University of Virginia Library

The Dayton Congregation
for Reconciliation Under Kelley's Microscope

Case studies never provide sufficient data to prove any thesis. They can, however, provide sufficient evidence to seriously challenge the plausibility of a theory. The Dayton Congregation for Reconciliation provides just such a challenge to the Kelley treatise. Let us therefore turn briefly to examine the Congregation from Kelley's perspective.

Kelley's major prescription for conserving social strength is a restoration of strictness. To review briefly, he recommends that churches serious about their faith must (1) develop consensus on beliefs, (2) expel those not fully committed, and (3) encourage talk about faith and beliefs and vigorously defend them against those not inclined to take them seriously.

Contrary to Kelley's theoretical model, we found that the

Congregation for Reconciliation has maintained a high degree of social strength without doctrinal strictness. There has never been an emphasis upon doctrinal uniformity in the Congregation. Indeed, as a membership requirement it is unnecessary to make even the most rudimentary statement of faith. For Kelley, this would be evidence of leniency and social weakness.

Second, the Congregation for Reconciliation is ecumenical in concept and practice. It is a union church, a member of both the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the United Church of Christ. Further, its membership represents several denominational backgrounds, and it is very active in the primary ecumenical organization in Dayton, Metropolitan Churches United. This, also, Kelley would interpret as predictive of social weakness.

Third, the movements illustrative of social strength in Kelley's book manifest a high degree of control over members' behavior. Such control is generally exercised by the group's spiritual leader. Just the reverse is seen in the life of the Congregation for Reconciliation in Dayton. Leadership is unusually decentralized. A "do one's own thing" ethic guides the modus operandi of the group in social action, and conformity in behavior and belief has never been a matter of concern. Kelley would argue that this, too, is evidence of weakness. Yet the social strength of the Congregation cannot be seriously contested. Over the years it has become a solid, supportive group in spite of its diversity. Its accomplishments in social action bespeak its strength.

It is not strictness which gives the Congregation strength, but commitment. On this point Kelley would appear to be correct. But it is not commitment generated from internalizing theological dogma, as Kelley predicts, but through devotion to the goal of producing social change, whether in the name of Christ or of humanity.

The comparison of the Congregation with Kelley's theory could be elaborated at much greater length. Such an effort, we feel, would quickly reach a point of diminishing return. The Congregation seriously challenges virtually every argument in the Kelley model. It is reproduced unedited from his book. The information presented in this volume will provide sufficient data to examine the Congregation for Reconciliation from the perspective of his model.

Kelley's Model of "Strong" and "Weak" Religious Groups

         

Social Dimensions	GOALS	CONTROLS	COMMUNICATION
"Strong" Groups A: Evidences of Social Strength	1.Commitment -willingness to sacrifice status, possessions, safety, life itself, for the cause or the company of the faithful -a total response to a total demand -group solidarity -total identification of individual's goals with group's	2.Discipline -willingness to obey the commands of (charismatic) leadership without question -willingness to suffer sanctions for infraction rather than leave the group	3.Missionary Zeal -eagerness to tell the "good news" of one's experience of salvation to others -refusal to be silenced (Acts 5:26) -internal communications stylized and highly symbolic: a cryptic language -winsomeness
"Strong" Groups B: Traits of Strictness	4.Absolutism -belief that "we have the Truth and all others are in error" -closed system of meaning and value which explains everything -uncritical and unreflective attachment to a single set of values	5.Conformity -intolerance of deviance or dissent -shunning of outcasts (Meidung) -shared stigmata of belonging (Quaker garb and plain talk) -group confessions or criticisms (Oneida) -separatism	6.Fanaticism (outflow > inflow) Flood: "All talk, no listen" Isolation: "Keep yourselves unspotted from the world" -cloister
"Weak" Groups C: Traits of Leniency	7.Relativism -belief that no one has a monopoly on truth; that all insights are partial -attachment to many values and to various modes of fulfillment (not just the religious) -a critical and circumspect outlook	8.Diversity -appreciation of individual differences (everyone should "do his thing") -no heresy trials; no excommunications; no humiliating group confessions of error -leadership is institutionalized, not charismatic	9.Dialogue -an exchange of differing insights, an exploration of divergent views -appreciative of outsiders rather than judgmental (inflow > outflow)
"Weak" Groups D: Evidences of Social Weakness	10.Lukewarmness -"If you have some truth and I have some truth, why should either of us die for his portion?" -reluctance to sacrifice all for any single set of values or area of fulfillment -indecisiveness even when important values are at stake	11.Individualism -unwillingness to give unquestioning obedience to anyone -individuality prized above conformity -discipline? for what? -leave group rather than be inconvenienced by its demands	12.Reserve -reluctance to expose one's personal beliefs or to impose them on others -consequent decay of the missionary enterprise -no effective sharing of conviction or spiritual insight within the group

The most compelling conclusion we reach in examining this chart is not that the Congregation has all the traits and evidences of weakness (although it does tend to fit in these boxes more readily than in those characterizing strength). Rather, what we find is that the model, without serious revision, is inappropriate for describing the Congregation for Reconciliation. For example, the Congregation does evidence commitment, discipline, and zeal, but not in Kelley's terms! Hence, if these are indeed manifestations of strength, and we tend to believe they are, Kelley's model needs to be radically revised so these are not seen as embodied and manifested solely in conservative groups. Clearly they are not. And were one to attempt such a revision, the total logic of Kelley's thesis crumbles. As we examine each of the cells in his chart, we find difficulty relating them to the Congregation for Reconciliation. The Congregation either falls on the wrong side of the strong/weak dichotomy or the cell is irrelevant or nondescriptive of the group.

In short, we find the model unhelpful, and at several significant points wrong, when we attempt to apply it to the Congregation. This, coupled with our logical, theoretical, and empirical critique, leads us to seriously question the value of Kelley's treatise. We have, in fact, only highlighted some of the confusing and misleading points of this book. To analyze Kelley's work comprehensively would require a volume of at least equal length. We hope, however, that we have raised sufficient questions here to dissuade church leaders from believing that Kelley has delivered a patent medicine which can quickly restore the health of the ailing patient. To the contrary, we feel that following his prescription would have more deleterious consequences than following those who would drag the churches deeper and deeper into radical social action with a laity-be-damned attitude. If church leaders do choose to swallow Kelley's magic potion, let them know the concoction was not a product of social science.