Curt Collier – NYSEC Leader Blog

A group of us met the other night in the Ceremonial Hall for an initial discussion on creating a second service to complement our Platform.  (I use the term “service” as a general descriptor of religious gatherings, since in my mind “Platform” – a type of service – has a distinct format throughout most Ethical Societies).  The idea of the second service is to attract a new group of potential members to NYSEC, and additionally to develop an alternative format that a different crowd may find appealing.  It is not a replacement for our Sunday morning Platform, but rather an addition to it, although in a style different from the traditional Platform.  I find alternative formats exciting, have found them successful, and am happy that NYSEC has asked me to help create this program. 

 

Lyle Schaller, respected writer on church growth and dynamics, has researched and written extensively on the benefits and impact on churches that have added services and revealed that “Adding additional services is the most effective means for increasing attendance!”  While we are not a church, Societies too can benefit from additional gatherings.  For sure, simply adding an additional meeting time will not reap the desired benefits; rather the second service should be seen as an expansion of our current outreach to attract a new crowd to the Ethical Society, which will take a great deal of coordination, commitment, and planning.  The additional service is an opportunity for us to experiment with alternative formats (such as different styles of music) and engaging activities that outsiders might find attractive. 

 

What day of the week and at what time this additional service is to be held has yet to be decided, and I have been deeply considering all of your comments.  Perhaps if we had enough staff and volunteers a myriad of programs at different times and days of the week could be offered, but given our current pool of resources, that simply isn’t practical.  Our goal is to create a program that would have the broadest appeal to insure its success, with the hope that additional formats could be explored in the not so distant future.

 

I would like to state up front what the second service is not.  It is not another Platform – we already have one with a first rate line-up of speakers, and as I last checked, there is still plenty of room in the auditorium for newcomers.   It is not a discussion group, political/economic/educational forum, current issues gathering, orientation class, social action committee, singles group, advocacy faction, or an Ethical Culture workshop.  While the second service may contain some elements from each of the above, these bodies already exist at NYSEC, and our goal should be to funnel interested newcomers towards these groups. 

 

When considering a second service a great deal of thought needs to concern itself with the makeup of our target audience, for this gathering is not simply for us, but rather to attract potential newcomers.  If we are to grow NYSEC, we must ask ourselves the question “What do others want?”  Now we are not advocating changing the values and purpose of our Ethical mission simply to appeal to others, and I want the membership to understand this.  I am not interested in watering-down our emphasis on affirming worth and dignity or downplaying our call for others to act for Life in order to create some alien set of beliefs with mass appeal. Rather our focus is to create a format that encourages others to also affirm our deeply held convictions.   All we are changing is the style of the service to consider other ways of learning and being but the message will remain the same.

 

So where do we find these new people to fill our second service?  Despite the fact that there are 1,620,867 living in Manhattan (recent census), the truth of the matter is that the whopping majority of our new members will live on the Upper West Side (UWS) or Midtown.  I know this is hard for people to concede.  Surely, they might argue, our target audience is all of Manhattan.  However, as church demographers have proven time and time again, this simply ain’t so,   for a couple of reasons.  First, the two biggest reasons why people come to a new congregation (accounting for 75% of all newcomers) are that a friend told them about the place, or they saw it in their neighborhood.  As most of our membership lives on the Upper West Side, and as our building sits in this location, it would stand to reason why this would be so.  You may doubt the truth of this, but consider this.  We’ve been running programs for a hundred years in Manhattan, and yet still the majority of our Membership lives on the Upper West Side.  Despite the rapidly changing demographics of the UWS, our extensive advertising, our frequent mention on NPR, our radio broadcasts on WBAI, our extensive programming bringing in a broad range of guests, despite all of this, most of our MEMBERS live on the Upper West Side.   Second, and this sounds crazy I know, demographers point out that most people will join a congregation only if the commute to the building is 15 minutes or more shorter than their Monday morning commute.  I did a quick survey in the room with those gathered and with but one exception did that hold to be true.   Of course there are exceptions to all rules, but I doubt you will find a congregation in the United States where this isn’t the case for the majority of members.  People by and large go to and JOIN congregations in their neighborhoods.  To be sure, the Ethical Society can attract guests for an event, as has been proven time and time again (and perhaps they can lend financial support), but most of these people never join.  Perhaps the demographers are right; people who participate in the life of the community, who consider it their spiritual home, who give generously of their time and energy again and again will be neighbors.  That’s the way it is for most people. 

