Dan Harper | Institutionalism

1. Theories and Basics of Institutionalism

A. Theologies for Institutionalism

This section presents four different theologies for institutionalism — four different ways we might understand why our Unitarian Universalist religious institutions are worth our time and effort, and how we might make them better. If this kind of theoretical discussion bores you, feel free to skip over this section. Or just read one of the shorter sub-sections to get a sense of what a theology for institutionalism might sound like.

i. Voluntary associations

Back in the twentieth century, a Unitarian theologian named James Luther Adams laid out the theology behind institutionalism. Adams pointed out that congregations are a form of voluntary association. What is a voluntary association? Broadly, it is a group of citizens who come together for a benevolent purpose. A voluntary association is exactly what the U.S. Bill of Rights was talking about when it guaranteed the right to freely associate. Thus we can see that voluntary associations should be considered a key element of U.S.-style democracy.

Adams had spent more than a year in Germany during the rise of the Nazis. While in Germany, he noticed that one of the first things the Nazis did to consolidate their control of society was either to abolish voluntary associations, or to co-opt the voluntary associations for their own purposes (as when they took over of churches and made them subservient to the Nazi party). Based on his observations, Adams concluded that voluntary associations are one of the bulwarks of democracy.

We Unitarian Universalists claim that one of the fundamental principles of our religion is a commitment to democracy. So from a theological perspective, institutionalism is one way we live out our religious commitment to democracy. We also acknowledge that voluntary associations require volunteer time, and they require volunteers to have some basic skills. Thus our theology requires of us serious commitment to institutionalism, to the maintenance and health of voluntary associations.

ii. Interdependent web

We are committed to the health of voluntary associations. But voluntary associations can take many different forms. What form should our voluntary associations take?

To answer that question, let’s go back to the early 1980s. That’s when the liberal Presbyterian theologian Bernard Loomer began attending the Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley (in Kensington, California). He quickly realized that he had found a religious home, and the congregation quickly realized that here was someone who had something important to tell them. So lay leaders asked Loomer to give a series of talks on theology, each week before the Sunday worship service. In one of those talks circa 1983, Loomer introduced the theological concept of the Web of Life:

“Jesus has been according many titles. He has been called Savior, Leader, Shepherd, Counselor, Son of God, Messiah. But his intellectual gifts have not been recognized (even when the term "intellectual" has been more carefully defined). It was he who discovered what he called the Kingdon of God — what I call the Web of Life — surely one of the great intellectual and religious ideas of the western world. As I define it, the web is the world conceived of as an indefinitely extended complex of interrelated, interdependent events or units of reality. This includes human and non-human, the organic and inorganic levels of life and existence.” — from Unfoldings: Conversations from the Sunday morning seminars of Bernie Loomer (First Unitarian Church of Berkeley: 1985), pp. 1-2.

In Loomer’s account, the Web of Life traces its intellectual history back to Jesus of Nazareth. Nevertheless, Unitarian Universalists of all theological persuasions adopted the idea of the interdependent Web of Life, so much so that the Web of Life became a part of the Unitarian Universalist Association principles and purposes in 1985.

I feel that in the 1990s, for many Unitarian Universalists the Web of Life became one of the dominant paradigms for institutional life. Thus, the institutional life of humans was understood as being a part of a larger whole; and what we do in our human institutions can affect the whole of the interdependent Web of Life, even down to the last fallen sparrow.

iii. Everyone is worthy of love

Traditional Universalism offered a radically egalitarian understanding of humankind: all humans will be saved, all humans will go heaven after death. This understanding was rooted in the assumption that all humans are equally worthy of God’s love.

Today, the majority of Unitarian Universalists no longer believe in a traditional God, nor a traditional heaven. Nevertheless, we still try to maintain radical egalitarianism as one of our ideals. We sometimes talk about “the inherent worth and dignity of all human beings” — which is simply a non-theistic way of saying that all human beings are worthy of (someone’s) love. Actually, it’s more difficult to live out the ideal of “the inherent worth and dignity of all human beings,” which seems to imply that I should be able to accept everyone. But honestly, there are some people I just can’t stand (often because of a visceral, irrational dislike), or people I just don’t want to deal with (for example, I find I’m personally unable to deal effectively with child molesters).

Thus, even though we might not want to use the exact theology of the old Universalists, we can learn something important from them. Individual humans are limited fallible beings, and we are not really capable of loving everyone the way we should. But even when we’re stopped from loving certain individuals due to irrational dislike or personal inability, we can still recognize that those certain individuals are worthy of love (at least in some abstract sense). Furthermore, it’s important for us to recognize our limited fallible nature — just because we happen to dislike a certain person, or a certain class of people, we know that our dislike represents a failing on our part.

This turns out to be a very useful theology for helping us understand our religious institutions (i.e., our congregations). We hold as an ideal that our religious institution will welcome every human beings, and treat each human beings equally (because all human beings are equally worthy of love). But we know that we are limited fallible beings, so we know we will often fail at including everyone.

This allows us to ask ourselves, with a certain degree of honesty: Who is it that is not actually treated as an equal in our religious institutions? In the 1960s, Unitarian Universalists came to the sudden realization that women were not treated as equals in our congregations. At that time, there were almost no women ministers, few women in lay leadership positions, and much of Unitarian Universalist thought and theology focused on men and ignored women. Through the 1970s and the 1980s, we worked hard to make sure women were treated as the equals of men, and we made significant progress.

At about that same time, some Unitarian Universalists came to a parallel realization, that African Americans were not treated as equals in our congregations. At that time, there were almost no Black ministers, few African Americans in lay leadership positions, and nearly all Unitarian Universalist thought and theology focused on White people and ignored Black people. Through the 1970s and 1980s, we largely failed at ensuring that Black Unitarian Universalists were treated as the equals of White Unitarian Universalists, and indeed in the 2020s we are still struggling with racism within our Unitarian Universalist institutions. We are ashamed that our institutions continue to harbor anti-Black discrimination, and we know that we must figure out how to change.

