University of Virginia Library

Summary

The experiment had ended. The thesis had been successfully tested. As a mission based on a community of special concern, the Cincinnati Congregation for Reconciliation had indeed contributed to needed social change and in the process related helpfully to the ministries of other congregations. They had succeeded in involving many churches in contributing to black economic development. They had attempted to interpret social issues to Presbytery churches in terms they could accept, thus providing an educational ministry. And they had demonstrated that worship can be an important ingredient in developing a solid support group to sustain social action.

It must be recognized that, in its journey toward death, the Congregation faced an interesting array of fortunate circumstances, each of which helped assure its eventual success. If the goal of social action was paramount to the planners, and the helping ministry was window-dressing, as we have argued earlier, Holm's steadfast insistence upon emphasizing the latter is a remarkable happenstance, not predictable from structural conditions. Committee approval to develop a worshiping, teaching community, as Holm saw it, was conceded as a special condition of his employment, not a prerequisite.

A second propitious happening came in the selection of social-action projects. Although their initial failures were painful, had the Congregation first selected independent, direct-action projects which proved successful and attracted media coverage, the trust of conservative churches might have been irrevocably lost and mutual accountability sacrificed as a result. Once the media would have begun building an image for the Congregation, self-presentation might have escaped Holm's control. As it was, the Congregation was instead reinforced in its desire to work through other churches in contributing to needed social change. The emergence of the Black Manifesto controversy at a time when the Congregation was seeking an appropriate and exploitable issue gave the mission an important time advantage. Having lost half a year in recruiting a following, Holm could conceivably have flailed away at one illusive, unmanageable, or insignificant issue after another until no time remained for mounting a single

successful campaign in behalf of social change.

Finally, had the officials cowered under pressure and had the Presbytery voted to deny formalization to the Congregation, favoring instead the task force designation, the thesis, as stated, could not have been tested.

The Dayton Congregation for Reconciliation in its quest for continuation followed a very different course of development. One factor after another denied to that mission the likelihood of successfully testing the planners' thesis. Yet in its own terms, Dayton has not suffered by comparison. Further, outliving the experimental period, it will probably continue to bear the fruit of social action into the indefinite future.

The real value of the Cincinnati experiment will be determined in its death, in its legacy for Presbytery churches. Proving a thesis is insufficient inheritance. The value of an experiment is its usefulness to policy and planning. [6]

Some things generated by the Congregation survived it. Others did not. First, the mission drew together some lonely, frustrated church people and, through worship, welded them into a solid group. One year after dispersal, some members had established new congregational ties, but approximately half had not. Having experienced Camelot, most of them will probably be slow in readjusting to usual congregational life; many may never return.

Second, the church school curriculum developed initially for the Congregation's own use carries legacy potential. If published, it could continue to advance racial understanding in other churches across the nation. ' As yet it has not found a means for dissemination. Thus it cannot be counted as inheritance.

Third, the Congregation proved to established churches that they could become involved meaningfully in social action without reaping internal dissension in the process. Having learned the lesson, some may continue to do so. If they do, they must now take the initiative, but this seems unlikely without planning and coordinating services from some agency.

Fourth, the Congregation, just prior to disbanding, pushed through the adoption of minority investment and minority representation proposals at a Presbytery meeting. If the Presby-

tery has the will, these may continue as memorials to the experiment.

The stewardship of the Congregation's legacy depends upon three groups: ex-members, clergy, and Presbytery leaders. We can only raise questions concerning possible actions of these three groups since the eventual outcomes are unknown.

First, will ex-members continue to provide a leavening function for Presbytery churches, encouraging them toward social action? Will they join established churches, forming cells within those bodies to generate new social action plans, interpret them in reconciling ways, implement them, and involve other members along the way? If this happens, the skills nurtured in the experiment for relating to conservative church people and pastors will continue to serve the cause of social change. The helping ministry would thus continue and action would be forthcoming. Whether many of those who were mission members can assume such a leadership role, however, having depended upon Holm's strong leadership in the mission, seems questionable. It is conceivable that in forming groups within existing churches these ex-members may tend to seek security and warmth of supportiveness above social-action goals. In that case, deprived of Holm's leadership, their continued impact upon the social ministries of Presbytery churches is likely to be slight. Holm may have committed a serious disservice to his members in monopolizing Congregational leadership. The tactic no doubt facilitated efficiency in accomplishing certain goals and reinforced consensus among members. At the same time, it left members without the skills needed to continue the Congregation's ministry after dispersal. Such trained incapacities may considerably reduce potential impact by ex-members.

Second, will Presbytery pastors court ex-members, encouraging them to develop a helping ministry within their churches? The prospect of living cells of these mild-mannered activists within the body of traditional churches may yet be too threatening to some pastors. The risk of polarizing their congregations on social issues may be too great to take. For clergy willing to take the risks, however, it seems that the availability of these potential members should not be ignored.

Finally, has the Presbytery leadership learned anything of

lasting value to their planning? These leaders were supportive to the Congregation while it lived. Congregation members provided concrete benefits for the Presbytery and were encouraged in this endeavor. The ministry of educating, interpreting, planning, and executing designs for social action was appreciated. But it could end there. Proving such accomplishments may be sufficient for these leaders. They may not feel compelled to utilize tested insights, to build them into other programs.

Church leaders have been backpedaling on social action since the turn of the decade. In Cincinnati, the experimental congregation demonstrated approaches to involving even conservative churches in meaningful social action with minimal polarization and backlash. Rather than learning from the experiment and making use of the skills, techniques, and approaches proven successful in test form, the Presbytery has shown a reluctance to move ahead with structural designs aimed at building upon so bold a beginning. One administrator, acquainted with the experiment from the beginning, told us, "The Congregation's post-mortem impact in the Presbytery has been subliminal, demonstrated in posture, insight, and approach rather than in any explicit or formalized manner. It left many church leaders with altered attitudes, impossible to measure, but has generated no specific programs since its death." While we have great respect for this particular individual's track record as a strategist and leader in pushing the Presbyterians toward social concerns, we are inclined in this case to translate his assessment as "the experiment made lots of people feel good." Hard-nosed evaluation demands demonstrated results. If all that remains for the Presbytery is a good feeling and nice memories, the transitory Congregation for Reconciliation has left no living legacy at all. It will have been just another "groovy trip."