 

[A WORD ABOUT STATISTICS.   I don’t remember who said it, but there are basically two ways to lie; one is not to tell the truth, and the other is to use statistics.  I know that statistics can be used to distort the truth – just listen to the political debate - , however, what we are exploring here is a model, and hence we are using statistics only to assist us in understanding the model.  I’m using the figures below only to make a point which I believe generally to be true.  I’ve tried to use as accurate percentages as I can possibly find – and there are references for all of these – but the point is beyond the numbers.]

 

So who are these Upper West Siders/Midtowners, and what are their prospects for joining NYSEC?  Considering the commuting rule, I consider three zip codes to demarcate our target audience; essentially the three that line the western side of Central Park (10023, 10024, and10025), and the southern end of Central Park to the former Plaza Hotel (10019).  According to the recent census there are 256,632 people living in this area.  Let’s take this to be our target audience.  Now, we know that this number includes young children, deeply committed members of other religions, etc., who would never join the Ethical Society.  So we need to figure out what percentage of the above number are realistically candidates for joining NYSEC.  

 

What demographers teach us is that we can use our demographic “filters,” the various descriptors and realities of our current membership body, to filter out those candidates who would be most at home in our Ethical Society.  This process almost always upsets people, as they think we are intentionally screening people out.  But that’s simply not the case.  By and large, people tend to hang around with their Cohort, people who are more often like them than unlike them.   For example, you don’t see many 20 year old males partying with elderly matrons on a Saturday night (ok I got it, there are exceptions to every rule, but we’re looking for the mode, not the exception). Excluding family members and people you grew up with, by and large our friends are people like us.  For example, while some members of my own family are right wing Republicans – and I hang out with them – I don’t seek out right-wing Republicans for friendship.  Rather, I feel comfortable hanging out with people who feel about politics as I do, or who at least don’t try to convert me every time we are together.  When people start to congregate together, by a large they tend to self select.  It’s not that others don’t feel welcome, it’s just that some times we like to be with our “own” as it were.  A powerful example of this, demographers point out, is the usual makeup of congregations.  In some cases, religious identity trumps all other filters and you can have a truly diverse congregation.  But in most cases, congregants of a particular church or synagogue tend to share similar values, tastes, and commonalities.  They tend to gravitate towards one age or another (for example, the majority of participants in the Redeemer Church that meets in our building are young professionals, the majority of EC’ers are more elderly).  We did not set out to create a congregation with an older crowd, but a young couple with three tumbling boisterous tots probably would look for a congregation that not only needs their family needs, but where at a potluck the tolerance for kids running around is less an issue and where the children can meet their own peers. 

 

These are examples of demographic filters, and they are more powerful than we often give them credit, and we ignore them at our peril, for they hold sway over what kind of community we can create and how. So, using the demographics of the “average NYSEC member” as a guide, how many of the 256,632 people in our neighborhood would feel truly at home at NYSEC and would sign up as a member?

 

JOINERS VERSUS NONJOINERS

The first filter we need to apply is the joiners vs. nonjoiners filter.  What thousands of studies of Americans have revealed is that some people like to join organizations and some don’t.  In fact, nationwide, only 49% of American’s join religious institutions.  First become some are too young, or too incapacitated.  Perhaps some are too elderly or homebound, or lack the personality skills necessary to be a part of a group.  Perhaps they just like to be on their own.  No matter how much money you pour into your programming, no matter how powerful your message, no matter how friendly you appear to be, some Americans join and some don’t.  They might appreciate what we have to offer, but we all know people who don’t join organizations and I don’t want to go into all the reasons why (especially as researchers have pointed out that why people say they join and why they stay are often two different reasons).   Even the most active and fiscally endowed communities can’t change this filter, so let’s assume we can’t either.   Thus of the 256,632, realistically only 125,750 will ever even consider joining us.  Sure, we can get them to sign a petition, and they might even throw a buck our way (which is why other types of outreach are good), but they won’t join.  We are not in the entertaining business, we are in the community building “business,” and our religious ethics is about community building.  Committing to an Ethical Society means willing to participate in the life of the congregation, to lend support, to show up and vote, to pay dues, to sustain institutions which are on the frontline holding forth the worth and dignity of all..  I would rather focus my energy on those who would consider joining us in that process, than spending an enormous amount of resources on others who do not.  We are not here to amuse, we are here to build something authentic.

