University of Virginia Library

. . . And Now You Come at Noon:
Organizational Postponement Analyzed

Throughout their first year the Congregation's level of involvement in social action escalated while its organizational activity lagged. In January and February of 1969, committees were set up to organize various aspects of the Congregation's life. Regularly scheduled meetings evolved into three types still being used by the Congregation-celebrations (liturgy and communion organized around various social issues), family festivals (five-hour get-togethers involving communal meals, games, and fellowship, often in the form of picnics or outings), andhouse church (Bible study and communion). In addition, a group meets periodically to pray and share personal concerns.

In addition to this minimal structure, the Congregation 'established a temporary budget and a committee to pursue formal organization. However, little progress was made until January of 1970, apparently for at least three reasons. First, as already

mentioned, the Congregation and Righter directed their attention to the formal goal of social action and avoided concern with survival goals. They preferred to demonstrate to outsiders that they "meant business." But this avoidance of such survival oriented activity as recruitment and financial stabilization has continued as a dominant theme in the Congregation's life. The presence of other clearly defined formal goals and the directly expressed concern of the Miami Presbytery that they not become survival-oriented only partially explain the avoidance of this common path. Perhaps more important was the antiorganizational bias of many of the mission members themselves. Having witnessed what they felt was exclusive preoccupation with survival oriented activity in their former churches, they determined not to follow suit in their new congregation.

A second major reason for delay seems to have been the desire, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid potentially divisive issues. From the onset the Congregation contained two latent groups. The first quite self-consciously viewed themselves within the Christian tradition and, although interested in social action and experimental worship, wished to maintain much of the traditional Christian language. The second group encompassed self-consciously secular humanists who viewed the institutional church as a viable organization for working toward social justice. We do not mean to imply a derogatory using of the church for their own goals. Rather, most of them probably philosophically saw the Christian tradition on the side of social justice, and hence it made every sense to align themselves with it. But their theology, to the extent that they had any, consisted in a loosely formulated Christian agnosticism or atheism, and they adamantly avoided "God-talk." While Righter's own theology leans more toward the conservative, he did not insist on imposing his views or making the affirmation of any specific Christian doctrine a prerequisite for participation in the group. While they were in the minority, secular humanists were among the most vocal and active of the participants. [5]

Recognizing the diversity of religious orientations within the group, the Congregation, by preoccupying themselves with social action, avoided the sensitive task of drawing up a statement of mission and postponed the needed reconciliation within their own

ranks. Though social action also elicited some controversy, the division came mainly between the aggressive core and the marginal participants. In contrast, the division over religious orientation cut through the social-action hierarchy of the group and presented more of a threat.

The third reason for delay in formal organization relates to the second. It involved difficulty with the affiliation requirements of the Presbyterian Church. Not only did they insist that members ascribe to various doctrinal truths but they also demanded that the authority of the Congregation be delegated to a "session," or board of elders. The humanists, of course, were not prepared to affirm the minimal statement of faith, nor was the Congregation willing to be ruled by a session. Policy matters had from the beginning been discussed and voted on by the entire congregation; this decision-making style suited the temperament of the group far better than a representative style.

That early divisions within the Congregation made formal organization a difficult task was readily acknowledged in most of our interviews. Since we do not consider folklore adequate documentation, however, we searched for first-hand accounts to chronicle these events.

Many of those involved in the Congregation at the onset have since left and were unavailable for interviews with us. Those who remained confess some ambiguity and uncertainty in recalling their own feelings and their perceptions of the feelings of others at that time. Moreover, we found considerable disagreement in the accounts of present members as to why certain former members dropped out. Fortunately, a brief questionnaire completed by those present at the January 15, 1969, meeting had been saved and has proven a helpful supplement to our interviews.

The questionnaire was designed "to help chart the direction the Congregation wishes to take." The instructions at the top of the questionnaire emphasize this was not to be "the total effort in picking goals" but only a beginning. The questionnaire consisted of twelve items. Nine of these could be answered by checking a box or filling in a one-word answer. The other three questions were open-ended, requiring a written response and asking the participants to express (a) their overriding reasons for interest in this experimental congregation, (b) the sort of congregation

meetings envisioned, and (c) the nature of pastoral services expected.

The task of answering open-ended questions in a group meeting is by nature not conducive to eliciting lengthy responses. Nevertheless, these short responses, combined with the responses to the other questions and our interviews with members, provide valuable information regarding the background and expectations of the participants in the newly formed congregation. A total of thirty questionnaires were completed and returned. Though the number present at the meeting was not recorded, checking through congregational records encourages us to believe that all or nearly all those present responded to the questionnaire, since attendance at these early meetings seldom exceeded thirty persons. Not all questions were answered by all respondents, but only three failed to write anything on the open-ended questions. Moreover, the length of responses varied significantly. Twenty-four persons voluntarily signed their names to the questionnaire, and our interpretation of responses partially draws on other information about these people. While an analysis of these responses is open to some misjudgment and error, we believe it does reflect a reasonably accurate picture of the group at the time.

