CLASS

Over on another site the Lutherans have been discussing quotas, whether the ELCA has them or not. The discussion revolves around these word from the denominational constitution: “Except as otherwise provided in this constitution and bylaws, the churchwide organization, through the Church Council, shall establish processes that will ensure that at least 60 percent of the members of its assemblies, councils, committees, boards, and other organizational units shall be laypersons; that as nearly as possible, 50 percent of the lay members of these councils, committees, boards, or other organizational units shall be female and 50 percent shall be male, and that, where possible, the representation of ordained ministers shall be both female and male. At least 10 percent of the members of these assemblies, councils, committees, boards, or other organizational units shall be persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English. Processes shall be developed that will assure that in selecting staff there will be a balance of women and men, persons of color and persons whose primary language is other than English, laypersons, and persons on the roster of ordained ministers. This balance is to be evident in terms of both executive staff and support staff consistent with the inclusive policy of this church."

OK, you can call them quotas or not. It doesn’t matter to me. I think the object was to achieve a balance of representation in the governing bodies so there would be a range of views. That seems to me good in principle, though I am not sure the mechanism provided actually achieved this objective. Sometime people get rather creative in deciding who “persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English” are. Does it count if your primary language is Norwegian? (No.) What about Spanish? (Yes, unless you were born in Spain.) How about if you’re 12.5% Cherokee? (Probably.) I have a young person in my congregation who is French, Italian, Irish, Portuguese, Cape Verdean, Syrian and Lebanese. I’ve been tempted to ask officially if any of that qualifies him. Then, of course, there is the legalism when a conference is told this is the year you get to nominate a lay woman for a certain office when maybe you think your most qualified candidate is an African-American man. That’s not allowed.

What really concerns me, however, has been the denomination’s failure to look at class in addition to gender, race, and linguistic heritage. My guess is that the most under represented group in all the governing bodies outside of the local congregation is working class people. How many people on the national Church Council work at minimum wage jobs? How may are airline reservationists, machinists, auto mechanics, grocery checkers, Walmart greeters, farm hands? Almost none, I think. First, they couldn’t afford to serve on governing boards and committees and the like because they can’t take off time from work without losing pay. Second, who is going to elect or appoint a person who has a G.E.D. rather than the person with the Ph.D. in Psychology? Who will elect or appoint a shoe salesman over a lawyer?

And yet it is the shoe salesman and the auto mechanic and the Walmart greeter who often serves on Congregation Councils and who lead many congregations. No wonder the Higher Up Leadership is often out of touch with the local church. The representational principles work against a wide variety of people serving at higher levels. I doubt that anyone in the highest echelons would admit it, but there is a reluctance to have these ordinary working class people in decision-making positions above the congregation because they just wouldn’t get it right.

What led me to see this problem was the difficulties I encountered in trying to get local groups of churches to work together. Differences in social class were almost insurmountable. Two examples. First, we tried to form an inter-church single’s group that included–let us say– St. Simon’s near the Country Club and St. Bob’s by the Gas Station. When a get-together was proposed the St. Bob’s people thought of snacks like potato chips and dip with everybody bringing something and pitching in to set up and clean up. The St. Simon’s crowd thought of a catered affair with a hired waitress to serve and a professional clean-up team. St. Bob’s soon dropped out of the group. The St. Simon’s people didn’t miss them.

Second example, two churches are talking about a merger. At a social gathering of the two church councils, members of one council were making small talk about the evils of labor unions and overpaid employees. Three-fourths of the members of the other church council were blue-collar union members.  The merger never happened.

Now these are differences that would arise in many situations, so it is not surprising that they turn up among churches. What disturbs me is how seldom the class issue is brought up among Church Leaders in any meaningful way. It is the elephant in the room that no one mentions. I am not sure how to fix this problem without even more legalistic wrangling, but I’d like to hear concern expressed about it.  I don’t suppose that will happen anytime soon. I don’t think we’ve understood the depth of St. Paul’s words. “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28).

May the Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival.

Wayne




14227