 

THEISTS VERSUS NONTHEISTS

When people are exploring joining a religious community whether or not that community believes in a God has considerable influence.  I believe Ethical Culture is neither a theistic nor an atheistic belief system.  Rather for most nontheists like myself, we simply don’t care one way or another knowing that it doesn’t effect our ethics.  Regardless of our “tolerance,” it’s not like we’re Unitarians with a humanist speaker one Sunday and a theist the next.  I don’t remember many Platforms on the power of prayer, as that’s not where most of us are.  We are aware, of course, that not’s true for most.  Although nationally 10% of Americans are “nonreligious” (which can include us, but also others that are not like us), the percentage on the Upper West Side (it has been argued) is much higher.  That’s probably because our cohort (the friends we hang around) aren’t God fearers, but trust me, the UWS has loads of theists, including a large fundamentalist church which meets right inside our doors packed with fervent believers each Sunday morning.   While they might tolerate a Sunday guest who doesn’t preach God, that’s probably not where they would want to stay.  Thus, the theist/nontheist demographic filter has a huge effect.  Let’s see, of the 125,750 possible joiners, only 10% of those searching for a new congregation to join would call NYSEC home.  That leaves a pool of 12,575 possible members – certainly enough to pack our doors. Why didn’t I put that number higher?  Because despite the fact that there are more nonbelievers on the UWS, surely some of them are fervent atheists who also wouldn’t feel comfortable with our nontheism.  Next Sunday, walk down to Columbus Circle and surely you’ll see the Atheist of New York actively recruiting.  Yet why aren’t they with us?  Perhaps because we are also not comfortable with speakers condemning all religions.  My experience is that try as I can to be accommodating, most fervent atheists – those who feel our mission is to consistently advocate atheism – usually don’t stay members.  The Atheist Group already has meetings in Kennedy’s Restaurant near Columbus Circle.  For some, that is their cohort.  Thus, I have used the general average of 10%

 

RACE

Sociologists have called Sunday morning the most segregated hour in America.  It is a sad state of affairs when the definition for a “racially diverse church,” means that only 20% of church membership is not of the majority race.  Blacks by and large join mostly Black congregations, Whites join mostly White congregations, Asians join mostly Asian congregations.  It is a demographic filter of considerable power.  Churches have spent millions trying to buck the trend, but to little lasting effect. If NYSEC was mostly Hispanic, it would attract more Hispanics, but because it is mostly White, mostly Whites feel comfortable staying.  Once again, I’m sure this upsets people.  I can hear someone arguing that there is definitely a sprinkling of other races at NYSEC and just because we are mostly White doesn’t mean we are racists.  No one is implying racism.  Rather, demographers point out that this is just another cohort filter, and despite our best intentions (or our long term goals to become more diverse) Whites are probably more likely to join NYSEC.  The way to increase diversity is to put people of diversity in positions of power, have them lead our services, and focus 90% of our time on issues of immediate concern to that cohort, not hold an MLK memorial with the all Black congregation down the street.  Of the 12,575 nontheistic joiners in our target area, 66% are white.  That means there are still 8,299 potential members who would feel most at home at NYSEC.

