It ain’t what you do (it’s the way that you do it)
Later on this month, around forty people from the Unitarian community and beyond will gather for three days at Woodbrooke, the Quaker training centre in Birmingham for a training retreat on ‘the art of creating spiritually healthy communities’.
While we learn the Art of Hosting techniques for facilitating group conversations, we will be exploring the questions “How do we create communities that are spiritually healthy? What does spiritual health look like and how can it be developed in today’s secular culture? What is the unique role that Unitarianism can play in creating communities of human flourishing?”. An expert facilitation team will teach us the tools, and allow the insights of each participant come into exploring these questions.
These questions are in the background for everything we do, but it’s rare that we get a chance to step outside of the busy-ness of the day to day to explore them in depth.
The aim of the three days is not so much to find the answers, but discover what richness lies in exploring the questions.
I, like far too many people, feel like I’ve spent too big a proportion of my life in meetings where it’s clear a lot of people round the table are losing the will to live and would rather be elsewhere. Or where even with the best intentions, a group of people get stuck in conflict or confusion, and don’t manage to find their way to the outcome they wish for. As such, for several years I’ve become very nerdily interested in ways in which different groups and organisations operate, in the hope that less energy can be wasted in deathly meetings, but also that the work that we do together might be an opportunity to thrive. My wish is that all the work that we do together gives us all the opportunity to work in a way that makes us come alive.
One of the reasons I like the Art of Hosting is that it introduces skills around *how* we might be together, acknowledging that the way that we gather and structure our conversations plays an important part in what is possible to emerge.
In many work contexts, it’s taken as read that ‘having a meeting’ is an opportunity to roll one’s eyes, and think of it as wasted time. For me, that’s a sign that the meeting hasn’t been well designed.
The same can happen in church services or rites of passage, where there’s a confused sense of what we’re all doing there, or it’s a bit cringey, or that we didn’t quite get to where we wanted to go.
Whether it’s designing the experience of a church service or rite of passage, or coming together for a business meeting, care and attention are needed to make them achieve their purpose well.
The way we do things matters.
I regularly turn to this quote from Thomas Merton, the American Trappist monk, writer and theologian, “Do not depend on the hope of results. You may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and even achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results, but on the value, the rightness, the truth of the work itself.”
If we get the results we wish for, but cause harm in the way we get there, I don’t believe that we got to the right results after all. For me, Merton’s words give reassurance that investing in the right way of doing things is the ‘right’ thing to do, even if the results can’t be seen.
It’s clear that there is great strength in the Quaker practices around how they conduct their meetings; a shared acknowledgement that the way that they get to their answers is important, not just the answers they get to.
Unitarians don’t have the same kind of shared practices. There are common cultures, but none that I’ve come across that are held up and acknowledged as ‘the way we have agreed to do things’.
And my experience of Unitarian meetings has been varied. Some open with a poem or reflection, to help set the tone and intention, some don’t. Some have plenty of space to acknowledge our emotional selves and the feelings that might emerge in the meetings; others are more focused on moving through the tasks at hand. Some are open and exploratory, some have a clear and focused agenda, and plenty are somewhere in between.
There is no one right way for us to do things, but I do think it’s useful to consciously choose the approach to working — whether it’s a meeting, a ritual, a project, or something larger.
This is something that’s been on my mind with our broad challenge of how Unitarianism might best offer its gifts to society. With our membership numbers being 50% lower than they were ten years ago, it’s clear that a ‘business as usual’ approach is likely to mean our denomination fizzles out before too long, and even if we make continuous improvements to the way we currently do things, it’s unlikely to make the type of impact that society needs right now. The symptoms of a society in crisis are showing up as political tumult, increasing social inequality, and of course climate breakdown. If we believe that supportive communities that are welcome spaces for wisdom, compassion, belonging, and collective action are part of the solution (which I do, wholeheartedly), then incremental improvements to how we do things will not be enough.