This old Universalist theology allows us to look honestly at ourselves, to determine who we allow in to our institutions, and who we keep out of our institutions. Here are some examples of people who may feel kept out of our institutions: In the 2020s, we have gotten pretty good at welcoming gay and lesbian people, but transgender people report not being fully accepted in some of our congregations. Disabled people frequently report barriers to their full participation in our institutions. Many of our congregations lack: people with no college degree; working class people; non-White people; people in their twenties; non-Anglophones; etc. While we have reason to feel ashamed at our failures, our Universalist theology also helps us understand that we remain worthy of love ourselves, even when we fail. Knowing that we rmain worthy of love even as we fail can give us the energy we need to keep on trying to make our institutions as egalitarian as possible.

This old Universalist theology also helps us understand that we may not find it possible to be fully egalitarian. Take as an example a small congregation that is approached by a convicted child molester, someone who is at high risk of re-offending, but who would like to become a member of that congregation (this actually happened to a congregation I served). Of course this convicted child molester is worthy of God’s love — as good Universalists, we know that in our bones. However, we also know that if we tried to accept him into our congregation, all the families with children would feel threatened (unfortunately with good reason). Our Universalist theology allows us to say that although this person is worthy of God’s love, nonetheless our limited human institution is not able to allow him in.

Finally, we must remember to distinguish between being honest about our limitations, on the one hand, and making excuses for ourselves (which can be dishonest) on the other hand. It would be honest for a small congregation with a limited budget to admit they are unable to afford an American Sign Language interpreter every week, and so they cannot be welcoming to deaf people. It would be dishonest for a small congregation to claim that it’s not worth their while to reach out to Hispanic people because they cannot afford to pay a Spanish interpreter (since there are many Hispanic people who are comfortable with English).

B. Safety Is Basic

i. Safety comes before theories

I’ve spent more than thirty years working in nine different Unitarian Universalist congregations, both as a religious educatior and as a parish minister. Much of my career has been spent in congregations recovering from various kinds of misconduct perpetrated by both lay and ordained leaders. One of the things I had to learn was that if you want to help a congregation recover from misconduct by its leaders, your first step has to be to ensure safety in all areas of congregational life. This makes sense — when people in a congregation know that their leaders were engaging in activities that threatened safety (financial safety, sexual safety, emotional and physical safety), then they are going to be on high alert, so they can avoid anything that feels unsafe. When you’re on high alert, it makes it hard to pay attention to all the detail work that needs to get done to keep the institution running well. So if you can help people feel safe, then the overall organization will run better.

This turned out to be a general principle that also worked in congregations that had no history of leader misconduct: When peole feel safe, the overall organization always runs better.

In this context, psychologist Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs can be a useful model. Maslow believed that human needs were arranged in a sort of pyramidal hierachy. Maslow placed self-actualization at the top of his hiearchical pyramid; then below that, in order, he placed the need for self esteem, the need for love and belonging, the need for basic security and safety, and at the bottom, the basic physiological needs of food, warmth, rest, water, etc.

I don’t necessarily call the “highest” needs by the names self-actualization and esteem; for our purposes, I’ll just generalize and call them “spiritual” needs. Nonetheless, I feel that, loosely speaking, religious organizations are in the business of meeting people’s spiritual needs. Maslow’s model of the hierarchy of needs helps us understand that in order to meet people’s spiritual needs, they first must have their physiological needs, their safety needs, and the needs for love and belonging met in some fashion. This has implications for how we operate our congregations.

a. Physiological needs

First of all, we should consider how we meet the physiological needs of the people in our congregations. (1) We should offer clean fresh water to drink. (2) We should offer adequate shelter from adverse weather. (3) Most people who come to Unitarian Universalist congregaitons are relatively well-fed, but we should have food on hand just in case; perhaps most often, this food will be for children and teens who need to eat more often than adults, but we should also consider that some of our adults may face food insecurity, so snacks of some kind are important. Most congregations are pretty good at meeting these basic physiological needs, though food for young people is sometimes in short supply.

b. Safety and security needs

Second, we should consider needs for safety and security. This is often an area where Unitarian Universalist congregations fall short, or where congregations get their priorities a little bit mixed up. Here’s a tentative listing of safety and security needs for congregations, roughly in order of importance:

1. A well-maintained physical plant that meets basic standards for physical safety (e.g., occupancy permits, fire inspections, food prep safety, etc.)
2. Compliance with any relevant laws (see below)
3. Practices and procedures to reduce the possibility of slips, trips, and falls
4. State-of-the-art child and youth protection policies
5. All other measures to increase physical safety

A quick word about complying with any relevant laws. In this area, one of the highest priorities should be some kind of policy prohibiting assault and harassment. Assault, an intentional act causing physical harm or causing a person to fear physical harm, is illegal. Harassment is also illegal in most jurisdictions; and even though harassment laws are most often directed at empoyees, you’ll want to remember that all volunteers function like unpaid employees; the laws might not apply to volunteers, but your anti-harassment policies should cover volunteers. Bullying, variously defined, may also be illegal in some jurisdictions. While all this may seem like a no-brainer, sometimes congregations try a little too hard to be forgiving, and so they excuse assault or harassment. Beyond your procedures for dealing (legally) with assault and harassment, you’ll also want to make sure that you comply with all relevant health and safety regulations — federal, state, and local — and that you maintain all required current licenses.

The list of priorities above is based in large part on what insurance companies are worried about. Insurance companies typically insist on occupancy permits, fire safety inspections, etc., as a condition for insuring a congregation. Insurance companies also want to see a well-maintained physical plant that is not moldy, or riddled with asbestos, etc. Insurance companies want you to comply with all relevant laws. These things are givens. Next, if you ask your insurer what they worry about most, they will typically name slips, trips, and falls as their number one safety concern. Child and youth safety protection would typically run a close second.

Other safety concerns may feel important to you, but insurers are watching actual probabilities. So, for example, active shooter drills may seem really important to you, but from the point of view of the insurer your congregation is far, far more likely to deal with a child sexual predator than an active shooter. This is not to say that you should not do active shooter drills. But it is to say that if you’re doing active shooter drills, but you’re in a building that smells moldy and you don’t use one of those signs warning of wet floors when you mop and your congregation has an outdated child protection policy — then, my friend, you’ve got your priorities mixed up.