 

INTELLECTUAL ACCESSIBILITY

Here is something that most church goers DON’T DO.  They don’t check the calendar to look up who the speaker is and what the sermon is about.  They go to church to experience God, not to think about him. Most churches, including the one that meets in our doors, don’t even publish Sermon titles until the bulletin is printed for that Sunday. Most of the titles of our Sunday morning gatherings sound like articles in “Congressional Quarterly” or the “New Yorker.”  The fact is we enjoy these kinds of talks and the term “too intellectual” – which is often leveled against us as a term of disparagement, is looked upon by us as a source of pride.   Even when we are talking about personal issues, our verbiage (as Sarah Palin misspoke recently) belies our advanced educational background – or at least our pleasure at being around smart people with smart ideas.  Now I for one know that there are all kinds of intelligence, and this is not to say that everyone can’t appreciate Public Television, but the fact that there are more TV stations like “Entertainment Channel,” says something about the kinds of language and topics most Americans find appealing (or perhaps I’m being an elitist).  The disparaging term “elitist” bandied about this campaign season is not that some are rich – most politicians today are millionaires, but about how we communicate ideas.  This may have been one of the reasons why Kerry couldn’t connect with the voters like Bush could. When talking again about cohorts, educational attainment is also one of the ways that we congregate.  Of the 8,299 nontheistic white joiners living on the UWS/MT area, a whopping 68% of them have college degrees. This is way above the national average, and certainly explains the plethora of cultural institutions in our area, and perhaps one of the reasons why the “Sermon” for Sunday next is:  “City of Disorder: How the Quality-of-Life Campaign Transformed New York Politics.”  That filter still leaves us with 5,644 potential members.

 

THE LEFTY CLUB

We are progressive people and the issues we champion are progressive.  Dare we call ourselves Liberals as well?  Our Platforms aren’t about letting the free market do its thing, but why this practice may and have led to economic destruction and the diminishment of our social security net.  We don’t advocate “peace through superior military strength,” but peace as the way to peace.  The myth, however, is that all of the Upper West Side is on the political Left, but voting records don’t bear this out.  Surely more people on the UWS vote Democratic (69%) but not all and in fact a survey of campaign contributions of those living immediately next to the Society reveal a lot of Republican donors.  Do Conservatives feel welcome at NYSEC?  I leave that up to you, but certainly the issues we pursue and the Platforms we give don’t resonate with many Conservatives.  Quite the contrary, we have created a home for Lefties, and for many, proudly so.  Of the 5,644 nontheistic, white, joiners who enjoy intellectual talks on antinomianism (part of my sermon this Sunday) and who would rally behind our progressive ethical actions, 3,894 could still call NYSEC home.

 

AGE COHORT

This is one reality that we all understand and lament the most.  When you were a teenager, you hung around teens.  In your twenties your friends were the same.  In the 30’s and 40’s, you allowed your range to broaden a bit, but still your choice of music, your entertainment, what you did with your Saturday nights – all of these were with your peers.  This is one of those things that despite how “hip” we might act (even that word shows our age), people tend to hang around people of their own age.  If a 27 year old female comes into the Society looking for friendship and a network of support, and if she instead finds senior citizens, she may stay for the friendliness of one here and there, but as we have seen more often than not she drifts away.  Conversations are different.  Thirty-somethings talking about schools for their children are more interested in meeting those facing similar challenges.  Fifty year olds dealing with aging parents face a different set of challenges.  So, if someone walks into the Ethical Society, which cohort are they bound to encounter?  New York City is filled with young people and the UWS’s average age is 38 years of age (nearly a full decade younger than me).  Hard to believe, but it’s true.  According to the demographics in our target area 45 year olds and up account for only 35% of the local population.  That means it’s a pretty young crowd out there.   It also means that of the 3,894 white, nontheistic, educated, lefty joiners out there only 1,362 of them are within the same age cohort as the majority of our membership and would find friends there age.  Still enough to pack the aisles.

 

A MATTER OF TASTE –

We now come to one of these most contentious and yet revealing demographic filters.  The Personality Type Indicator developed by mother-daughter sociologists Myers-Briggs used four indicators on a continuum to determine our preferences for the ways we process information, draw energy, organize facts, and relate to others.  For example, one indicator was whether or not a person is more extroverted or more introverted and how we prefer to communicate.  Another scale recorded whether we like to process information through experiences or through ideas.  Yet another considered whether we were more tough minded or more tender hearted.  Finally, whether we liked to keep things loose and easy, or organized and decided.  These scales of course were only preferences…while I definitely like to keep things handy and see how they turn out, I have learned to be very organized as people are depending on me, yet if things change rapidly I can let them go.  The MBTI came up with 16 personality preferences based on these indicators, and a myriad of research has sprung up since the creation of the Indicator. 

