University of Virginia Library

We Gather Together: Forming a Congregation

Holm arrived in Cincinnati in September, but it took six months before the nucleus of a congregation had gathered and regular meetings had begun. By then, in March of 1969, the Dayton group had already established itself as viable in social action and had begun the struggle of defining its mission goals.

There were several reasons for Holm's difficulty in recruiting a following. Some of them sound familiar (Righter had the same problems); others were unique to the Cincinnati situation.

In Dayton, the two city newspapers had anticipated the establishment of the congregation and had given it almost continuous publicity during the first year. As indicated earlier, this publicity, combined with a lack of cooperation by pastors,

contributed heavily to the special characteristics of the charter group.

In Cincinnati, however, the newspapers ignored the proposed congregation. Perhaps a matter as simple as the interests and inclinations of the religion editors of the papers can account for the oversight. A concerted effort on the part of Holm and the Presbytery spokesmen may have altered the situation. As it happened, however, the unchurched and the church dropouts, so heavily represented in the Dayton mission, knew nothing of the Cincinnati experiment.

As in Dayton, the efforts of the Presbytery and early referrals by pastors proved fruitless. Without press support, and finding little serious interest among those on the initial recruitment list, Holm turned to the local pastors for help. The amount of resistance surprised him. As in Dayton, many of the liberal pastors felt threatened by the existence of the congregation. Several had opposed the proposal to establish the mission and, in effect, told Holm, "You're going to take away my most active members and leave me the rest."

As months passed, Holm's clear conception of a worshiping community had failed to take shape. Finally, he unapologetically asked area pastors for permission to proselytize their social-activist members and found several of them cooperative and responsive. Whether motivated by a genuine desire for the well-being of frustrated and unfulfilled activists in their churches or by an inclination toward the maintenance of congregational tranquility, the more conservative clergy more willingly handed over a number of names. From here, the beginnings of a congregation grew. Later, a Presbytery-wide worship program insert promoting the experimental congregation also solicited some fruitful inquiries.

Naturally, this method of recruitment strongly influenced the profile of the congregation. For the most part, members had been active churchmen. Although they held a range of theological positions, very few could be characterized as secular humanists and none opposed God-talk. Over two thirds came from Presbyterian backgrounds. A number were reared in manses or were themselves ex-ministers. A handful were local denominational administrators. Holm characterized them as overcommitted lay

persons who felt their commitment underutilized in their former churches.

As the group stabilized at about forty members, most were professional families. They tended to be middle-income ($12,000 to $30,000) and middle-aged (thirty to fifty). In this regard, collectively they paralleled the membership of the Dayton congregation. The Cincinnati members, however, tended to be more highly involved in the social and civic life of the city. Expectedly, then, many were too busy to devote a sizable portion of their time to the work of the Congregation. In Dayton, congregational activities consumed a far greater amount of members' time and attention.

Holm suggests that his congregation members were unusual in two respects. First, most had lived outside the local area for at least part of their lives. This exposure to a variety of community experiences, he felt, had broadened their vision of possibilities for social action. Second, the majority had undergone some deeply memorable experience of death, separation, alienation, or the like. Such personal histories may have given some members of the Cincinnati congregation empathetic capacities beyond what one would predict from their social backgrounds alone. Emotional support among members developed quickly and was readily sustained; growth of community presented no problems. Holm, at last, had gathered around him a ready and receptive following, a group eagerly capable of developing strong emotional ties in a supportive worshiping community.

As Holm had anticipated, the framework of corporate liturgical worship provided a structure both generating of and reinforcing to the growth of community. Families, including children, attended the worship services. Singing was acappella or accompanied by whatever instruments members played. Each service culminated in the sharing of bread and wine around a table. Interaction and positive sentiments among participants developed, and a pattern of progressively intimate self-revelation and mutual identification ensued.

The Cincinnati congregation thus contrasts sharply with Dayton, where consensus formation was such a long and tedious process. Had Holm's congregation attracted the unchurched and

church dropouts in its early stages, his vision of a worshiping community, accountable and helpfully ministering to established churches in the Presbytery, would have received strong challenge. At a minimum, consensus and solidarity would have been far more elusive.

Pastoral leadership style was another important difference in the two congregations. Righter assumed the permanence of his congregation. He thus afforded himself the luxury of time to allow the group to thrash through its problems and define its own goals. Holm, however, saw the Cincinnati experiment as a three- to four-year project. The delay in gathering a congregation made the generation and execution of social-action projects a race against time. Viewed as such, strong pastoral leadership was required. Holm made decisions for his group which Righter would have insisted the members themselves work out. Holm's position as primary decision-maker and spiritual leader of his flock seldom faced serious challenge. This aspect of reality evolved from the onset. Such a position would no doubt have driven away iron-willed activists determined to do their own thing, had they sampled the Cincinnati congregation's organizational climate. Strong leadership thus reinforced consensus formation in the congregation.

By contrast, Righter's low-key leadership style encouraged, by default, internal conflict and dissent. The solidarity developed in the Dayton group no doubt served them well over the long run, for it implies far greater personal commitment of members. The route taken by Holm obviously served best as a short-run strategy for attaining more immediate goals. We in no way mean to suggest a preference. They are different operational modes, suited to different situations.