CONGREGATION-CENTERED ORGANIZING:
A STRATEGY FOR GROWING STRONGER COMMUNITIES
by Mark I. Wegener

We used to call it "church-based organizing." The idea went like this: if churches would form ecumenical coalitions they could be powerful agents for addressing such issues as crime and drugs, substandard schools, lack of jobs, eroding housing stock, and the like.

When churches and other neighborhood groups band together, they can hold public officials ac­countable, confront antisocial elements, encourage citizen participation, and in general build stronger communities
.

Now we are calling it "congregation-centered organizing." The idea goes like this: the most valuable gift a church can give its neighborhood is its own presence as a robust, lively spiritual com­munity.
 

So we focus as much on building the internal strength of our congregations as we do on build­ing stronger communities in our neighborhoods. Congregational in-reach goes hand in hand with community out-reach.
 

Many of the strategies are the same, of course, because whether our organizing is church-based or congregation-centered, both are built on the premise that we need to foster a sense of community based on our shared values.
 

And the basic way of doing that is by creating a network of public relationships with our fellow members and our fellow citizens. In this way we can build powerful organizations that will promote our self-interests for the good of our communities.

"Power" Is Not a Bad Word

Some people are put off by the blatant appeal to power, which is an integral part of congrega­tion-centered organizing. We tend to think of power as manipulative, as domineering, as too political, as "power over" someone else, and we suspect such power is out of keeping with our Christian values. We recall Lord Acton's famous dictum: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

More recently, however, we have come to recognize that power in and of itself is neither good nor bad. Power is nothing more than the ability to accomplish something.

Whether the goal is to accomplish something helpful or harmful is another question, but power itself is a necessary ingredient for any action. Power is constitutive of life.

Think of some of the positive ways power is treated in our scriptures. Whether the technical term is exousia, sometimes translated as "author­ity," or dynamis, usually rendered as "power," the New Testament often uses the concept in a positive and godly manner.

Thus Jesus is said to have had a reputation for ministering "with authority and power" (Luke 4:36), and he gave his disciples "authority ... over all the power of the enemy." (Luke 10:19)

After his resurrection, according to Matthew (28:18), he reminded them that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me," and then he assured his followers that he will be with us to the very end. And before his ascension, according to Luke (Acts 1:8), he promised his followers that "'you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you."

St. Paul was not afraid to admit to the Philippians (3:10) that he wanted "to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his suffering." When he described his ministry to the Thessalonians, he insisted that "our mes­sage of the gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit with full conviction." (1 Thess. 1:5)

And years later he could assure the Romans (1:16) that the Gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith."

You can't frame an entire theology of power on a handful of selected texts. But these examples should demonstrate that the concept of power is a respected and valuable scriptural concept.

More to the point is the question whether we will accumulate power in God-pleasing ways and for God-pleasing purposes. We need to focus not on "power over" but on "power with."

And Neither Is "Self-Interest"

Such power is generated by and expended on behalf of our mutual self-interest. Which can be another off-putting phrase. At first glance a phrase like "self-interest" looks too much like "selfishness," and we all know that Christian people are not supposed to be selfish.

If Jesus taught us anything, it is that we are to be self-giving; we are to promote the welfare of others, if necessary even at the expense of sacri­ficing ourselves.

Self-denial, self-giving, selfishness, self-love, selflessness, self-interest-it may not be easy to sort these concepts out clearly.

For starters, imagine that "selfish" is at one end of the spectrum and "selfless" is at the opposite end. Clearly, selfishness is not in keeping with our Christian principles, because if you are selfish you want everything for yourself and nothing for your neighbor.

On the other hand, selflessness may not be commendable either. For if you were completely selfless, you would try to take everything away from yourself and give it to your neighbor. Ultimately, if one were entirely self-less, there would be no self left! It would be a kind of suicide.

Think of "self-interest" as the middle term between "selfish" and "selfless," and recognize that our self-interest is never a personally private matter. Our self-interest is always formed in the context of the people around us whom we respect and admire.

So what we are promoting is our mutual self-interest, which is a product of the values we share together. When Jesus and Paul commanded us to "love your neighbor as yourself," (Mark 12:31, Romans 13:9) they were appealing to an appropriate form of self-interest, one that respects both our own and our neighbor's needs.

Thus in the context of congregation-centered organizing, "self-interest" is always a short-hand term for "our mutual self-interest based on our shared values."

So when Christian people and responsible citizens can work together on the basis of their shared values and mutual self-interest, we can more powerfully and effectively strive for the common good of the communities and neighbor­hoods in which we live and work and play. In short-and properly understood!- self-interest is the key to effective organizing. 

How and Why We Organize People

Furthermore, congregation-centered organizing is a grass-roots movement. If an organization is to become powerful, it must learn to organize money and people.

Most of our churches and community groups do not have a lot of money, but we do have access to people. In fact, we are in the people business, and we intend to grow stronger and stronger by intentionally establishing relationships with more and more people.

The basic tactic is to make one-on-one visits with our neighbors. We make an appointment to visit with them for half an hour or 45 minutes. As we talk together we make every effort to hear their concerns and to determine what values they hold dear. We look particularly for the issues that are most important for the health of our communities and congregations.

We know that when we find many people sharing the same concerns and values, then we are in a position to work and act together. And we know that these are the people we can enlist to support us in our actions.

One-on-one visits are a method for establishing public relationships. These are not attempts at making personal friendships; rather, they are for building public power for effective action.

The entire process has a decidedly democratic flavor; it is bottom-up, not top-down. It assumes that the people who live in a community are the ones who should determine its values and set its agenda.

Oftentimes, however, other powerful forces determine the agendas of our societies. Some­times these are anti-social criminal forces.

