Adapting to change in a non-hierarchical church
There are two recent articles I wanted to reflect on, that are looking at church, change, and culture, one in the Economist and one in the Church Times (both require free registration to read).
The Church Times piece frames the need for the Church of England to move away from trying top down strategic change, and allow change to happen from the bottom up.
The Economist article looks at the impact of the pandemic on already struggling places of worship, particularly about the uncertainty of whether people will return in person after the huge shift to online worship.
Both of these have huge relevance for the UK Unitarian movement. Unlike the Church of England, we have a bottom-up structure baked in – each congregation is independent, with the local membership appointing trustees who make decisions and in some cases appoint a minister. The central ‘HQ’ that I lead has very limited levers of influence over any individual congregation. There are district associations that support congregations in a particular region, but they have a limited mandate also – congregations can choose how much they are involved regionally (and often these days, the stronger the congregation, the less likely they are to be closely involved with the district).
In spite of this decentralised structure, there are many cultural attributes that mean we act in a more hierarchical, top-down way. Those in a congregation who wish to make change are often stymied by the committee, who are often cautious in their decision-making. Some district associations hold significant wealth and therefore power and influence, with some congregations relying on their support to stay afloat. I sometimes find that people have a sense of needing permission from HQ to do certain things that we have no mandate over – or conversely they get annoyed that we are preventing local action or pushing a central agenda against the principles of local autonomy. Meeting practices and committee structures can also mean that power stays pooled up among a small number of people.
The Church Times piece notes that it’s the local parishes that are best attuned to the needs of the local community, and are where there is the energy of commitment from clergy, and therefore where the most fitting forms of change are likely to occur – not from some centrally devised plan: “A shift from a directive, top-down strategy to something more adaptive and collaborative, working with the grain of the Church rather than against it, has potential to improve morale and build confidence, ridding the institution of the lingering smell of desperation.”
Even though officially the Unitarian movement doesn’t work in a top-down way, this sentiment can help us too.
The piece in the Economist also talks about local church strategy: “Churches are having to revisit their ministry strategies to make sure they are engaging with where our culture is today.”
It explains how online worship has enabled people to ‘church hop’ opening up a new kind of competition between congregations, meaning church leaders need to be clearer in what they are offering, and to whom, particularly as there is a huge change in the question of how the real estate of church buildings may be used (questions also being grappled with by most other sectors right now).
It goes on to look at the way that some churches are finding survival by merging with neighbouring congregations.
This is where the two articles come together from a Unitarian perspective. Our movement holds congregational polity in high esteem – and many also rue it for making life harder when membership numbers have fallen so low. Each congregation will have its own constitution, set of trustees, accounts, policies etc – even those whose membership is in single digits. That is a lot of work for a shrinking and aging membership to carry out (very roughly, three quarters of our current members are over 70). Merging may help make things more viable, and find a path forward when closure might otherwise be on the cards, but can feel like a bold move when it changes a few centuries of local independence.
My sense is that our movement is still getting used to its depleted membership. Many leaders in our movement today will have memories of there being four or five times more Unitarians nationally. Our culture and practices haven’t necessarily adapted to our smaller size, and when local leaders have their energy taken up by governance processes that are unwieldy for a small congregation, it’s no surprise there is little capacity left for the kind of visionary leadership at the local level that the Church Times describes.
These pieces help reassure me of what we’ve been exploring at Unitarian HQ – that our central strategy needs first and foremost to be about supporting local leaders; building the capacity that will mean they can be responsive to the needs of their local communities, and tune in to the vision of the congregation for how they want to serve those needs. Rather than a top-down plan, it’s using the resources of the centre to fill the tanks of the local congregations.
Pandemic has sped the need for this; we have seen a handful of congregations close these last two years, and it’s likely more will be looking at their futures as the fog of covid lifts. As the Economist piece shows, the question of what to do with the buildings is a big one. Again, there can be no ‘one size fits all’ answers from the centre on what congregations should do with their buildings, but we can help them to explore the questions themselves and among the wider collective.
We are a small movement rich in assets collectively, but without a strong culture of sharing the commons, and so buildings and funds may not be where they are being put to best use. I hope that there can be conversations to explore how congregational polity and a sharing of resources might work hand in hand.
