It has been my contention that in the United States the term “civic religion,” as used by Robert Bellah, is counter to the prohibited national religion. 

At the same time, the concept of a “civic religion” acts to negate the reality of the diversity of the practiced religions in the United States.

The synonyms for “negate” all seems to imply this point:

     -nullify, invalidate, counteract, disprove, refute.

I diagram this with a loop in which each use of “2” – Bellah’s statement of a “civic religion,” is a distraction, as it would loop back to “1” – the articles of the Constitution in the 1st Amendment.

“1” – No civic religion, US Constitution – 1^st Amendment, 1776

“2” – Framing the term civic religion, Robert Bellah,  1967

To be sure, I do recognize much of what Bellah is driving at rather consistently. 

There are religion precepts which are woven into the fabric of American society.

There is also the attempt within American society to negate the recognition religion within that fabric with the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state.”

This is not Bellah’s intended outcome.

Bellah reflects Religion Sector 1.0 – “The church, or religion, on the town square.”

This is countered by what is reflected in Religion Sector 2.0 – “The wall of separation.”

The paradigm which has now emerged, after this long tension between adherence to one of these two, is Religion Sector 3.0  – “Alignment – among congregations and within society.”

Religion Sector 3.0 enables a path forward which recognizes Bellah’s validation of the deep existence in the United States of religion values and symbols, as expressed in the range of denominations he speaks of as “cousins,” taking their place within the spectrum of our society.

This Religion Sector 3.0 paradigm, which now finds its place into our society, call for neither a “state” religion, nor for the negation of religion as a dynamic in our society. 

Religion moves within our nation without requiring us to choose between either a state sanctioned religion or the exclusion of religion within the fabric of society. 

Finding that alignment  – while recognizing what are unique aspects of the relationship of religion and the civic sectors – is to be worked out.  This is the historic process in an evolving democracy.  The process is similar to other sectors such as the education sector or even the business sector.  It is also reflected within the process of navigating each shifting concept of who constituents “We the people.”

Having lived for that past 20 years in the one region where Religion Sector 3.0 defines “the landscape of religion in the United States,” I can attest that the advance to this phase (a) moves us beyond the debilitating tension between religion – yes or no, and (b) provides the context for the communal discourse on the resolution of factors that have been specific roadblocks hindering that discussion.  It has also prevented the long sought beneficial relationship between the institutions of the Civic Sectors and the core institutions of the Religion Sector, clergy and congregations.

Significantly, this has resulted in  the now “appropriate” and “efficient” strategies to attain the full potential of “Congregations Base Resources” (CBR) on behave of the common good.  This is enabled with the defined infrastructure of the Religions Sector which serves the widest range of  collaborative efforts.

Furthermore, this has resulted in the origination of “Congregation Based Constituent Engagement” (CBCE), enabling the much needed engagement of people across the full spectrum of the nation. Congregations are the most constituent based institution in any community, gathering weekly in significant numbers, incorporated multiple communication vehicles of websites, emails and bulletins, with a recognized leader.  Congregations, internally and collectively, reflect the mix of denominations, demographics, and geography in any region.

In addition, of immediate concern today are the dynamics in the United States which have resulted in cultural divisions which have similarly influenced divisions within religion.  This has impacted that vast aggregate of constituents.

These divisions within religions, impact the progression of democracy, particularly given the dynamics of religion today and the dynamics of politics today as it continues to advance in this democratic society.

Conversely, the innovation of the designed infrastructure for Regional Clergy Engagement has enabled a progression resulting in the shift from the ad hoc to the systemic model for the Religion Sector.  This offers a countervailing asset at this critical time for democracy.

Congregation Based Constituent Engagement (CBCE) is an innovative platform for engaging vast numbers of constituents, in a context within a congregation and in congregational clusters, which engages a diversity of demographics within the full spectrum of the fragments in our society.

While we focus on the need for bridging “the sides,” the real need is bridging, or connecting, the full spectrum of society.  Impactful communal discourse.

What does seem to make sense where the term “civic religion” appears in the writing of Bellah is to remove “civic.”  This seems to retain the intent of his assessment of the impact of religion, while it removes the impact of a suggestion hat there is a designated religion and the resulting discrepancy which I have suggested above. 

This innovation of the Religion Sector 3.0 era finds further credibility when taken as an extension of Denis Lacorne’s book Religion in America: A Political History.  One summary of Lacorne’s book reiterates his articulation of the concept of two competing narratives on religion defining American identity. This provides a clear statement of the narrative which is the context which Religion Sector 3.0 now addresses.