 

One of the more interesting books I’ve read on the subject was Peter Tuft Richardson’s “Four Spiritualities.”  Richardson (a UU minister) used two of the scales – the N/S continuum and the T/F continuum to discuss how the combination of these two preference indicators might impact people’s spirituality preferences.  For brevity’s sake, let’s look at the N/S continuum and how this might play out.  “S” types (remember these are preferences), PREFER to take in information through their five senses.  They like to focus on concrete facts rather than speculating on abstractions.  They will allow themselves to have an experience – usually one rich in sensual data, and then will use this experience to formulate an opinion.  “N” types tend to focus on the “big picture,” and often overlook sense data – which may seem more like a distraction – and focus more on ideas.  They tend to be more analytical, creating an opinion then allowing themselves to have an experience to see if it confirms their hypothesis. 

 

Richardson envisioned what an “S” congregation might look like.  There would be tons of sense data.  As you entered you would see beautiful rich art, you would hear lofty music which is central to the service rather than a mere adornment.  You might kneel, sit, or stand.  You might eat or drink something.  Words are less important than creating the right experience, only a simple message to resonate with the moment.  Richardson suggested an “N” style congregation would be much different.  The room would be simply adorned – perhaps with clear paned windows.  The address would have an educational them, perhaps with poetry or classical music as an afterthought.  The exploration of ideas through reasoned inquiry would be the focus of the service.  (Starting to sound familiar).  It’s more than coincidence that when Catholics were tested with the MBTI, 76% of them according to a recent study were “S” types.  When we tested most of the Leaders, a number of Society Board members, and most of the Summer School students (who represent much of the current secular leadership across our movement), the whopping majority were “N” types.  This begs the question; did we create a Platform style than over time attracted more “N” types or vice versa.  In either regard, we are a very “N” style of religious movement.  However, when MBTI researchers tested the general population, they found that only 24% of American’s are “N” types, 76% are “S” types.  To what extent has our Platform “styles” influenced who stays in our communities?  This is a very interesting question, but the fact that so many of us are “N” types must give us pause.  Thus, of the 1,362 white nontheistic, intellectually leaning, lefty joiners who are 45 years old and up, 327 would also prefer our “N” style of religious programming. 

 

The upshot of all these demographic filters is that of the 256,632 people living within easy commuting to NYSEC, demographers would argue that only 327 would really find the Ethical Society a perfect fit.  The Ethical Society currently has 230 members.  Are we not doing our best…why haven’t we met even the 327 prime?   First off, we do have competitors for this pool; 4^th Universalist to our immediate north and the Society for Humanistic Judaism to our immediate South (and the Atheists Alliance in our neighborhood), all share a similar demographic attraction.  4^th Universalist reports 150 members on their website.  Rabbi Peter told me last Sunday that he also has 150 “households” (realizing that some households would have one person). The fact that we have as many members as we do reveals that we are above what would have been predicated for us.   In fact, when I apply these demographic filters across our Movement I can argue that many of our Society’s are in fact doing better than what was predicated for them.  I think that lamenting why our congregations are small and trying to lay blame completely misses the point and is unfairly inaccurate.  I also believe that simply pouring more money into the same is a recipe for failure.  Frankly, we are getting more than our market share. 

 

Yet, 230 members seems hardly a reason to celebrate, and I might argue that what we have created is a congregation that is exactly like us.  But is that what our mission calls us to do?  Isn’t there anything we can do?  I think there is; add a second service that meets the needs of others outside our demographic cohort. 

 

WHAT CAN WE DO?         

The first thing we need to do is to stop beating ourselves for our small congregations.  I think, given our potential membership pool we are actually very successful.  But, if we do want to grow, all we need to do is to continue many of our successful practices but make a few changes.  What, then, could we change?

 

• You are not going to buck the joiners/nonjoiners schtick.  Better organized groups than us have tried and failed.

