What is the UU Version of "Doing God's Work"?

So there I was, reading, as I often do, Christian's blog about church life, translating as I went ... "church" into "fellowship," mostly, and finding, in this case, that mostly, it was about us as well as about the larger world of Christianity.  But there it was, listed as an important factor in congregational health: "Doing God's Work."  We do need to be doing something like that, but what does this mean for us at least partly atheistic Unitarian Universalists?

God's work is love, of course. I hope that's what the Christian writer meant, but it doesn't matter here.
How can we tell if we doing the work of love?

It may be easier to tell what the work of love is not:

Being judgmental.
Having sloppy boundaries.
Talking when we should be listening.
Not sharing our views and feelings.
Taking offense before finding out what's going on.
Talking behind someone's back.
Spreading rumors.
Expressing scorn, rolling the eyes.
Doing things for spite.
"Otherizing"

There's more, I'm sure. But haven't we all seen all this in our fellowships?
Of course, even Unitarian Universalists are human, after all.

But doesn't Love call us to do better?

And what would that look like?
And how do you get there from wherever you are?

You know what it looks like. You know what it feels like.
In many situations, making some rules and guidelines will help.
But it won't happen without something happening in the hearts of your people.  How that comes to pass is more of a mystery... I say we need to attend to the quality of our relationships, not just with one another, but with ourselves.  Is there respect and consideration everywhere?  And if not, how can it be brought into being?

Love will guide us, and we'll be doing "God's work" if we follow.

Small Congregation: "Bob always does that."

In small congregations I have known, there's a constant problem with understaffing.  Partly, it's because there are not very many people.  And partly it's because "Bob always does that."

For sure, there are lots of jobs and not many people.  But if you look around, some of the people are not finding ways to help, and others are doing more than is good for them.  There's Bob...  every time there's a blank space on the signup sheet, Bob feels impelled to put his name in.  Sometimes he can't get to all of it, but at least he tries.  Bob's friends need to help him hold back!

When Bob's name is on the list to do something, others believe there is no need for them to sign up. His helpful practice makes it harder for those who are less involved to find ways to help.  Rather than just put his name down, he could call some people and find out if they could do it.  Or better yet, someone else who is better connected with newer folks could do it.

There are jobs around the congregation that are always Bob's responsibility.  He puts up the Solsitice/Christmas tree (does he also complain when no one else takes it down?).  He makes sure there are paper towels in the bathrooms and toilet paper in all the bathroom stalls on Sunday morning. He is the one who makes the coffee.  On a Sunday when Bob is out of town, people wonder why there is no coffee and puzzle over the condition of the restrooms.  Bob is very helpful, and yet something is not quite right about it.  Again, Bob's friends need to help him make room for others.

Of course, there's also Jane, who always washes up after social hour and always manages the kitchen during potluck suppers/brunches/luncheons. She has certain ways of doing these things and those who have been around for awhile know how to help her.  Others?  It's not easy or fun.

When people in congregations do things alone, the congregation misses out on a chance to build community.  It's a basic idea in community organizing that you should never do anything alone.  Two things happen  that are not so helpful.  First, no one else knows how to do it, or even that it is being done.  When Bob or Jane is away or sick, it's an emergency.  Second, when it's time for someone else to take over, it's very hard. Even the Holiday Tree needs a succession plan, and having others involved is a good way to set one up informally. But mainly, when you're working alone, you are not engaging with others, getting to know them, feeling you are part of the same enterprise.  Being together is actually an important part of having a congregation in the first place, right?

There are other jobs that Bobs and Janes do... it varies from congregation to congregation. Established people in small congregations can help each other find ways to avoid getting locked into certain roles.  It's good to know the Holiday tree will go up, and it's good to know someone is making sure there are napkins for the potluck, so it's a balancing act.  Being dependable and helpful is good; getting locked in to a certain role that you do by yourself, not so much.

Let us find ways to share our roles in the congregation, even when the congregation is small.

Volunteer with an unknown congregation...working alone!

Eldership in a Small Congregation

In one of the small congregations I know, there is a legend that haunts the Board of Trustees.  Some years ago, it seems, there had been a meeting where an important decision was made after discussion and careful deliberation.  Soon after, as it is remembered, someone not on the Board persuaded one of the Board members that this had been a mistake.  The Board member emailed the rest of the members to change his/her vote, persuaded someone else to change theirs, and claimed that this invalidated the original vote.  At the next meeting, the whole discussion had to be redone, and the decision was reversed.  Now, the Board (several election cycles later) has trouble making any decisions at all.

Does this happen in other small congregations?  Of course.

My diagnosis of the congregation in question was that the official, elected, Board of Trustees was actually a kind of "student government," able to make some decisions, but not to go against the "administration" of the institution.  The "administration" was a group of long time members who had the power do decide in a way the official Board could not.  Their long dedication to the congregation and their substantial financial contributions as well as their unwillingness to "let go" brought this situation into being.

It's embarrassing and demoralizing for the Board when the kind of reversal recalled in this legend actually happens.  It reminds the Board that they need to talk things over with the unelected elders before they vote, basically not a bad idea. But it makes me want to say to those elders, "If you don't mean to let go of control, then you have to continue to serve on the Board!"  and  "Can't you let someone with new ideas do things in new ways?"

That small group of long time leaders has a really crucial role to play in the survival and health of a small congregation.  The congregation can move forward, maybe even grow, if the elders find a way to hand over authority to what I might call emerging long term leaders. Others need to come to have "standing" of the same kind as that of the small group that has held the congregation together for 20 years.  The  elders need to ask themselves how someone qualifies to be one of them.  Service in leadership, financial commitment, devotion to the faith, what else?

For real democracy to emerge, elders must come to hold their eldership lightly, to allow others to gain positions of respect.  Generation needs to follow generation not only in elected leadership, but also in eldership, or the congregation will wither.  In a small congregation, the role of that small group that plays the role of the "administration," is key.  How well do they connect with the newer families and leaders? How well do they connect with the larger religious movement? How open are they to new possibilities?

Small congregations need leadership development, for sure, a perennial focus of attention. But they also need eldership development.

Congregation elders have a lot to contribute, maybe not always in a good way...