University of Virginia Library

What Might Have Been: A Post Hoc Scenario

In retrospect, questions of the viability of the Congregation for Reconciliation as conceived by its designers keep coming to mind. How might the concept have been handled so as to increase the probability of achieving the stated goals? Post hoc scenarios implicitly seem to carry an indictment absent from futureoriented scenarios, that is, if the group in question had done such and such, then the desired goals would have obtained. We wish to disavow any such implicit judgment. At the same time, the question of why the specific group in question strayed from the goals set for it looms large. If one concludes the goals were ill-conceived and unrealistic, no further analysis is required. Still, if one considers these original goals worthwhile, the question

remains as to whether they might have in some measure been reached. To conclude this requires some image or model of how the organizational task might have proceeded.

In outline form, the following suggests what could have happened. Let us again emphasize that this is not intended in any way as an indictment. Nor do we view it as an exercise in Monday morning quarterbacking. If there is value to be derived from post hoc analysis, it must come from the application of learning to new situations. If, and only if, the lessons of the Congregation for Reconciliation are applied, can the experiment be judged a success vis-a-vis the originally stated goals.

Let us assume that those responsible for the experimental congregation understood that the accomplishment of their goals required the recruitment of active Presbyterian laity. Let us further assume they understood the delicate and precarious nature of this task. What was to be done?

First, local pastors would have needed assurance that they would not lose any laity to the experimental congregation. This guarantee demands a structure for the Congregation that is different from what emerged. Several organizational criteria seem appropriate. For one, joint memberships would have been required of those already belonging to another congregation, with membership in the experimental congregation clearly specified as secondary. Also, membership in the experimental congregation would have been temporary, with the length of affiliation not to exceed, say, two years. Further, persons unaffiliated with or inactive in other churches would have pledged, as a condition of membership, to seek a permanent home church where they would work to achieve the goals of the experimental church. The program of the experimental congregation would have been geared around the development of leadership skills applicable to the home congregation, and this transferral would have been an ongoing process. The experimental congregation would have served as a forum for evaluating and discussing the effectiveness of members' efforts to achieve specific goals in their home congregations. In short, the total socialization experience of the experimental congregation would have been aimed toward return to the home congregation as more effective leaders. And to

encourage maximum participation in the home congregation, the experimental congregation would never have scheduled meetings conflicting with the "prime time" meetings of other congregations, such as on Sunday morning. Finally, the charter of the experimental congregation would have clearly been for a limited time. Extension of the life span of the congregation would have been granted only on the basis of demonstrated ability to train leadership for other congregations. Extension of the charter for the purpose of fellowship among the members would have been explicitly forbidden.

A second major pledge to local pastors would have been a reassurance they would not have suffered financial losses. Such a procedure requires commitments. First, it would have meant a guaranteed operating budget for the experimental congregation, backed by the Presbytery and/or the Board of National Missions. Second, as a condition of membership in the experimental congregation, prospects would have had to pledge not to reduce their benevolence to their home church while participating in the experimental group. This would preclude neither the encouragement of participants to give to the experimental church nor the request for support from local congregations. The guarantee, however, that no pastor's budget would shrink as a result of his laity's participating in the experimental congregation is critical.

A third major consideration would have been to stress the benefits of the experimental program to local pastors. The development of leadership skills for the local congregation would have been emphasized. Moreover, the objective of creating a leadership to support and work with the pastor toward the accomplishment of mutually shared goals would have been stressed. While pastors could not be guaranteed that trainees would never work against them or employ strategies they disapproved of, the commitment to the objective of close collaboration between pastors and lay trainees would have provided much additional reassurance.

This close collaboration would have also required pastors to agree to participate periodically with their laity in seminars sponsored by the experimental congregation. These seminars, while designed to educate and enhance rapport between pastors

and their laity, would have focused on establishing goals and developing strategies to achieve these goals.

This strategy scenario not only would have reassured local pastors that an experimental congregation would not undermine their own programs but also would have offered them both the prospect of developing lay leadership and the possibility of developing their own leadership skills. By building local pastors into the structure of the experimental congregation, the probability of the success of the program would have been greatly enhanced.

While many modifications or additions to this plan are possible, we believe it outlines a strategy which could have overcome the great obstacle of recruiting active Presbyterian lay persons. It is a proposal not intrinsically threatening to local pastors interested in change. Moreover, the conditions of participation require commitments on the part of both laity and their pastors. The agreements demanded of the laity imply informal social pressure on their pastors to "stick with it," and vice versa. Obviously, not every Presbyterian congregation in the Dayton area would have sent participants. From our interviews, however, we would judge adequate interest to initiate such a program existed. If something like this had been created, the original goals might have been achieved.

Another obvious consideration in thinking through the viability of this scenario is the wisdom of thinking of the program as a congregation. That is, might it have been better to conceive of the experiment as a lay-clergy training institute rather than as a congregation? Some solid arguments can be made for the training institute structure. Without discussing the pros and cons of the alternate structures, however, we think the congregational structure has superior merit. We believe it has greater potential for binding participants together in a common sense of community with mutually reinforcing commitments. The training institute structure, on the other hand, seems to require less psychological commitment on the part of participants. When the scheduling of people's personal lives gets tight, an institute is more easily dropped, just as so many people drop the adult education courses offered by extension divisions in many American universities.