Lacorne reiterates the long struggle between adherence to one of two narratives defining “the landscape of religion in the United States,” which precedes the emergence of an understanding of Religion Sector 3.0 – “Alignment: Among Congregations – Within Community.”

The critical clauses are highlighted.

I.

The first narrative, derived from the philosophy of the Enlightenment, is essentially secular. Associated with the Founding Fathers and reflected in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, this line of reasoning is predicated on separating religion from politics to preserve political freedom from an overpowering church. Prominent thinkers such as Voltaire, Thomas Paine, and Jean-Nicolas Démeunier, who viewed the American project as a radical attempt to create a new regime free from religion and the weight of ancient history, embraced this American effort to establish a genuine “wall of separation” between church and state.

II.
The second narrative is based on the premise that religion is a fundamental part of the American identity and emphasizes the importance of the original settlement of America by New England Puritans. This alternative vision was elaborated by Whig politicians and Romantic historians in the first half of the nineteenth century. It is still shared by modern political scientists such as Samuel Huntington. These thinkers insist America possesses a core, stable “Creed” mixing Protestant and republican values. Lacorne outlines the role of religion in the making of these narratives and examines, against this backdrop, how key historians, philosophers, novelists, and intellectuals situate religion in American politics.

In the delineation of the Religion Sector, Lacorne’s I and II are revered, resulting in:

Religion Sector 1.0 – The Church On the Town Square

Religion Sector 2.0 – Walls of Separation

Religion Sector 3.0 – Alignment: Among Congregations – Within Community

Yes, there are religion based precepts woven into the fabric of American society.

Yes, there is the attempted negation of that, with the phrase “a wall of separation between religion and state.”

Religion Sector 3.0 enables the presence in society of religion values and denominations.

It does not call for a “state” religion.

Religion is within the fabric of our nation without having to be either state sanctioned or excluded from within the society.  How religion sits in an alignment with the greater society is to be worked out, given the acknowledged unique aspects of the relationship of religion and the civic sectors.  This has been the historic case in an evolving democracy, similar to other sectors such as the education sector or even the business sector.

Combining my lenses of both religion and of political science, I would observe that this is a critical factor in addressing the current dynamics in the United States which has resulted in a level of fragmentation which drive cultural divisions.  This has similarly influenced religion divisions.

For some time, I have been examining Constituent Engagement. 

This is the focus of my website – SpectrumEngagement.org

Constituent Engagement is particularly significant for all individuals who endeavor to engage the greatest number of people in congregations, other institutions of the Religion Sector, and in the religion realm.  This includes their intention to share the perspectives of the religion realm on critical issues with people throughout the community – local, regional, national, global.

As a specialist, working with individuals and organizations in expanding Constituent Engagement, I have initiated the use of “Constituent Engagement Markers” as an important part of the process. In examining websites, I circle words or phrases with an eye toward how they might impact the new and continued engagement of individuals. This now includes the identification of Constituent Engagement Marking on websites, in newsletters, emails and public statements.

Markers which have been circled as impacting Constituent Engagement are each identified as an “incentive” (+) or a “barrier” (-) to engagement by the reader (or listener). 

Being conscious of Constituent Engagement Markers has become a critical part of the efforts of all those who seek to enhance (a) the engagement of individuals in their institutions, and (b) their participation in “communal discourse.”

In my congregational consultations, this becomes a central part of conversations among staff, congregant leaders and congregants, on how the language of the Marker reflects their own image of the congregation and how the congregation might be perceived by others.  This serves as a primary focus in assisting in the process of moving each (-) to a (+).  Shifting to a (0) is not an objective.

Specializing in Constituent Engagement often includes focusing on issues of equity and ethical practices.  In the process of extending Constituent Engagement, one key factor is examining how the expression of language, as contained in the Markers, reflects attitudes within the institution on how individuals are perceived by that institution and by people affiliated with that institution. Like all Constituent Engagement Markers, this impacts how individuals feel about their engagement with that institution and with those other affiliated individuals.

Your perspectives would be a valuable part this exploration.

And try this – identify 3 Constituent Engagement Markers on a website where you are engaged.

Please contact me with your perspectives and Markers – jaymiller@blueconnect.org

Furthermore, you have a key role as you share in the communal discourse wherever you are engaged – locally, regionally, and nationally, even internationally – in navigating all the ramifications of the identification, examination and, as necessary, the transformation of Constituent Engagement Markers.

So, I ask you, as we zoom forward into some form of “hybrid” – what is your definition of that word?

Your answer would be greatly appreciated – jaymiller@blueconnect.org – as it will become (anomalously) part of the needed clarification for this communal discourse.

