Good Church

The big discussion happening right now in the Unitarian Universalist circles is Rev. Peter Morales' essay on Congregations and Beyond, an essay on the future and growth of Unitarian Universalism. There's a wiki collection of the discussions happening, along with a pretty great storify, summarizing the earlier part of the conversation.

As I read the conversations in the various facebook growth labs, I often want to hand everyone a copy of Michael Kaiser's The Art of the Turnaround. Michael Kaiser is the current director of the Kennedy Center and has been involved with saving multiple struggling arts organizations, including Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre, whose performances rank up on my list of most spiritual experiences. Kaiser is a somewhat controversial figure in the arts community, because while he is one of the most gifted public speakers for the arts, he is also one of the most inept bloggers. (Which is why I would direct Unitarian Universalists to his book or to one of his speeches, NOT to his blog.)

I often feel that the church could learn from the arts and vice-versa. But Kaiser has a pretty intelligent overview on how to grow arts organizations that I believe could be translated for congregations.

It's a simple four part plan.

1. Create Good Art.
2. Institutionally Market Your Art
3. Grow your family of people invested in your art.
4. Use the raised income from your now larger family to create good art.

Of course, there are some more details. Institutional marketing isn't about promoting a specific show, but promoting your organization. Good strategic planning is listed as a part of artistic programming (which falls under the first step). Some of the pitfalls that happen to arts organizations also happen to churches. Instead of using new income from increased donations to make good art, many arts institutions try to build a better building (which Kaiser called an "edifice complex" -- a term that makes me chuckle) or use the money to create an endowment. Instead, resources should be used to create better art, which in turn will grow the amount of people interested in the art, and continue the cycle.

I'm pretty sure that basic plan would work for any non-profit. Do good work, let people know about it and get them excited about what you're doing, use that excitement to create more good work.

I think the simplest answer to grow Unitarian Universalism is to do good church.

We spend a lot of time in growth labs focusing on bad church. And I know from experience that there is a lot of bad church out there. And sometimes you need to vent. I get that; I took about a year off from active participation because I needed a break.

But I think there's so much systematic anxiety about losing the free range Unitarian Universalists, lost to time commitments or bad church or whatever. There's anxiety about naming. There's anxiety about all sorts of things that gets in the way of our ability to do good church.

Of course, the question becomes what is good church. With arts organizations, there are many that do what I find to be quality art, but I'm not a member of their "family" as Kaiser puts it. But there are some arts organizations that create art that touches me so profoundly that I am an evangelist. But you know the groups that you feel passionate about, the groups that make you want to do something you personally loathe just to help them out. It's the groups that provide a profound experience -- and it's a profound experience that would be at the heart of good church. It could be a profound service experience or it could be a profound worship experience -- but good church involves doing the things that really touch people.

But once you find that bit of good church (and I know its happening places because I see people evangelizing Unitarian Universalism the way I evangelize for the House Theatre or Alvin Ailey), keep growing it. Focus on what is profound and moving, on what makes you want to bring others to your congregation, and grow that. Put energy around that, market it well, and see how it grows.

(And seriously, if you can find a talk by Michael Kaiser, go to it. He's really smart. Except when blogging on the Huffington Post.)

Criticism: How We Miss Each Other

Today on twitter Rev. Naomi posted some interesting questions about criticism. As often happens with her broad, open ended questions, a discussion ensued.

It wasn't until we were far into the discussion that it hit home that her definition of criticism and my definition of criticism were two very different things.

Now, I'd like to think that I have an informed opinion on this. I took a year long class in dramatic criticism from Chris Jones, the Chicago Tribune Theatre Critic. I've hosted a panel discussion of local theatre critics, I've been to a panel discussion on the role of the critic in new play development, and I interviewed our local critics for The Dramatist magazine. I've also spent countless hours talking about the role of the critic and criticism with my friends.