In summary: Safe building. Comply with laws against assault, harassment, etc. No slips, trips, or falls. Child protection. All other safety and security comes next.

c. Needs for love and belonging

Congregations sometimes prioritize needs for love and belonging over safety and security needs. After all, that’s what congregations are for, right? We belong to congregations so we can feel loved, and feel like we belong. Well, yes, but when your safety and security needs aren’t being met, that’s really going to interfere with your ability to get your needs for love and belonging met. Thus, congregations that try to prioritize love and belonging over safety and security often (at least, this is true in my experience) find themselves in long, slow decline. Newcomers come in looking for love and belonging &mdahs; but when they realize that their need for safety and security is not being met, they drift away.

A difficult issue that arises is where to place sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, ablism, ageism, etc. Do these “ism-s” get prioritized as safety and security needs, or as love and belonging needs? It depends. If someone is worried about getting physically assaulted due to their gender, race, class, etc., then you’ve definitely got a safety and security issue (and if that person gets physically assaulted due to your tolerance of physical assault, then you&rsqu;ve also got potential legal issues). If someone feels physically safe, but experiences a general sense of not fitting in, then you most likely have a problem meeting needs for love and belonging. Two examples to help elucidate: (a) If a female volunteer gets sexually harassed by a male managing that volunteer, I’d call that a safety and security issue. (b) Unitarian Universalist congregations are prone to prejudice against adults without a college education, and while that’s inexcusable, I’d call that a love and belonging issue which should be addressed as a lower priority.

C. You Gotta Have a Mission

i. Peter Drucker and mission

D. You Gotta Have a Religious Center

Congregations are a specific kind of nonprofit organization — they’re a religious nonprofit organization. So in addition to your mission statement, you’ll also want a statement of your religious center. This can be longer than the mission statement, but it has to be memorable. Yes, you can use the “Seven Principles” of the Unitarian Universalist Association, but honestly they’re hard to memorize. Besides, ideally you want to incorporate this statement of your religious center into every single worship service, and reciting the lengthy “Seven Principles” each and every week feels a little too much like reciting some kind of liberal creed. So below are a couple of examples of good statements of religious center from actual Unitarian Universalist congregations.

In my home congregation, First Parish of Concord, Mass., we used to say a unison benediction at the end of every service. It was memorable. It was powerful enough that people printed it, framed it, and hung it on the wall at home. It went like this:

Go out into the world in peace
Have courage
Hold on to what is good
Return to no person evil for evil
Strengthen the fainthearted
Support the weak
Help the suffering
Honor all beings.

Several congregations I have served used the following as an affirmation that they said together each week in the middle of the worship service:

Love is the doctrine of this church,
The quest for truth is its sacrament,
And service is its prayer.
This is our great covenant:
To dwell together in peace,
To seek the truth in love,
And to help one another,
To the end that all souls shall grow
Into harmony with the divine.

I have a slight preference for the first example above. It’s easier for children to understand, so you can say it at the end of every Sunday school class, as well as the adult worship service. But the second example is perfectly adequate, and would serve quite well.

Finding a statement of your religious center need not be a onerous task. Look around, and you may find that your congregation already has a perfectly adequate statement of your religious center.

E. Some Things You Don’t Need (But Might Be Nice)

i. Congregational covenants

A lot of Unitarian Universalists mistakenly believe a Unitarian Universalist congregation must have a covenant. Conrad Wright, an influential Unitarian scholar and historian of the mid-twentieth century, convinced many that Unitarian congregations had always had covenants. Wright specialized in the history of those eighteenth century New England congregations which later became Unitarian congregations, and most of these congregations did have covenants. However, Wright conveniently ignored the fact that by the twentieth century, many of those Unitarian congregations had abandoned their covenant, assuming they had ever had one. (My mother, the Unitarian daughter of life-long Unitarian parents, a woman who served as the Superintendent of the Junior Department of the largest Unitarian Sunday school in the U.S. in the 1950s, never once talked about covenant; it was not a part of her religious outlook.)

Wright had the best of intentions. He hoped that covenants would serve as a unifying force for a notoriously disunified denomination. But the reality is that Unitarian Universalist congregations are not required to have a covenant. A covenant might be nice to have. But come up with a mission statement first.

If you do decide to develop a covenant, you should have a clear idea what it is. Historically, a covenant was a set of promises made between the people in a congregation on the one hand, and a set of promises between those people and their deity on the other hand. Thus, a covenant has both a horizontal component (promises between human beings) and a vertical component (promises between human beings and something greater than humans). Historically, the covenant was the document you signed when you became a member; by signing the covenant, you agreed to adhere to both sets of promises, the promises governing the horizonatl relationships and the vertical relationships. Thus, it seems to make the most sense for a covenant to be used in the membership process: people sign the covenant — make promises to each other and to that which is larger than themselves — in order to become members. Note that a new covenant would probably require a super-majority vote of the entire membership to adopt.

Some congregations do in fact have historical covenants — for example, the Unitarian Universalist Society of Geneva, Ill., still uses the first paragraph of the congregational covenant they adopted when the congregation was founded as a Unitarian church in 1842 Being desirous of promoting practical goodness in the world, and of aiding each other in our moral and religious improvement, we have associated ourselves together — not as agreeing in opinion, not as having attained universal truth in belief or perfection in character, but as seekers after truth and goodness. Originally, this covenant mentioned God, but the congregation changed their covenant in the late 19th century to accommodate non-theists. However, they retained a vertical relationship: their covenant promises that human beings are “seekers” looking for a relationship with larger than themselves, i.e., “truth and goodness” however that might be interpreted.

ii. Behavioral Covenants

We should distinguish between a behavioral covenant and a congregational covenant. A behavioral covenant defines expected norms of behavior for everyone who participates in any way in your congregation. In other words, it emphasizes the horizontal component of a congregational covenant. More to the point, a congregaitonal covenant usually applies only to those persons who sign the covenant (i.e., sign the membership book), while a behavioral covenant is typically intended to apply to anyone who walks in the door (or joins online) to participate on congregational activities. Behavioral covenants often include specific behaviors that are prohibited (e.g., sexual harassment may be prohibited), with specific consequences for violating the behavioral standards (e.g., proven sexual harassers may be banned from the congregation’s buildings and grounds). There can be overlap between the two kinds of covenant, and we should probably think about this as a spectrum, not a binary opposition. You could have both a congregational covenant (perhaps applying to members only), and a behavioral covenant (applying to anyone who participates).