This can seem like quite a daunting task, particularly when just keeping the lights on can take all of our time and energy. Luckily, there are plenty of wise people who have thought out ways of working that help, and I’m appreciating learning from them.
One set of principles I’ve come across recently is in the book ‘People, Power, Change’, by Gerlach and Hine, published in 1970. (My copy is a nice yellow fabric-covered hardback, second hand, with the library ticket still in it.) It looks at movement building including the growth of Pentecostalism in the US in the 20th century, and the Black Power movement. It identifies some commonalities of successful social movements, which are fascinating to look at through the lens of Unitarianism today:
- A segmented, usually polycephalous, cellular organisation composed of units reticulated by various personal, structural and ideological ties
Rather a lot of syllables to describe how Unitarianism already works — the ‘multiple heads’ or cells of our independent congregations and other groups, connected by relationship and ethos.
2. Face to face recruitment by committed individuals using their own pre-existing, significant social relationships
The Unitarian wariness of evangelism tends to mean that ‘recruitment’ is often not a very direct action, but the face-to-face relationships forged over cups of tea after services, or in community outreach activities are essential in welcoming new people to our communities.
3. Personal commitment generated by an act or an experience which separates a convert in some significant way from the established order identifies them with a new set of values and commits them to changed patterns of behaviour.
This one probably makes many Unitarians feel a bit tense, because of how it can resonate with ways of being that we might associate with the more evangelical or fundamentalist churches that we tend to value our distance from. First I thought ‘well this one isn’t relevant to us’, but aside from the ‘convert’ language, I think there is something useful to be learned here. Most people in Britain aren’t part of a faith group, or even think about faith or spirituality very much at all. If the ‘conversion’ of someone becoming part of a Unitarian community is that their behaviour changes to live more consciously in line with their values and beliefs, that feels pretty valuable. This one also made me think of Extinction Rebellion, and how the experience of being part of a protest or even being arrested separates activists from the ‘business as usual’ culture which is so damaging to our environment, and aligns them to a new community that aims to do things differently.
4. An ideology which codifies values and goals, provides a conceptual framework by which all experiences or events relative to these goals may be interpreted, motivates and provides rationale for envisioned changes, defines the opposition, and forms the basis for conceptual unification of a segmented network of groups.
Again, this one at first glance seems ‘not for us’, not least because of the differences in opinion among us on whether codifying values is a good thing or not. But it resonates more for me if I think of this one less about Unitarian and Free Christian communities specifically, and more about the wider movement that we are part of, that of standing up for living a spiritual life, or living in better balance with nature, or living with integrity, depending how you want to frame it. If ‘the opposition’ is the consumerist, individualistic lifestyle of mainstream culture, then this principle seems relevant and useful.
5. Real or perceived opposition from the society at large or from that segment of the established order within which the movement has risen.
This one was very real at the inception of Unitarianism, when it was illegal and in some cases punishable by death to do what we are doing. The opposition from society now is the light in which faith groups are often seen — that is, irrelevant, old-fashioned, and oppressive. It’s a different kind of opposition, because it’s mainly exhibited by people not paying attention to us, rather than confronting us. What a swing in just a couple of centuries, from persecuting us to being oblivious to us. My sense is that the point in the middle came in the mid to late 19th century when Unitarianism was legit, there were Unitarians in positions of influence, and religion still played a significant role in most people’s lives, and our membership was at its highest. I wonder what it would look like for people to bother confronting us again. How loudly would we need to be speaking our values for the mainstream culture to feel threatened?
Another set of principles that has had my mental cogs whirring recently, are on transformative innovation — the type of change that I believe we need to be making, if the incremental improvement won’t be enough to make a significant change to the impact Unitarianism is making on society.
They are from the book ‘Transformative Innovation: a guide to practice and policy’ by Graham Leicester, which has all sorts of useful ideas and information in it. I can see that they are useful for looking at how we might innovate at the national level, and also at a congregational or community level (and if you’ve read it and are already applying it in your community, I’d love to hear from you!).