I came to this discussion with all the following understandings of criticism:

1. Criticism isn't personal. Now, with many artists, we often feel that criticism of our work is an attack on our being. Not true, but it happens. I've been prone to it. That's why I like the Liz Lerman technique, because it allows for that necessary emotional distance to form. A personal attack is NOT criticism.

2. Criticism is specific. It isn't this thing sucks, but this thing is problematic because of x, y, and z.

3. Criticism is informed. If I have an opinion on something I know nothing about, it isn't criticism. It's just an uninformed opinion.

These are my basic tenants of criticism that I brought to this discussion.

I have a suspicion that I was the only one who brought this understanding of criticism to the table. It's been confirmed by Ila's separation of criticism and feedback. For me, part of criticism is the art of giving feedback.

I would like to think my opinion is informed -- I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. But it comes from a very specific cultural background and context.

And now I wonder what I missed because my understanding of what constitutes criticism is so very different from what everyone else's understanding in that discussion.

I wonder if I could go back and have that discussion again where we had one working definition of criticism. Would I have said that I love asking questions if my definition of criticism was the same as others? I'm not sure. I'm also still unsure of what the consensus of criticism means in that context. That definition, from what I can glean, seems to be a lot more personal and negative. To be honest, I'm not sure if that definition will be helpful to my furthering understanding of criticism.

The interesting aspect of this is that it proves that we all come to a discussion with our own definitions, contexts, and biases. If I had this conversation with the 2amt crowd, we would have had a similar working definition of criticism. But we all view the world from a very specific lens.

However, I seriously missed where others were coming from today and I think everyone missed me. We had a conversation, but we weren't able to really understand each other. It's a fascinating case study in how we can miss each other, even with people whom we know well and who know us extremely well.

I once complained that Unitarian Universalists constantly search for concrete meanings for abstract nouns. At the time, I was really annoyed because people were arguing over the term "faith development." I understand the impulse a little more now, but I think the better way to deal with it is to ascertain a common understanding, with the knowledge that concepts mean different things to different people. No one looks at the world in exactly the same way.

Embracing the Larger Conversation

Over at Mission Paradox, there's a few weeks old post on the wasted power of social media. The basic sentiment of the short post is "Social media are tools for conversation, NOT SELLING."

I cannot tell you how many arts marketing workshops I've been to where professionals are encouraged to get on twitter, facebook, foursquare and the like without having the mindset on how to properly use these tools. Many theatres that I love are tweeting "BUY TICKETS NOW" as if twitter and facebook were simply advertising space.

Social media is about having a larger conversation. For arts organizations, it is more about showing our true relevance to the larger world than it is about butts in seats.

And given the precarious position arts funding is, particularly in the state of Florida, engaging in the larger discussion to prove our relevance to the larger community has never been more important.

Arts organizations could learn a lot from Unitarian Universalists. For example, on twitter, I've had insightful conversations with Melanie of TapestryUU, a Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Mission Viejo, CA. If she was using twitter simply as a way to advertise her congregation, I would not be a part of her target market. There's a slim chance that I'll ever get to visit, much less join her congregation. But we're had conversations about the importance and relevance of our greater religious movement. There are active social media ministries that I'm proud to be engaging with.

Another conversation that I'm excited to be listening to is the reaction of the Chicago Theatre Community to Mike Daisey's production of How Theatre Failed America at Victory Gardens Theater. While I can't participate in the conversations that are happening in person, I get to read about them on blogs, facebook, and twitter. If Daisey's point is to start a national conversation on the state of regional theatre (and I think it is one of his goals), then social media has done a great job of keeping those outside of Chicago in the loop (pun intended). These are difficult, fascinating conversations that need to be had, and I'm thankful for the theatres that are engaging. Its a lot more terrifying to use social media to engage in difficult conversations than it is to simply direct market.

But its necessary for art organizations to engage in difficult conversations. We need to treat the larger community as more than simply potential ticket buyers. As non-profit leaders, we need to return to our missions and remember why most of us got involved in this crazy art form anyway: we wanted to change the world. Social media is another way to engage in the larger world, another way we can participate in the greater cause.