 

• Non Theism.  This is a biggie accounting for one of the largest demographic filters.  Should we then suddenly embrace Theism?  Hardly.  Ethical Culture’s way of Life is relationally focused, not transcendentally focused.  Our spirituality is found in the way in which we engage the world, creating transformative experiences in the act of affirming the worth of others and as they extend care in return.  We extend this to the circle of Life around us as well, recognizing what our world has given us in return.  This is neither atheism nor theism.  Instead, it’s a way of Life…a practice for living to our fullest.  Introducing a “third party” into the process is unnecessary and complicates the relationships.  That, at least for me, is the extent of my feelings on God.  If some of my members are theists, I don’t care, unless that theism interferes with the process above.  If some of my members are atheists, I don’t care either, unless that atheism interferes as well.  We can play with the edges a little bit, but frankly if a person comes into our Society looking for God, they probably won’t be happy.  (Just as some atheists wish we would take a “stronger stand” against traditional religion).  So, while some agnostics might find a home with us, I doubt the demographic filter can be changed much. 

 

• Race.  I want us to be diverse.  I believe, our way of Life believes in diversity and thus I feel we need to be committed to creating a diverse congregation.  Our belief in diversity should be palpable.  We need to show we mean this by inviting individuals of different backgrounds to play an active role in our ministry (not just serving as an usher).   Our second service will have “touches of home” in it that resonates with others.  Songs sung in Spanish, Indian music, Dominican food, festivals, are just some of the touches I added in RYSEC that at least paid respect to those in my audience (and which helped Riverdale to evolve into the most diverse congregation in the Movement).  I don’t want to go too much into this here, as this would require another dissertation, but it’s something a group of us need to plan for.  That being said, the truth is few congregations in the United States are successful in bucking the trend to segregate. That doesn’t let us off the hook, but it does tell us to be realistic in our expectations.  We must do what we need to do, but the return on “investment” will be limited. 

 

• Too intellectual?  The second service won’t be another Platform.  Not only that, but we won’t be exploring issues with the complexity and thoroughness they warrant in the Platform.  The experience will be more about us than policy or issues, and the language will be natural.  There is a time and place for this; Platform, Forums, Current Issues groups, etc.  But as I stated at the outset, that’s not what the second service shall be.  For sure, this won’t be a “dumbing down,” such as we are witnessing all across America, but it will be a place where the college professor and the carpenter can find common ground, a place where our similarities rather than our differences can be explored.

 

• Our lefty bias.  Here is where I struggle.  I see my actions as tied to my values.  I value, among others, openness, fairness, diversity, equality, ecology, and community.  I believe my politics is a way to achieve those goals.  However, I don’t believe that political identity should separate us, for if we pull people apart rather than finding ways to bring them together than I believe we have failed the central belief of Ethical Culture.  But I do have a very strong “no” coming deeply out of my convictions.  I am strongly left of center (heck I’m often left of left) but I have often bit my tongue to keep family and friends together.  I think there is wisdom in that because others are more important than policy.  The second service will be about actions, and for sure many on the conservative side will be in conflict with those values.  But I am also about addressing the wants and needs of both sides, collaborating, showing respect, paying dues, and putting community above party affiliation.  We can strive, but this demographic filter, at least for those who come with first impressions and don’t give us time to connect, will probably remain in play. 

 

• Ageism.  When a young person walks in the door and all they see are “old people” chances are they won’t remain.  Should we therefore create a program only for 20 year olds?  No, especially as I don’t think age is a number.  I like being myself.  I like partying till dawn, skiing, canoeing rapids, margaritas, rock music so loud my ears ring, dancing at weddings, gore flicks, scaring my friends, getting scared by friends, flying to Europe and then driving to seven countries in 6 days, eating extremely spicy food, Las Vegas three-day blowouts, whiskey, and hurricane parties.  I also like gardening, art museums, theatre, poetry readings, dinner parties, reading, studying history, nature walks, and crocheting.  The result is that I have friends who are 25 and friends who are 85.  If I only did the first list, I would be dead in two weeks.  If I did only the second list, I would be dead in two weeks.  Like all of Life, the trick is to strike a balance.  Our second service should include elements and activities that appeal to all ages, neither too young nor too old.  Yet, you cannot create a program that appeals to both at the same time (leads to a disaster), but you can build in the kind of trust that eventually everyone will get something out of it.  Our goal is a service for the young of heart….be they 25 or 85. 