For more on behavioral covenants, and how and when to use them, see below under section 2.C.i.

iii. Vision statements and strategic plans or frameworks

2. Introduction to Process

“Process” is a broad term for how we get things done in a congregation. Process most often refers to how you make decisions together.

A. Basics of Good Process

i. Neither structureless, nor autocratic

B. Making decisions

Good process centers on how you make decisions. I’ll outline three types of decision-making processes most used by Unitarian Universalist congregations.

i. Consensus

Consensus is when everyone agrees on the decision. Consensus works well for small groups (fewer than a dozen people) who do things together and who have plenty of time to spend making decisions. For a small group to reach consensus, you may not even need much of a formal decision-making process: if there’s plenty of trust and openness, you just keep talking things through until everyone agrees.

Consensus generally proves more difficult for larger groups. If you hope to reach consensus with a group of fifty or a hundred people, you need formal procedures to structure the process. Formal procedures should include: procedures allowing minority opinions to be heard (a consensus process that shuts down minority opinions before they’re heard is not a good process); procedures for dealing deadlocks; procedures to maintain or strengthen personal relationships; etc.

Most larger Unitarian Universalist groups do not have the patience to use consensus as a regular decision-making process. But if you are not patient when it comes to consensus, then you are not really doing consensus. Instead, you are probably descending into some kind of tyranny of structurelessness in which some person or group maintains a lot of hidden power over the process.

Many Unitarian Universalist congregations do require near-consensus on the major decision of calling a minister. Congregational bylaws may specify that a minister must receive a ninety percent positive vote; some ministers may decide not to accept a call if fewer than ninety-five percent of the members vote in favor of the call. Because of this, congregations seeking to call a minister would be wise to remember that this decision-making process requires patience, and good formal procedures.

ii. Voting

Voting can work well for making important decisions. Indeed, voting may be required by a congregation’s bylaws to make decisions that are recorded formally in a written record (e.g., calling a minister, approving the annual budget, etc.). The board of a congregation may also be required to have a formal vote for legal matters, such as appointing people who are authorized to sign for financial accounts. Some congregations may simply prefer voting: voting is easy to understand, and it is easy to determine when the decision is made.

When a vote is required, or desired, you’ll need to determine what voting process should you use.

The bylaws of some congregations specify the use of Robert’s Rules of Order. However, this is a book-length document, and few people can take the time to know all the rules and how to apply them. Robert’s Rules can wind up being a way for a small minority to control the voting process to tilt it towards the outcome they desire. For example, communities of color and feminist groups have pointed out that older white men have been known to use Robert’s Rules to shut down women and non-white persons. However, if you’re committed to educating the majority of the people who can vote in the arcana of Robert’s Rules, they can work. But you must take the time to educate all those voting on a regular (probably annual) basis.

A less formal approach to voting might look like this: One person is elected or appointed to run the meeting (board president, committee chair, or moderator of an annual meeting); that person has the general conduct of the meeting under their control, so ideally this will be someone who is widely trusted. When a decision that requires a vote arises, the person running the meeting calls for someone to make a motion. Whoever is recording the minutes of the meeting puts this into written form. The motion requires a second, another person who supports the motion exactly as stated (the theory being that if you can’t get at least two people to support a motion, it’s not worth your time). Then the person running the meeting calls for discussion. If discussion goes on too long, the person running the meeting has some options: limit the time people can speak (e.g., limit speakers to 2 minutes); limit the number of times one person can speak on this question; ask the group if they are ready to vote (Robert’s Rules calls this “calling the question”); ask the group if they want to defer this issue to a future meeting (Robert’s Rules calls this “tabling the motion”). When discussion is finished, the person running the meeting asks all those in favor of the motion to say so; all those opposed to say so; and then asks if anyone is abstaining from voting. The person recording the meeting notes down how many people voted for and against and how many abstained; they may also wish to note down some of the main points brought up during the discussion.

Then — and this is a critical step — the person recording the meeting puts their notes into written form, called “minutes,” and distributes the draft of the minutes prior to the next meeting of the group. The minutes are taken up early in the agenda; everyone is asked if they have any corrections to the minutes (common corrections include misspellings of names). Then the person running the meeting moves that the group vote to approve the minutes as corrected, and everyone votes. This vote is recorded in the minutes of that meeting. The minutes of meetings are made publicly available — it is wise these days to make minutes available both in electronic format stored online and in printed hard copy format — and stored as the formal record of the committee or organization. Keeping a written record in this way maximizes openness and transparency.

For major congregation-wide decisions, the wise congregation will add some elements to this voting process: Well in advance of the meeting, perhaps a month or more, the wise congregation distributes a formal agenda outlining the decisions that will be voted on during the meeting. For decisions where emotions may run high, the wise congregation holds additional meetings where people can air their opinions and listen to one another carefully. For high-stakes decisions, such annual budgets, the wise congregation holds question-and-answer meetings a month or more before the main meeting, so that those who wish can dive into the details (hopefully making it so the main meeting doesn't spend hours and hours on such details). For very high stakes decisions — calling a minister, embarking on a capital campaign, etc. — the wise congregation will hold frequent meetings and informational sessions over a period of many months to allow everyone to understand and buy into the decision. These very high stakes decisions generally require a process that may come close to reaching consensus, including super-majority votes that could range from two-thirds in favor, to ninety percent or more (as in the case of calling a minister).

The process by which you carry out your voting should be reasonably clear to everyone. Typically, this means that you will have both written procedures, and unwritten but generally accepted procedures. If you try to have everything in writing, then you’ll wind up with a big fat book of rules that only a few people read and understand. Unwritten but generally accepted procedures can help you navigate the exceptions to the rules that always seem to arise. An important unwritten procedure might be that everyone understands that when exceptions to the rules arise, we will all work together to try to make things work, and we will take the time to explain to one another what we are doing. The most important unwritten procedure will always be that trust and openness come first.

iii. Executive decisions

You can’t have everyone vote on every decision that needs to be made. Calling a meeting of the entire congregation to decide what brand of toilet paper to purchase is not a good use of anyone’s time. Thus, you will want to figure out how to delegate authority for lesser decisions, and how to establish lines of accountability so that those making executive decisions are accountable to the wider organization.