Two things for sure:

First, we are zooming forward, because the conversation – to zoom or not to zoom – includes and will continue to include many insistent voices on the necessity of retaining zoom options – their zoom options.

Second, this is a communal discourse. The zoom option the past year in those entities which are “community” based, has resulted in the engagement for increased numbers of constituents. Engaged constituents representing a much more diverse demographic.

The good news, the communal discourse has expanded.

The difficult aspect of the good news is that the coordinators of communal discourse and the participating constituents will need to gain new skill sets to effectively share in navigating the process. And for all we hear of people divided into two poles, that has always been true, but less apparent in a less vocal population. We are a widely divergent population.

This has been a year of “incident driven decisions” where anything that enabled us to move forward was applauded. Now we are transitioning to “design driven decisions” which must be enacted with a process which results in broad based acceptability for the long term.

Over the past year, we watched for the announcement of the day’s ad hoc procedures, knowing that revisions were on the way. That resulted in lots of innovations, responding to the moment. Some of those innovations are now assumed to be options available for any situation. When decisions are announced for the upcoming six months, or year, or the new norm, not everyone will reply with support. If what worked for them is missing, they will voice their objection.

Chief Professionals, Executive Directors and Boards of Directors will hear more comments about “standard operations procedures” than they are used to entertaining personally and within the governing process or the institution.

Zoom has expanded the scope of constituent engagement. That expanded scope of engagement will carry over to a sense of value and entitlement to sharing in the communal discourse.

A PROCESS FOR ZOOMING FORWARD – For the last four months, the radar I have acquired from lengthy academic training and professional experience in the realm of constituent engagement, has been pinging off the charts. What is happening? Current exchanges are outside the normal framework for input and decision making.

In the context of “incident driven decision” all is going well. In a significant number of realms, a greater number of people are sharing a greater amount of creative input. Systems, or parts of systems, and leaders in those systems are adapting in this revised environment, with a sense of welcoming, tolerating and adapting decision making.

But what about going forward? As the environments, modes of operation and reality driven exceptions return, what is going to be the balance? What will be the HYBRID between what was the norm and what have become new norms?

This is where I have been initiating conversations, specifically in congregations, on the necessity of an articulated process to guide “design driven decisions.” This needs to proceed a decision that will suddenly be announced with expectations of universal acceptance, in an environment in which the constituents have transitioned and the process has not.

If you are a constituent who is in a leadership role or not, now is the time to frame the decision making process which will answer an array way beyond the in-person and zoom hybrid. Zoom may have been the new form of our engagement. The content of our engagement has also found some new forms.

Where will zoom fit into the life of the congregation community? Where will so many other new forms fit into the life of our communities? For better or for worse? All for the better – if we do not trip over the worse.

There is lots of talk about the next phase.

If you want to talk now about the process for determining the next phase, please connect.

For a year, I was in retreat mode at home, in my study, in response to covid. I have appreciated that discipline, which has enabled me to focus on furthering my research and writing on several Religion Sector 3.0 topics.  As I transition to this next covid phase, I am now extending my exploration of these topics through a greater re-involvement with individuals and community entities.

As part of the Religion Sector 3.0 focus, I have been writing an article on “The Term Interfaith” as it related to #1, below.

There are multiple uses of the term interfaith:

1. A configuration of a specific collaborative within the Religion Sector.

2. An expression of a religion belief system of an individual or of a congregation.

3. A couple in which the partners are of a different religion.

I would like to ask if you would share a few sentences on how you use and/or understand the term interfaith, within this context.

Please contact me at jaymiller@blueconnect.org

Thank you for adding your perspectives to this exploration.

 Jay

What it is?

What is at stake?

What you can do to make the difference –

   – In the lives of individuals,

   – In the fabric of an inclusive, pluralistic, democratic society

In the initial stages of framing Religion Sector 3.0 – “Alignment: Among Congregations – Within Society” – it was immediately discovered that professionals had a lack of knowledge of religion diversity as it would relate to the clients and constituents served by their institutions within each Sector: Government, Education, Human Services, Business and Religion.

The Context for the Discovery

The first phase of initiating Regional Clergy Engagement (RCE) was composed of two initiatives, (a) Regional Dialogues and (b) city and school district based Discussions

The Regional Dialogues were held three times a year, alternating between Dialogues composed of clergy and those with clergy and the leaders of all the civic sectors.  At each Dialogues, participants interacted with each other around tables of seven which were assigned to reflect the greatest mix of their denomination, demographics, and geography.