The early participants are in virtual consensus in expressing concern for the racial crisis. However, it is not at all clear that they are of one mind relative to an action strategy for the Congregation. To the question "Do you think the Congregation should work actively for social change or serve as a discussion and educational group?" 10 opted for action, 1 for education, and 19 for both. But while 29 of 30 reported they were in favor of action, this predominant response is not tantamount to a mandate for confrontation politics. To the contrary, a number of responses to the open-ended questions, as well as marginal comments, indicate that several people conceived of action in more traditional, comfort-oriented terms of Christian service. For example, "efforts to serve community needs" and "neighborhood improvement programs" are typical of these responses.

Perhaps more important for understanding the composition of the group is the issue of "secularists" versus "traditionalists." We attempted to code the open-ended questions in terms of the presence or absence of traditional Christian language (using the

term "traditional Christian language" very loosely). Any mention whatsoever of ideas like "Christian fellowship," "Christian concern," "worship," or "theological basis for action" was classified as traditional. We recognize, of course, that very unorthodox Christians may utilize such language. However, our concern is an attempt to discern whether the participants conceived and articulated their involvement in the group as "religiously based." Using these admittedly crude measures, we found that sixteen made such use of traditional language and fourteen, including the three who did not answer the open-ended questions, did not. It cannot, of course, be concluded that the absence of Christian language makes all the others in the group secularists. Many of" them may very well think of themselves as Christian. However, given the setting (a congregational meeting) in which they answered the questions, we can conclude that they were not easily given to expressing themselves in terms of traditional Christian concepts. And, as already mentioned, we know that at least some of these people did not consider themselves Christians and were reluctant to have any "God-talk" present in their meetings.

Another interesting insight regarding the feelings of the early participants may be gleaned from the question "Do the services meet your religious needs?" To this point there had been only one brief homily which could have been called a sermon. Although there were some prayers, songs, and liturgies, they were informal and experimental in nature, not at all what one would expect in a normal Sunday morning worship service in an established church. Nineteen responded that the services did meet their religious needs and five responded no. An analysis of the open-ended questions of those who responded "no" indicates their desire to have some form of worship service. Two of those who responded "yes" indicated only partial satisfaction and a desire for more worship. Thus we have from the onset a minority of approximately one third who were quite explicit about their desire to have some form of worship or other expressions of their Christian heritage. These responses, no doubt, had much to do with the creation of the once-a-month Sunday evening house church and Bible study. Equally significant, however, is that approximately two thirds

seemed satisfied with having a congregational format free from additional forms of Christian worship.

Examination of responses to the question regarding pastoral services expected is also revealing. The largest category indicated an expectation of the pastor as resource person, strategist, and leader in social-action projects. Eight so indicated. Five described more or less traditional pastoral roles. Two others described their expectations in traditional language, such as "be a Christian friend." Two indicated explicitly that they expected no pastoral services. But perhaps the most interesting aspect of this question is that eleven of thirty respondents wrote nothing, by far the largest number of nonresponses to the items in the questionnaire. Since it was the final question, some may simply not have gotten to it. On the other hand, in part, this no doubt reflects the ambiguity built into the structure of an experimental congregation. Many people really didn't know what they expected. But we believe it also reflects for some the lack of background and experience from which to respond, that is, the concept "pastoral service" was foreign to them.

Whether Righter viewed the response to this question as a green light to eschew traditional pastoral leadership and counseling roles is not known. It is clear, however, that he has seldom functioned in these capacities, nor does he feel the Congregation expected such of him. His perception may have had the impact of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For some who left the Congregation, the lack of traditional pastoral care was a problem. Those who are presently in the Congregation do not expect Righter to begin playing a more traditional role, but among a few there remains a quiet wish it might have been otherwise. One charter member told us he felt the group had suffered for want of someone to play the role of "pastor-healer" of internal tensions. Righter seems not to take this too seriously. He insists that everyone in the Congregation is a pastor, tending to the needs and problems of others. To some degree this is probably true, but it does not erase the evidence of unresolved tension.

Sociologically speaking, Righter's low-key playing of the traditional pastor leadership role (including such activities as preaching, counseling, visiting the sick, and presiding over policymaking) served to undermine his legitimacy as the group's leader

for some participants. As social-action leader, his guidance is continually evaluated in terms of the individual member's perceptions of the wisdom of his strategies. Had he accepted the role of pastor in the more conventional sense, a greater measure of authority and legitimacy would no doubt have accrued to the office. On the other hand, in order to have convincingly donned a traditional leadership style he might have had to confront those most resistant to strong one-man leadership, thus igniting explosive conflicts and losing several activist participants. This is not to say that Righter never visits the sick or counsels those with difficulties. He does. Our point is that he has consciously played down the traditional pastoral image both within and outside the Congregation.

The dilemma in which Righter found himself in terms of the pastoral leadership role is expressed in notes he recorded immediately after the February 1969 congregation meeting, just a month after the questionnaire had been filled out.

It is difficult to speculate at this point which pastoral leadership style would have ultimately produced the least tension. One thing

is certain, however. For minimum conflict the leadership and congregational style must be complementary. Had Righter opted for a strong leadership style from the onset, the style of the congregation would have had to adjust to minimize conflict.

In summary, results of the questionnaire underscore and support our analysis of the reasons for delay in the formal organization of the Congregation. The divisions in belief and expectation obviously did not open an immediate schism, but they were undeniably present from the beginning. And the desire to avoid internal conflict does seem clearly related to the long delay in formally organizing.