C. Group Behavior and Group Dynamics

Good process goes beyond decision-making processes. Good process can also refer to how we behave with one another, so I’m including a brief discussion of behavioral covenants, and a longer discussion of group dynamics.

i. Behavioral covenants

Sometimes, for whatever reason, people in a congregation may behave badly towards one another. This is unpleasant, and when it happens you’ll want to figure out how to control the bad behavior.

Reasons for poor behavior can include buried conflict and unresolved trauma. Two examples among many possibilities: (a.) A poor decision-making process results in a substantial minority of the congregation feeling their voice doesn’t count, so a sense of conflict exists. (b.) A minister commits sexual misconduct in the congregation and is fired, but a sense of trauma remains. Two more examples that might become widespread: (a.) The pandemic which began in 2020 causes unacknowledged trauma. (b.) Racism in the wider society permeates the congregation, resulting in trauma both in persons of color and (in a quite different form) in white people.

Of course there are other reasons for poor behavior besides buried conflict and unresolved trauma. But poor behavior always has a cause. Ultimately, the way to address poor behavior is to address the root cause. However, addressing the root cause may take years. For example, congregations that have suffered from clergy sexual misconduct may take two or more decades to recover from the trauma (depending on how serious the trauma was, and how long it lasted). Racial trauma make take even longer, since racism remains so pervasive in the surrounding culture that there’s really no escaping from it. Thus, while we should look for the root cause of the poor behavior, that may take a long time. In the mean time, it would be wise to establish some behavioral norms so everyone is clear what constitutes poor behavior, and what the consequences of poor behavior will be. This will probably require formal written behavioral policies.

At a minimum, congregations should establish written behavioral policies that conform to local law, and to denominational norms. To conform with local law, there should be procedures to prevent sexual contact between adults and legal minors, and to report it should it occur; in jurisdictions where clergy are not allowed to engage in sexual relations with congregants, there should be procedures to prevent it; and so on. To conform with denominational norms, there should be procedures such that clergy abide by professional standards; procedures to prevent the congregation from hiring or calling staffers who committed ethical violations; and so on. Areas to be covered by such policies should also include sexual harassment, racial discrimination, ableism, ageism, etc.

In addition, congregations may want to establish formal written behavioral covenants governing how congregants behave with one another. Behavioral covenants vary widely in terms of scope and in terms of mechanisms for enforcing behavioral norms. The wise congregation will take an extended period of time — a year or more sounds about right — and engage as many congregants as possible when establishing behavioral norms. The wise congregation will seek help from outside the congregation, such as regional staff of the Unitarian Universalist Association, outside consultants, and other congregations with excellent behavioral covenants, to help draft behavioral standards. Ultimately, behavioral covenants should be implemented by a vote of everyone who is affected by them. It would make sense to require a super-majority vote of some kind.

In the mean time, the congregation should continue to seek out the root causes for poor behavior. If there appears to be some residual trauma, the wise congregation will call in regional staff of the Unitarian Universalist Association and/or outside consultants to help in this search. (Please note that denominational staff have a mixed record in dealing with clergy sexual misconduct, so is this is suspected the congregation may want to seek an outside consultant). Once the root cause is found, ways should be found to heal from the scars left by whatever that root cause may have been. The ultimate goal should be healing. Remember that behavioral covenants can be (and have been) misused such that they continue the poor behavior rather than ending it; thus healing is the best solution.

ii. One model for group dynamics

Understanding group dynamics can be helpful in maintaining good process in small groups ranging from committees to support groups to Sunday school classes. When a group of people comes together, a series of fairly predictable things usually happens. When a group first forms, there’s a kind of awkward time when members of the group are getting to know each other. As people in the group get to know each other, they can begin to figure out what their purpose is as a group, and begin to accomplish that purpose. Finally, most groups eventually dissolve.

Small groups in congregations go through these same stages. If we, as leaders of such small groups, pay attention to the stages groups go through, we can help guide the group into making positive accomplishments. Knowing that conflict tends to arise at certain stages of group development can help us to resolve that conflict effectively. Below is one widely-used model for understanding how groups work. This widely-used model can be useful for understanding how to get small groups up and running at the beginning of their time together, and for understanding how groups operate over the long haul.

Though this model was originally intended for making support-type groups run smoothly, it works equally well with committees, Sunday school classes, and task forces. Just remember that every time you have someone new join your committee or task force (or your support group), you will have to spend tome time in the earlier stages of forming, storming, and norming. The ultimate goal is always to help the group get to the stage of performing.

a. Forming

The group’s first task is to form as a group. At first, there will be people in the group who do not know each other. The members of the group have to know who all is in the group before anything else can happen. Getting-to-know-you activities are very useful at this stage.

b. Storming

Once the group has started to form, group members will very quickly move into determining the roles and relationships between group members. A good group leader will be ready to guide this process. Group leaders should anticipate a certain amount of conflict, and see it as a natural part of the group process. together. A wise group leader will facilitate the group process by channeling conflict into productive (rather than destructive) channels.

One technique is to develop a so-called “covenant,” i.e., an explicit agreement of how people will behave together. Such an agreement could be as simple as, “Follow the Golden Rule; what’s said in this room stays in this room; step up and step back.” But even after coming to agreement on a covenant, group participants will often continue to test limits, challenging you and each other. This is also the stage of group development where people may decide that they don’t want to participate in the group, and they simply stop coming. So how do you survive the “storming” stage of group development?

Most importantly, you should expect that there will be a period of some conflict, albeit usually fairly minor conflict. Everything will be easier if you are expecting that group participants will test your limits.

Secondly, realize that normal responses to the “storming” stage are fear, anxiety, and loss of control. You may feel some or all of these things, and the participants certainly will be feeling some or all of these things. Watch for participants who are very assertive, or very retiring. One of the best ways to respond to such participants is to give them love and acceptance. This may prove difficult, but giving love and acceptance to all participants, even the less-likeable ones, will help everyone get through the fear and anxiety.

Finally, whether you’re a group leader or a group participant, expect that your group will be a great group. Participants tend to live up to your expectations, and if you expect participants to have deep engaging conversations, and to be fun to be with, they will tend to live up to those expectations.

c. Norming

Developing a group covenant is one way to start the group toward developing productive, positive norms early on. Keep drawing everyone’s attention back to the covenant, and be willing to revise it as necessary. As the “storming” stage proceeds, expect the norms of the agreement of “covenant” to be challenged and broken (sometimes willfully).