Other times they are the vested political and business interests. If ordinary people are to sit at the table with representatives of the establishment, we too must be able to represent powerful coali­tions of like-minded people.

Power speaks to power. And when committed individuals and congregations and other groups can band together in powerful organizations, they are in a position to take significant action on the issues that reflect their values and affect the lives of their communities.

Actions Where Everyone Wins

Church-based organizations do not try to solve problems. Problems will always be there, and we cannot afford to waste our energy fixing unending problems. We do, however, take specific actions on clearly defined issues.

The distinction is important. Drug abuse, for example, is a "problem" that promises never to go away; however, a crack house at a particular location in our neighborhood is a specific "issue" we can address.

Before we undertake a public action, first we need to be sure that a victory will be an assertion of our shared values. The issue must be black or white, not muddied and grey. For if we are not agreed on the goal, we don't do it. We do not dissipate our power by indecision.

Second, we make sure we can identify some individual who is in a position to make a decision or effect meaningful change and with whom we can establish a public relationship. So in one case the person may be an elected official; in another case it may be a landlord; in another case, a business owner; in another, a corporate officer; in another, a political bureaucrat.

In every case we focus on some responsible individual with whom we can reach an agreement and with whom we can establish mutual accountability.

Third, we don't bite off more than we can chew. We do not undertake actions unless we are confident we can win. For we refuse to waste our power by tilting at windmills. And in the end every successful action will help build the power base of the organization.

But most importantly, we work for win-win solutions to all the issues we address. For example, suppose residents on a block discover that one of the rental properties on their street has become a crack house. Reporting the drug dealing to the police may or may not be an effective way of dealing with this issue.

Another approach is for the residents to organize and confront the owner of the property and hold the absentee landlord responsible. Specifically, they might negotiate with the owner to help screen the next renters, in which case everyone wins: the people on the block get better neighbors, and the landlord gets responsible tenants.

In short, congregation-centered organizations address specific issues by devising ways in which everyone wins, in ways which respect the self interests of all responsible parties.

A Handful of Caveats

We expect that some people will object to organizing church people for such public, powerful, even political purposes. Occasionally such objections are raised by politicians and business leaders, who sometimes feel challenged or even threatened when the voices of ordinary citizens demand a hearing.

More often the objections come from within church circles: Why should we expend our peop­le's energies on such "outside" efforts in the public arena? Won't that dissipate the resources we will have available for our more traditional ministries?

Those of us involved in congregation-centered organizing have discovered that responsible action in the public sphere tends to raise up new leaders and tap otherwise unused resources. People who would never consider participating in regular church committees and programs get excited when challenged to try a non-traditional approach to ministry.

Clearly, organizing in powerful and public directions is not appealing to everyone, but for some it taps a strong desire to let their faith values impact their public lives.

More importantly, objectors question whether such blatant appeals to power and self-interest are compatible with our scriptural principles and our Lutheran ethic.

Those who reflect on Martin Luther's doctrine of "the two kingdoms" must wonder whether church-based organizations are confusing God's left-hand kingdom of political reality (which is ruled by Law) with the right-hand kingdom of divine grace (which is ruled by the Gospel).

In 1523 Luther touched on this subject as he reflected on how far one should obey temporal authority. He insisted that "one must carefully distinguish between these two governments. Both must be permitted to remain; the one to produce righteousness, the other to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds." (LW 45:92)

But he also recognized that in this world Christians are seriously outnumbered, and therefore Christian people are required to use the normal political processes in order to fulfill the command to love one's neighbor! "No Christian shall wield or invoke the sword for himself and his cause," he admitted. But then he added, "In behalf of another, however, he may and should wield it and invoke it to restrain wickedness and to defend godliness." (LW 45: 103)

When congregation-centered organizations wield power in the political arena in order to foster the shared values of their neighbors, that is a good example of living out Luther's agenda. More importantly, it's a good way of embodying solid New Testament principles.

When Jesus got serious about calling his followers to true discipleship, he made it clear that he would not tolerate any self-aggrandizing schemes. "If any want to become my followers," he said, "let them take up their cross and follow me."

When translated into our own lives, the call to follow Jesus to the cross is often a summons to funnel our personal agendas into a cause that will benefit a larger number of our neighbors

.

And when St. Paul reflected on Jesus' principles he recognized that true power does not come from one's own strength; it comes from Christ. "I came to you in weakness," he told the Corinthians, "and I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor. 2:2-3) And later he added, "So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me." (2 Cor. 12:9)

National Organizing Networks

Four major organizing networks work through­out the United States: the Gamaliel Foundation, the Industrial Areas Foundation (both head­quartered in Chicago), the Pacific Institute for Community Organizations  and the Direct Action Resource Training group (in Miami).

They include churches across the ecumenical spectrum: Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, UCC, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopal, AME, CGOIC, independent, etc. And in most locals they are in racially mixed organizations, with white; black and Hispanic constituents. It's a healthy mix. It's good for our churches. It's good for our people. And most importantly it is good for our communities.

A version of this article first appeared in the October 1996 issue of InterAct, a publication of the Minneapolis Area Synod of'the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

*For helpful introductions to the work of Gamaliel, IAF, PICO, and DART, see Gordon E. Simmons, "Rules for Radical Pastors," Lutheran Partners (January­February 1998) 20-23; or
 

Helene Slessarev, "Saul Alinsky Goes to Church," Sojourners (March-April 2000), 22-25; or
 

Mark Wegener, "Investing in Strong(er) Communities," Lutheran Partners (July­-August 2000) 15-19; or
 

Robert S. Bachelder, "Building Communities from the Inside Out," Christian Century (August 2-9, 2000) 802-804; or

Stephen Hart, "Getting Organized: Faith-based Alliances Make a Difference," Christian Century (November 7, 2001) 20-25.

The Document Library of the GNCC

Congregational  development