University of Virginia Library

. . . And Ask Questions Later:
Instant Action Without Organization

The October meeting, while pursuing little more discussion of organization beyond an agreement to meet again, began the Congregation for Reconciliation. Before the next regularly scheduled meeting, some of the participants had already started planning their first social-action project. This apparent lack of concern with the imperatives of formal organization significantly set the mood and the style which became characteristic of the Congregation.

This congregation's reckless abandon of survival-oriented goals stands in sharp contrast to the "typical" life-style of new congregations. An excellent study of six new congregations conducted in 1964 by sociologist Donald Metz documented what every socially conscious church executive already knew: new congregations typically concentrate on one goal, their own survival. [2] The paramount structure and symbol of their viability is the construction of a church building. Closely related to this is the recruitment of new members, essential for financing the edifice. While new congregations typically have formal charters expressing goals relative to their theological heritage, to the nurture of community and spiritual life of the members, and to mission or service, Metz found all these insignificant compared with survival-oriented imperatives.

The lack of concern with formal organization and other survival-oriented tasks among the first participants in the Congregation for Reconciliation is partially explained by the initial conception of the church by the Miami Presbytery. The strategy paper from the Board of National Missions stated that "from the beginning the entire life of the [new] congregation [is to] be geared to its mission task." [3] And the Presbytery committee had

explicitly forbidden the Congregation to build or purchase a building. But these directives cannot adequately account for the almost total lack of concern with basic organizational imperatives among the participants of the group. As we shall see, the Congregation has typically dealt with organizational and financial matters only when they have become so pressing as no longer to permit oversight. Structurally, this conflicts with Righter's strong desire to establish a durable, self-supporting congregation. Yet he has seldom, if ever, portrayed survival and social-action goals as in conflict. This would indeed have been a self-defeating strategy during the initial organizational period.

While clearly not true of everyone, many of those who attended the first meeting were intensely interested in social action. Indeed, for some, Righter's credibility rested on his willingness to engage in immediate social action. The tasks of formal organization could wait. This seems to have presented no problem for Righter, as his instincts and impulses lay in the same direction. The group needed more immediately to prove to themselves and to the community their seriousness about social action. But, we should also add, this sense of urgency to act was not at all out of proportion to the mood of many socially conscious people in America at this time.

Their first social-action project, which Righter and some of the participants had begun planning before their November meeting, was to be a supportive action of a group of black employees, the "Second Family," at the National Cash Register Corporation. This group had been actively working against discriminatory hiring practices at NCR. At the November meeting of the Congregation, a proposal to assist the Second Family was presented and an ad hoc committee was formed to meet with both the leaders of the Second Family and executives of NCR. The NCR officials refused to meet with the committee. In early December, the Congregation printed Christmas cards protesting discrimination against minority groups and, on the morning of December 19, handed out 600 of them to white employees at the gates of the NCR administration building. Their activity received television,) radio, and newspaper coverage.

The first foray into social action is very significant for several reasons. First, by choosing a major corporation of Dayton as its

target, the Congregation from the beginning set itself in opposition to the powerful business community. For those hesitant about participating out of concern that the Congregation might be "too timid," this gesture offered reassurance the group would tackle "the establishment."

This initial action was equally significant in restricting the range of support and participation in the Congregation. Those constituting the initial informal leadership were not content to pursue action seen as "respectable" by community and business leaders. If they were to work with the establishment, it would be on the terms of the Congregation and not vice versa. Thus, those who were either members of the business leadership or who occupied positions in which they felt threatened by identification with the Congregation were virtually eliminated as prospective members. Three or four middle-range corporate executives had been involved in the early life of the Congregation, but they all dropped out. These people offered reasons other than their fear of reprisal, but the evidence of social science overwhelmingly attests that people seldom become actively involved and identified with activities threatening to their financial security. [4] At least one of these corporate executives has continued to provide modest financial subsidy and another has lent support through the Presbytery, but the controversial style of the Congregation barred their visible association with the group.

Individuals at the core of the Congregation are, consequently, persons with the structural freedom to participate; they are either self-employed or hold jobs sufficiently insulated from local politics. This has been particularly true of the leaders of social-action projects, that is, those exposed to publicity. Often they have been women whose husbands hold jobs relatively unthreatened by such social activism.

This initial action against NCR also served notice to business and political leaders that power would not ensure safety from attack by this religious group. So, from the onset, community leaders who defined all confrontation or protest politics as "too radical" characterized the Congregation as a group of extremist reformers and potential adversaries.

Another important aspect of this initial social action was its establishment of a modus operandi for involvement which has

since continued largely unchanged. Projects are suggested by one or more members of the Congregation, whereupon interested members are encouraged by Righter to form a committee for research and action. Though a committee seeks approval before undertaking action in the Congregation's name, the green light almost always flashes, and a "do your own thing" ethic combined with an emphasis upon tolerance has generally prevailed.

This ad hoc strategy seems a conscious device for diffusing and hence creating effective lay leadership within the Congregation and for dealing with the diversity of interests and orientations. But it has also been an effective device for furthering the power and influence of the activist core within the mission; those most interested in social action have created for themselves a situation of maximum freedom.

The first action project demonstrated Righter's leadership as it had appealed to the New Church Development Subcommittee which had called him to organize the new congregation. He had at once demonstrated his ability as action strategist and developer of lay leadership. He had thereby legitimated himself in the eyes of the committee, although, no doubt, without design.