Be aware that other norms may develop as participants figure out how they want to relate together. Within the broad behavioral norms set by their agreement or “covenant,” one group may become very talkative and feel comfortable talking over each other; another group may be more reflective and prefer plenty of silence and norms that allow only one person at a time to talk. As a group facilitator (or committee chair, or Sunday school teacher), your job is to guide the norming stage in a positive direction. You can expect that as the norming stage moves to its conclusion, participants will start living out their norms without reminders from you.

As norms emerge, you will find that the real work of the group can finally begin in earnest. Note that the forming, storming, and norming stages can take as little as fifteen minutes, especially in highly structured groups such as committees. However, these three stages can also take as long a a month of weekly meetings, as is often the case in youth groups, small group ministries, and other less-structured groups where group members feel more emotionally vulnerable.

d. Performing

At this stage, the group really takes on its group task. A small group ministry plan that you had doubts about may take on a life of its own, and take the whole group to a deeper place than expected. A committee may make unexpectedly large amounts of progress in a small amount of time. In my experience, the performing stage will emerge on its own, if the group facilitator and the group members have paid attention to the first three stages.

For small group ministries, support groups, and other groups requiring emotiona vulnerability, reaching the performing stage can feel like a major achievement. Because of this, some groups may decide to close the group membership so they don’t have to go through the first three stages all over again. However, most groups would be well-advised to remain open to new members at all times. Every small group experiences attrition. Rather than going out of existence when you finally lose too many members, a smart group will learn how to constantly incorporate new members. It’s actually fairly simple to do, once you realize that every time you add a new member, or re-integrate an old member, you simply need to be intentional about repeating each of the first three stages. When a new participant joins the group, or when someone returns after a long absence, here’s what you can do to make your life easier:

At the beginning of the session, say hello to everyone, and welcome everyone. This repeats the “forming” stage.

Quickly review the covenant early in the session. Be prepared for some conflict early in the session, and respond gently and firmly. This repeats the “storming” stage.

Finally, have the group quickly review what they have been doing. Asking them for their perceptions of what has been going on (or asking for “the real agenda”) repeats the “norming” stage.

This entire process can take less than half an hour, if it is done well. Besides, even without a new member, you will find that sometimes the group needs to back to an earlier stage. You may find that you spend a whole session back at “storming” or “norming.” A savvy group leader knows that this happens on a regular basis, and is willing to let the group spend some time at one of these stages, because it can revitalize the group, and let them get to new heights when they return to “performing.”

In fact, most groups find that during the course of the year, there are times when groups tend to drop back to “storming” or “norming.” December tends to be one of those times, because people tend to be under a fair amount of stress at the holidays. The first warm weather in early spring can also prompt a drop in attendance, and a related drop back to “storming” or “norming.” Group facilitators should be aware of the possibility that a group may return to the “storming” or “norming” stages at any time, and be ready to drop a high-performing session plan for a session where you can play a game, or take a walk, or whatever, and help the group through whatever it is they need to do.

e. Mourning

At some point, every group faces a time when people have to say good bye (even if temporarily). Examples include when a small group has to get too big and splits into two groups, or when people rotate off committees, or the end of the congregational year when groups end for the summer, or when a task force finishes its work. Having to say goodbye will lead to a stage that’s usually called “mourning.”

When it feels like a group is coming to an end, plan for a party at the end of the year when you can celebrate the accomplishments of the group, and express any sadness or regret at the end of the group’s time together. If the group is splitting, plan for a party, and have everyone commit to a time six months from now when the two groups will get together for a purely social event.

In my experience, if you neglect this stage, in the future the participants will be less likely to want to participate in other group activities within your congregation. By contrast, if you pay attention to this stage, you increase the chances for success when group members join some other group in the congregation.

3. Introduction to Congregational Staff Organization

i. Integrating volunteer staff in day-to-day operations

In an era when staff costs are outpacing inflation, all small nonprofits must maximize the effectiveness (though not necessarily the efficiency) of their paid staff. A healthy trend is for paid staff to share responsiblities with volunteer staff and other volunteers. Thus, for example, increasingly the trend should be towards worship being led by professional ministers working together with volunteer worship leaders. Similarly, youth groups should not be led solely by paid staff, but rather by volunteer staff supervised by a paid staffer.

This also means that paid staff need to learn how to lead by working side by side with volunteers. The minister can no longer be a remote personage who has tasks that are distinctly different from volunteers.

This also means congregations must learn how to incorporate growing numbers of volunteer staff into their operations. This will include full accountability for volunteer staff. Accountability for some volunteer staff in critical positions might even include annual reviews. Organizational charts and volunteer job descriptions can also ensure accountability, by answering these questions: To whom is each volunteer accountable? What are the lines of accountability so that everyone, paid staff and volunteers, are accountable to the congregation’s membership?

ii. Organizational charts

An organizational chart, or org. chart, helps visualize the lines of accountability. A useful concept to know is “span of control,” which simply means the number of people that report directly to any given leader or namager. Up to 7 direct reports, including paid staff and volunteer staff, is ideal. If one supervisor has more than 7 direct reports, you’re probably going to see that person exhibit signs of burnout. BUT most congregations below 500 members find that supervisors need to have more than 5-7 direct reports. For example, a DRE may have 30 to 50 volunteer teachers and youth advisors reporting directly to them. Efficient and effective means must be found for having regular contact with all those direct reports, such as lead teachers for Sunday school classes, etc.

Note that a staff organizational chart (as in the above example) differs from a more general organizational chart. A more general organizational chart for a congregation would shows the congregational meeting at the top, the Board and any elected officers or directly elected committees below that, and then appointed committees below that. Staff may also appear on a more general organizational chart, especially where they are supervised by a committee, or where they supervise a committtee. See the example below.