 

• After the theist/nontheist divide, one of the largest demographic filters – and the one most in our control, is the “style” of the second service.  More than any other factor, this is something that all Societies can experiment with that could lead to the greatest return on investment. For example, if we were only to change from an “N” style format to an “S” style of format, and left all other demographic filters as they are, our pool of potential new members would jump from 327 to 1321 people – an increase by a thousand people.  Enough to fill both the 800 seat Auditorium and the 150 Ceremonial Hall at the same time.  You can see why this experiment is so appealing.

 

Our Second Service

My vote is that we focus mostly on creating an “S” style of service.  That doesn’t mean we don’t pay attention to the other filters (at least those within our control), but my experience is that this is one area we real can have some control over.  Of course, when you create a second service with an “S” style format, your going to get some reaction from the “N” types who don’t connect with the format.  At worse, they will say that this new way of meeting “isn’t Ethical Culture,” a charge I’ve heard before.  But I beg to differ.  Isn’t it possible that our central ideas can be presented in an “S” style format – of course they can.  But it is true that they won’t look like Platform.  What, then, would an “S” style of service look like?  I confess, I’m still trying to understand this as well, and have been doing a great deal of reading on the subject.  Here are some musings on how the ideas of EC might resonate within an “S” style gathering.  This list is by no means extensive, and in true “N” fashion (I am Mr. ENFP) specific details have been left out which would make “S” types cringe.  I have incorporated statements about “S” types from my reading on the subject.

 

• The second service will be about service, meaning about action.  It won’t be talking about action, it won’t be a committee exploring what to do, it will be doing and then reflecting.  “S” types like to work with their hands and learning through doing.  Each person who participates in the service will have a job and a role to play.

 

• The second service will be about identity, meaning a clear cut set of expectations and statements of belief.  Affirming worth and dignity will not simply be a good suggestion, but the process by which we experience holiness.  If it is not palpable, it’s not real. We are all witness to ethical religion. 

 

• The second service will be about people, not simply about ideas.  Through stories, drama, music and sharing the second service will be about how individuals live their ethical faith. 

 

• The second service will be about reverence; about being humble before the wonderment of Life.  It will be about a sense of piety – of devotion to the interconnected web of Life of which we are all a part.  It will also be about joy – with laughter as an outcome of our gathering. 

 

• The second service will use sights, sounds, aromas, food, and movement/touch to create experiences that give rise to a physical expression of our ethical ideals.  It will challenge people to do the same in their life. 

 

• The second service will be easy to follow, will employ elements that some call “the rules of social decorum,” and what others simply call ritual. 

 

Two Closing Thoughts

Researchers have repeatedly shown that why people come to new congregations and why they stay are two different things.  The Alban Institute (a church growth think-tank) asked 35,000 people, who were exploring different religious communities, why they joined the congregation that they did, and came up with a varied list.  They then looked deeper to see what commonalities they could find, but basically didn’t see the connection, until one researcher looked at the number of new friends that these people had made as a result of joining that congregation.  Not so surprisingly, if within 6 months of participating in the life of that community the newcomer could name 7 new friends, then 75% joined that congregation.  Making connections is what it is all about. 

 

Our second service will have two focuses; one to create a format that has the broadest appeal, and second – and just as importantly, – to create the mechanisms that incorporate these newcomers into the life of our community.  That is, to ensure that they are meeting people and developing friendships. Hey, isn’t that what we all want?

 

Second, there is one thing that 30 year olds have today that they did not have in the 1950’s during the heyday of church growth (and within our Societies as well).  Babies.  People are waiting later and later to have children, after they have established careers, worked on their relationships, and seen the world.  According to a recent census, 35% of Upper West Siders have children under 5 years of age!  If a new family comes to our second service with tots and strollers in tow, how will we accommodate them?  These are the same people who spend thousands on their daycare centers, shopping for the one that can provide their children with the best experiences possible.  If we don’t provide some sort of childcare, we will create an additional demographic filter that will lower our pool of potential new members.  I need your help in figuring this one out.