The book gives more context to these principles than I’m sharing here, but even at face value I think they can prompt some useful ideas — I’ve added my own reflections to each on how they might relate to how we work.
- Balanced: paying skilful requirements to be hospice workers for the dying culture and midwives for the new, consciously operating in both worlds at the same time
There are some things that have run their course — that have been useful in Unitarianism for a time (sometimes many decades), but have lost impact as circumstances around us have changed. And there are new things emerging all the time, in many varied pockets of innovation. We need to tend to both well.
2. Inspiring and hopeful for the participants and for others who come to know or hear about it
This is quite self explanatory — inspiration is contagious.
3. Informed by a longer-term perspective, taking the future into account
We are lucky in that our Unitarian history has been well-documented; it allows us to understand our roots well. I am interested in what we can learn or make possible by extending that timeline into the future too.
4. Pioneering: trying something new and counter-cultural, starting small, rooted in delivery and learning — rather than the application of tried and tested procedures
Our radical roots mean that trying new and counter-cultural things is in our DNA, and congregations are in some ways the perfect settings for innovation, ‘rooted in delivery and learning’ such that they are.
5. Grounded: facing up to reality, generated from a clear-sighted view of the evidence, but not hidebound by it, taking knowledge gained from lived experience as seriously as abstract data
This seems very Unitarian — balancing the outside rational evidence, while also seeking insight from personal insight and experience. I see that we use both of these perspectives — but that it takes a lot of conscious effort to balance both.
6. Based on personal commitment ‘beyond reason’, with the individuals involved stepping out of their formal roles and into themselves
Again, this seems very fitting for a faith group. I see spiritual growth being interlinked with this idea of ‘stepping into ourselves’. Many Unitarians have impressive professional skills and bring these into their congregations, and I see that real progress is made when these are balanced with people’s personal passions and inner motivations.
7. Responsible: honouring the principle of ‘first do no harm’, sensitive to the pressures on people pushing the boundaries and not pushing too far too fast
With congregations, this is so important. Our communities are so important to members, and can play a big part in people’s identities, and so change can feel very difficult — it’s close to our hearts.
8. Revealing hidden resources — by freeing up resources locked in to the existing system and by configuring new sources of abundance
Unitarians are very lucky in that our denomination has resources — even if they are not evenly distributed. Collectively, we have many buildings, we have money and investments, we have skilled people, and plenty of energy. When innovation happens, it can unlock some of these, or allow energy to flow in a unified direction — just as we have seen in the collective support behind the launch of the new Unitarian College. A compelling vision has been supported by many sources of abundance.
9. Maintaining integrity, coherence, wholeness at all scales and from all perspectives, with words and deeds, being and doing in alignment
Again, very Unitarian. This chimes with my trusted Thomas Merton quote, above. If the way we work has integrity with our values and vision, we achieve more, whether or not it’s the results we intended.
10. Maintaining a pioneering spirit even in the face of success, preferring to be followed by, rather than swallowed by, the mainstream system
Unitarians were pioneers right from the start. I feel that the decline in our membership is a sign of us being ‘swallowed by’ the mainstream pattern of a drop in church attendance. The things that society is asking for now are an invitation to be pioneers again.
Just as maps are different from the land in front of us, principles and models like these are not the same as our reality, but they can be helpful guides, and inspiration.
And for some people these will either seem like obvious common sense, or a distraction from just getting on with things. These principles can feel abstract or disconnected from the real work that we are doing. There’s truth in that. But it feels important that as we’re looking at our future, we don’t just focus on *what* we’re doing together, but recognise that *how* we do it is just as important. The transformation that will mean we can have a greater impact on society will come not just from trying new things, but in working in new ways — often these ways of working are much more aligned to nature, and less like the habits adopted by corporations. When the principles feel like common sense, I take that as a sign that they’re a reminder that we already know how to work in these ways.
For those who have an interest in how we work, as well as what we do, and would like to help explore ways in which we can be more conscious in the way we work at a national level, I’d love to hear from you.