Organizational charts can be useful tools for graphically conveying lines of accountability within a congregation. A great deal of information can be packed onto one page. If you decide to develop an organizational charts (or charts) for your congregation, you should research it carefully. You will have to look at the congregationa’s bylaws, staff contracts, policies set by the congregational meeting or by the Board, and actual practice. Do not be surprised if you find difficult to determine lines of accountability; many congregations have vague or even self-contradictory policies and/or bylaws. For example, a common problem is determining the relationships between the Board, the Committee on Ministry, and the minister(s) — who supervises the minister(s), the Board, the Committee on Ministry, or both together? And if the Committee on Ministry does not supervise the minister, to whom is it accountable, and who or what (if anything) is accountable to it?

Finally, it’s important to remember that an organizational chart is not necessary. The same information can be conveyed in written form. What is necessary is knowing the lines of accountability in your congregaiton, and communicating the lines of accountability to all volunteers, paid staff, and members.

4. Introduction to Volunteer Management

Congregations have large numbers of volunteer staff, so volunteer management becomes a vital part of institutionalism in congregations. This may be different from other types of nonprofits, where volunteer management may not be nearly so important. Nevertheless, volunteers are important in nearly every nonprofit, and volunteer management is one of the most important skills to cultivate for anyone involved in the nonprofit world.

A. Some basic principles of volunteer management

i. How do we recruit, train, motivate, care for, and retain all the volunteers we need?

This is a major challenge for most congregations today. Most congregations need more volunteers now than 25 years ago because we can afford less staff time per pledging member (due to health insurance costs for employees and other factors.) Yet at the same time, it’s harder to find volunteers because most Americans are working longer hours, while also spending less time volunteering, and more time in other leisure activities such as consuming media. Furthermore, it’s harder to motivate volunteers because Americans have gotten out of the habit of participating in volunteer-run organizations, and instead most Americans default to consumer behavior.

ii. Why can’t we hire very part-time employees (e.g. 2-5 hours per week) to replace volunteers?

You can, but it’s basically a way to move staff costs away from full-time well-compensated staffers with full benefits — to very part-time poorly paid staffers with no benefits. Aside from the questionable ethics this entails, the problem with very part-time poorly paid staff with no benefits is that such staffers tend to have relatively high turnover, which means you still have to worry about recruitment and training. In addition, most congregations simply cannot operate without large numbers of volunteers. Hire very part time poorly paid staffers if you must. But you’re still going to have to recruit, train, motivate, care for, and retain a lot of volunteers. So you might as well become a congregation that is excellent at volunteer management. You can always add very part time paid staff later (though I bet you’ll wind up not needing them).

Also consider that hiring very part-time paid staffers to replace some volunteers may disempower and de-motivate other volunteers. They may feel — Wait a minute, why am I not good enough to get paid? They might think — Hey, I don’t have to show up, the paid person will take care of it. So if you go down this path, be pay careful attention to how your very part-time paid staff affect your volunteers.

iii. Is volunteer management difficult?

Conceptually, no. But the hard part of excellent volunteer management is that it requires constant effort — it must become a habit. The outline below will point you in the direction of most of the information you need to become an excellent volunteer manager. The comes the hard part — making excellent volunteer management into a congregation-wide habit.

B. Volunteer Manager Attitude Readjustment

The excellent Volunteer Manager will always remember above all that volunteering is not a chore to be avoided, it is an opportunity that will enrich the lives of the volunteers. This requires readjusting the typical attitude that volunteering is an unpleasant chore that requires us to beg and plead in order to induce people to take on volunteer jobs. Here’s how to readjust your attitude:

Step One

Recognize that volunteers may want to get as much out of their volunteering as they give. If volunteering is done right, it makes you feel good about yourself. Don’t just ask what your volunteers give to the congregation, ask what the congregation is giving to the volunteers.

Step Two

Remember that volunteers want to learn new skills and perfect existing skills. Volunteering is like a hobby: the skills you learn may not transfer to your job or home life, but they CAN provide deep satisfaction.

Step Three

Never forget that volunteers want a sense of belonging. They may prefer to work independently, but even then, they will want to feel like what they've done contributes to a bigger effort. Corollary: Never forget that volunteers value the informal connections they get to make with other volunteers and staff.

Step Four

Be sure to appreciate volunteers for what they do. And be sure to appreciate volunteers for who they are.

If you follow this four-step attitude readjustment, you are on your way to becoming the sort of volunteer manager that volunteers want to work for. This will make it easier for you to recruit volunteers. And that brings us to....

C. Recruiting volunteers

i. Whom to recruit

When you are recruiting volunteers, target people whom you think will want to do the volunteer job, people who will be good at the volunteer job, people who will enjoy it. If you can't find anyone who will enjoy the volunteer job, and be good at it, and enjoy it — then you’re going to have to rewrite the job description.

As you consider whom to recruit, consider the life stages of potential volunteers, and target your recruitment accordingly:

1. People in their mid-to-late teens may be looking for one-year commitments during the school year as they build resumes, and explore vocation and avocation
2. People in their twenties may be building careers and finding life partners and frequently moving; short-term and one-shot commitments may work better for them; however, they may also be looking for ways to explore vocational and avocational possibilities so long-term serious commitments can also be attractive
3. People in their thirties and forties may be very focused on career and family, and therefore need flexible schedules and/or short-term commitments; because they tend to be so busy, they will appreciate built-in time to socialize; if they find a volunteer commitment they like they may stick to it for many years
4. People in their fifties and sixties may find themselves with more free time as they send children out of the house, and/or readjust their work-life balance; they may also find themselves sandwiched between children and aging parents, which may mean they will appreciate built-in time to socialize
5. People approaching retirement or who have just retired may be looking for major volunteer commitments; this is a good group to target for major volunteer commitments
6. People in their late sixties through early eighties are often the most productive volunteers in a congregation — especially if their volunteer commitments bring job satisfaction and continued personal growth
7. People late in life may need pull back from volunteer commitments as they spend more time managing their own health; like people in their twenties they may prefer short-term and one-shot commitments, or commitments they can do from home (phone calling, etc.)

ii. How to recruit

Recruiting volunteers is like being a matchmaker. Give prospective volunteers a chance to explore different volunteer possibilities. Help prospective volunteers find the positions that suit their needs and talents.

iii. What to do when someone says No

When someone says “No” to a volunteer opportunity, figure out why they said “No.” Did you present them with the wrong kind of volunteer opportunity? — if so, figure out what kind of volunteer opportunity would suit them. Is it difficult or impossible for them to volunteer right now? — if so, figure out when they might be available to volunteer. Did they say “No” because of a health problem or family crisis? — then for Pete’s sake be sure to tell whoever provides pastoral care in your congregation. But “No” pretty much NEVER means “No, Never, I Hate You” — so figure out what it DOES mean, and then figure out how you can turn that “No” to a “Yes” next time you ask.