The Regional Dialogues were held three times a year, alternating between Dialogues composed of clergy and those with clergy and leaders of all the civic sectors.  At each of the Dialogues, participants interacted with each other around tables of seven, which were assigned to reflect the greatest mix of their denomination, demographics, and geography.

The Discussions were convened for the first three years in selected cities and school districts. In each city they were hosted by the city manager, in each school district by the superintendent of schools, who included the principals.  For each Discussion, calls were made to all the clergy in that city or school district, to reinforce the written invitation and to ensure the mix of denomination, demographic and geographic of the constituents of the city or school district. As necessary, on occasion, clergy from congregations in adjacent areas were included to gain that mix.

The Collective Discovery

In my followup conversations with the city managers and superintendents of schools, I shared my observations about the language which had exhibited a lack of religion diversity awareness and knowledge.  There was full agreement on that observation.  In the words of one: “I have been a superintendent for 25 years and I have never recognized the factor you have identified.” 

In conversations with the leaders of congregations, schools, and cities, they identified this factor as a gap in the diversity training of their profession teams.  Initially, one city and one school district contracted with me to support these institutions by providing diversity training in “Multi-Faith Awareness,” augmenting the existing required diversity training curriculum and giving guidance to policy formation.

Initiating Multi-Faith Awareness

The general outline for Consultation and Training in Multi-Faith Awareness states in its introduction:

Multi-Faith Awareness training augments multi-cultural training to enhance constituent and client relations, community engagement and staff professional development.

Multi-Faith Awareness trainings give participants the skills to comfortably and appropriately engage issues related to religion, enhancing service to constituents, clients, community, and staff.  Individuals gain a knowledge of the diversity of faiths and the structure of religion sector institutions.

This includes: (a) understanding the religion dynamics related to serving constituents, clients, and staff, (b) forming relationships with religion sector professionals to provide support for individuals they jointly serve, (c) establishing congregation partnerships to collaborate in community projects, (d) addressing perceptions and misperceptions of religious beliefs and practices that impact an individual’s feeling of personal advancement, a commitment to civic involvement and a sense of a civil society.

Multi-Faith Awareness focused on three components:

I. The legal status of religion in the United States as it relates to individual practices and institutional function.

            A. The historic fabric of religion in the United States

            B. Misperceptions of a wall between religion and state, as that relates to entities in each of the civic sectors.

            C. The alignment of religion and these various civic entities, which reflects what is the unique relationship of religion within the society and which therefore provides the context for “appropriate and effective” collaboration.

II. Religion practices as they relate to individuals and institutions.
            A. Language: inclusive and specific
            B. Categories of religious practices
            C. Traditions and rituals
            D. Religion sector entities and structure

III. Case Studies

Case studies included these commonly encountered considerations:
A. Religion dynamics related to individual and community issues
B. Religion considerations related to setting policy and practices
C. Personnel practices containing religion dynamics
D. Constituent and client related considerations of religion dynamics
E.  Partnership development to achieve:
        – Extending the institutions education and outreach
        – Deepening and diversifying public engagement
        – Partnering in enhancing and extending the delivery of programs and services

What is at stake?

The overall focus of all three of these components is what all individuals need to know in order to frame their language and engagement with co-workers, clients and constituents.

The overall goal of Multi-Faith Awareness is to bring to each participant a base line capacity and comfort in addressing religion diversity, in order to:

(a) Remove gaps in policy and training which result in incidents negatively impacting staff, clients, constituents and community.

(b) Position participants, their colleagues and community partners to transition to effectively engaging all people within every religion, their congregations, and their clergy (or the equivalent title in some religions).

(c) Ensuring the full force of Cross Sector Collaboration to secure the full assets of:  

Congregation Based Resources (CBR)

Congregation Based Constituent Engagement (CBCE)

(d) Acquiring the methods for the engagement of all congregation in the common work on behalf of our society and comprehensively acknowledging that engagement. Affirming that strategies for engaging people and congregations of every religion are both appropriate and efficient.

In every consultation, by virtue of my involvement, the initial benefit of “Multi Faith Awareness” was its role in framing the first professional encounter and the first “team meeting” on religion related topics.

Because of my presence, in what is usually a “first time” discussion for participants within a professional setting, it is conducted with the guidance of a “religion sector specialist” who is able to center the discussion on Religion Sector language and structures, not individually framed religion perspectives and projections – although consideration of the dynamics of those individually framed attitudes are considered in the discussions.

The lead professionals consistently requested that I assist them in preparing an opening statement for staff on their rationale for initiating a conversation on religion.  In virtually every case, before the professional can complete presenting their statement, a staff person will interrupt with, “Oh, I can tell you why this is important, let me tell you about an incident I dealt with and that I never shared here, because I thought we weren’t allowed to talk about religion.”

