There is a lot of evidence that congregations in general – and thus, we assume, progressive religious communities as well – that focus mostly on the needs of their members as individuals do not do as well as congregations that emphasize working to build a more humane world. The individually-focused communities do not have as much member satisfaction and don’t have as much financial stability. It turns out, that may not align with common sense, but actively making a difference in the world makes people want to contribute time and treasure! (continued below)
There are very different ways that progressive religious congregations can approach social justice. Here are some models I’ve seen, with some pluses and minuse of each. Some groups combine approaches, though that can be difficult and generate conflict over expectations.
Many of the members of the group, if not most, are already doing work on social justice in their own lives or in their jobs. They come together in community, knowing that different people are already investing a lot of their energy in social justice work, for a variety of reasons:
to see the connected web of many different ways of working for change and justice – and thus to see their own work as part of a greater whole, giving hope
to get emotional and moral support to help them have the strength to do the work they are already doing
to network and exchange ideas
such groups often focus more on hearing about social issues (including drawing on members with expertise) and providing emotional and moral support including playing together
those looking for an outlet to begin working on some cause may not find satisfaction, unless the congregation also embodies some aspects of #2 below.
The group as a whole serves as a host or incubator for social justice work. In this kind of group,
there is a lot of grant-writing and fund-raising for specific projects
the members do not stay in leadership in the projects past a certain time, empowering the groups to be self-sustaining (if the people being “served” are not empowered, then the focus is maintaining the sponsoring group and risks becoming virtue signaling)
the community benefit for those who join comes from working together on these projects, thus the community will mainly draw people who want to and have time to work on these new projects
the group will survive or thrive if the mission of the group stays central in choosing projects, if there is some way for members to get emotional support in times of joy and sorrow, and if the projects are not focused on members “feeling like they’re doing something” but actually listen to, involve, and empower people who are the targets of those projects
people who come for other needs than to work on a project will likely not stay around
Most of the people in the group are working on one or two issues, if they are working on anything. (For humanistic groups, some focus, for instance, on religious liberty.) In this form, the community:
provides emotional and moral support for doing those projects well
recruits new folks into the work of those projects, and then into the community
may not feel welcoming to those not working on those projects
When the group is located in a state or region where progressive voices are generally not welcome, the community can serve as a sanctuary. The group
has a lot of community-building and networking functions so that people feel the strength of numbers and some relief and hope that they might not feel as an isolated person in the minority
will likely join coalitions of other progressives working for change rather than starting their own projects, or at least individual members will do so
may organize projects and events that challenge the non-progressive norms, though sometimes at great risk
may lose those who think they are “walking the talk” if there is not action as some kind of project
may lose some of those who come for sanctuary if other members are dismissive of them in their particular identity or cause
If the group considers itself as mainly a social group or club for those who share ideas on progressive religion or humanism, the group may not even see itself as needing to be progressive on social issues.
social justice work is seen as something outside the community
the group may actively value the diversity of attitudes within the group towards the public realm (“politics”), and may thus welcome a diversity of ideas from radical to reform to conservative to reactionary – and so it avoids talking about such ideas or becomes embroiled in bickering
these groups will lose those who value action in the public realm (at whatever position they take) or who hold their ideas with any level of passion
The group consists of people who are generally individually progressive, but are not very active.
the community can try to organize at least some of those who aren’t active in a way that transforms the group into one of the other forms
often, these groups end up focusing on talking, complaining, or arguing and aren’t likely to grow or even be sustainable – you may hear such groups characterized as “all talk, no action” by neighbors
Do any of these sound familiar to you? What would it be like to take a step back, to take a “balcony view,” and see if what your group is doing is working well or could change?