D. Training volunteers

Once you recruit volunteers, they will all need training. Much training is informal, and informal training can be extremely effective, as long as you’re intentional about it.

i. Safety training

All volunteers need basic information about safety. All volunteers should have basic orientation in emergency evacuation procedures, and should know the location of first aid kits, etc. (this can be done with evacuation maps on the walls). Some volunteers need more elaborate training, e.g., volunteers working with legal minors need formal training in child protection. Also make sure volunteers have easy access to sexual harrassment policies, non-discrimination policies, and the like.

ii. In-service trainings

In-service training is often informal, with other volunteers showing new volunteers how things are done. Therefore, plan your volunteer schedules so that there's plenty of opportunity for new volunteers to interact with more experienced volunteers.

iii. Efficient trainings

Sometimes you need formal training — actual class-type offerings to train people for specific tasks. E.g., in one congregation we always had a formal training session for all the canvassers who will help out with the annual pledge campaign. Formal volunteer training needs to be efficient, because today's volunteers are time-crunched. But formal training also needs to be fun, so volunteers come out of the training feeling good. Take care planning formal training.

iv. Online trainings

To increase efficiency, ideally you will always offer formal training online. Online trainings should be scheduled for an hour, and they should always end early. It is best to end early and allow time for socializing. For example: schedule an hour-long training; complete it in 30 minutes; allow 15 minutes for socializing; then end early to give your volunteers a gift of 15 minutes of unscheduled time in their lives.

v. Self-directed online training

E. Motivating and Caring for Volunteers

Once you’ve recruited and trained your volunteers, how can you keep them on track and motivated? What’s that you say? Well, yes, you can bake cookies for them once a year, but honestly that’s not what most volunteers are looking for.

i. Provide goals and give regular feedback

F. Retaining volunteers

i. How to retain volunteers for the long haul

i. How to retain volunteers for the long haul: Every volunteer job has gotta be fun, it’s gotta be meaningful, and it’s gotta be cheerful. Being fun means that it’s a volunteer job someone willingly spends their precious spare time doing. Being meaningful might mean the volunteer job effects profound changes in the volunteer and the world, or it might simple mean that the volunteer sees it as something worth doing. Being cheerful means that it’s a pleasure, even a joy, to come be part of the organization.

ii. How to build a congregational culture of making volunteering normal and rewarding

Volunteering is no longer the norm in the U.S. We are now a consumer culture, where the default is to expect to pay for everything. So you’re going to have to work to make volunteering a normal part of congregational life. Making people feel guilty if they don’t volunteer is not a good way to normalize volunteering. Instead, you’ll want to constantly show how volunteering enriches the volunteer, while also improving the world. That means that as you build a positive culture of volunteerism in your congregation, you’ll want to build into that culture as a bedrock value that all volunteer jobs should be meaningful and rewarding.

iii. The volunteer manager plays a key role in retaining volunteers

If you’re losing volunteers in one area of the congregation, you might look at how that volunteer manager is operating. Another way of saying this: volunteer managers also have to be managed. Train all your volunteer managers in one-minute management techniques, and in situational leadership. And make sure your volunteer managers stay cheerful!

iii. The volunteer manager plays a key role in retaining volunteers

Sometimes you have to fire volunteers. When that happens, try to reframe it in your mind and heart like this: OK, maybe you’re firing the volunteer from this position, but you're also releasing that volunteer to do something else they’re better suited for.

v. Empowering volunteers

If volunteers feel disempowered, you won’t retain them. This means the volunteer managers should NOT micromanage their volunteers. A good way to prevent micromanagement is to train volunteer managers in situational leadership. Beyond that, experienced volunteers should be given wide latitude in their volunteer jobs to meet the stated gaosl of their volunteer position. Respond positively to volunteer-initiated innovation.

G. Creating Volunteer Job Descriptions

If you’ve been having trouble recruiting volunteers, consider writing up volunteer job descriptions for the most important volunteer jobs. A volunteer job description can clarify expectations, and help sell the job to prospective volunteers.

Volunteer Job Description Worksheet

Volunteer title: ______

Congregational mission: ______
[Example: “To transform ourselves, each other, and the world.” Or whatever your congregation’s mission statement is.]

Goal of this volunteer position: ______
[List the top-level goals for this volunteer job, i.e., at the end of a year, what do you hope this voluntter will have accomplished? Shorter-term objectives, such as what this volunteer is going to accomplish this week, need not be listed here.]

Time frame: ______
[How many hours per week? Are there specific required hours, or is this a self-scheduled volunteer job?]
[Are there required days? E.g., Sundays, weekdays, etc.]
[Does the volunteer need to do this job on-site, or can it be done from their home?]

Statement of Accountability: ______
[Enter the name and job title of the staff person or committee chair to whom this volunteer position reports. Also list the people who provide major support for this volunteer job, and whom the volunteer will regularly interact with.]
[List other people who can provide additional support, which may include paid staff, other volunteers in the same position, past holder of this volunteer job, etc.]

Responsibilities: ______
[Bulleted list of all tasks and responsibilities.]

Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities: ______
[Bulleted list of required (and desired) knowledge, skills, abilities.]

Benefits: ______
[List what joys and benefits the volunteer might expect from this job.]

Safety
[Think about what safety training this volunteer will need.]
[All volunteers should have some minimal safety training on emergency evacuations and building security]
[Will this volunteer be required to undergo annual criminal background checks (for those working with minors)?]
[Will this volunteer need a credit check and financial screen (for those responsible for finances)?]
[Will this volunteer need a driving violations background check (for those who drive others)?]

To apply for this volunteer position, contact: ______

Here’s a sample volunteer job description from the real world, to show you what one might look like when you make it all pretty:

6. More Info

The above essay represents merely a brief overview, plus there are many aspects of institutionalism where I’m not able to speak with authority. To learn more, try these sources: