just went thru the process. One result I guess is that he feels very welcomed! However, in a small church this can just really deplete the membership, people tend to not like ambiguity.

It must be much easier when some board on high sends you a pastor, like him/her or not.

My understanding is that some churches have imput but don't do the whole thign.


--des

Yeah, I hope they feel welcomed...I seem to remember about the process once, and I think they mentioned the congregation has to vote on the minister and some very high percentage has to want him/her...Wow that was vague, haha, but I don't remember exactly.

I'm a little worried about what this might do to our membership. In addition to the ambiguity, someone told me when the issue with the minister first came up that some people were considering leaving the church, they felt so disappointed. I think we've actually become closer as a community but I'm still worried - it's a shame, too, because we'd been working hard this fall to bring our membership up, and we were getting a lot of new people! I hope this doesn't damage that too much