Additionally, mostly in education settings as I was meetings with a principal, I would hear up front that the school had strict guidelines preventing any aspect of religion within the campus context.  This would be immediately followed by a string of stories relating times when there was a situation on the campus involving religion, necessitating a random response, often creating a secondary situation.

There seemed to be no realization that an institution that has a perception of an issue never occurring, will never develop policy to cover that issue should it occur.  When it does, in this case inevitably occur, the response does not reach the senior level for input before it is addressed ad hoc. This results in a lack of consideration of (a) framing the response within the parameters of institutional policy and (b) advancing any institutional best practices and policy.

This occurs in the entities of every Sector. The common results are:

(a) Inconsistent and unequal responses in the same entity to similar incidents,

(b) Formation, within the entity, of anecdotal ad hoc policy going forward, based on what was an individual response to a specific incident,

(c) No formation of policy and practice which reflects institutional standards and expertise.

Within the consultations and trainings, three documents are basic to guiding the staff discourse and policy formation, the Multi-Faith Awareness Outline, along with the Religion Sector Glossary and Religion Sector Vocabulary and Abbreviations.  These have become essential components in providing a sustained framework for continued discussions addressing policy and practice as circumstances develop.

What’s Next: The Key is Speaking Multi Faith – The Language of the Glossary and Vocabulary

I find myself conducting sessions on Multi-Faith Awareness (MFA) on three levels: (a) ad hoc, in the midst of a variety of conversations, (b) when consulting with institutions on strategic plans for collaborative applications, and (c) in workshops to bring MFA systemically to various entities.

At every level, MFA includes (a) the constitutional reality of the “alignment” as opposed to the “wall,” (b) the language, (c)  the structure of the institution of the Religion Sector and the uniqueness of different denominational structures, and (d) case studies based on real projects from those participating in the discussion.  The introductory paragraphs of the curriculum outline state:

Multi-Faith Awareness consultation and training augments multi-cultural training to enhance constituent and client relations, community engagement and staff professional development.

MFA trainings give participants the skills to comfortably and appropriately engage issues related to religion, enhancing service to constituents, clients, community and staff.  Individuals gain a knowledge of the diversity of faiths and the structure of religion sector institutions.

This includes: (a) understanding the religion dynamics related to serving constituents, clients, and staff, (b) forming relationships with religion sector professionals to provide support for individuals they jointly serve, (c) establishing congregation partnerships to collaborate in community projects, (d) addressing perceptions and misperceptions of religious beliefs and practices that impact an individual’s feelings of personal advancement, and a commitment to civic involvement and a sense of a civil society.

As I began the design for Regional Clergy Engagement, I needed to test the inclusiveness of the available sources for assembling the comprehensive clergy database.  I called an organization involved with the Muslim community and was referred to a Muslim staff person.  I was informed that there was a small mosque in San Mateo.

It was almost Ramadan and I thought to ask, “What would be the appropriate greeting during Ramadan?”  I learned, “Have a blessed Ramadan.”  I was one lesson further along in my grasp of Multi-Faith Awareness.   With each call to connect with a person in the Islamic community, I was able to conclude with “and have a blessed Ramadan.”  With that, I came away feeling I was more connected.  It was clear from responses on the phone and when attending Ramadan Iftar that the feeling was mutual.

All Multi-Faith Awareness (MFA) conversations will explore your comfort with using religion “specific language” in any given situation.  Your selection of terms may appropriately depend on how well you know the person you are talking to, or your comfort with a particular term.

The MFA sessions include a section on “specific language” and “inclusive language.”  “Congregation” is the inclusive term for a religion site, so if you are not certain about the term, congregation works.  How many times have I, as the lead clergy person in the county, who just happens to be a rabbi, met with a mayor and the conversation usually goes, “I really value the role of the religion community.  I make sure every year to have a breakfast with the clergy from the churches, oh I mean, and the synagogues, oh and the mosques…”  At which point I chime in with “Congregations works well.”  “Oh, thank you!”

You can follow the link to the outline for the Consultation and Training in Multi-Faith Awareness and the  Religion Sector Glossary.

What’s Next: Some examples of applications.  Please let me know if you have a project to consider.

It is the common misperception that the US Constitution calls for a “wall of separation” between religion and state.  The previous Blog “Two Steps Forward – None Back” reviews the reality of the religion and “state” alignment based in the Constitution.

When moving beyond that misperception, the barrier to collaboration with clergy and congregations will vaporize.

The next move for you, and in bringing along your associates, is mastering a few basic factors which guide the journey into the Religion Sector.  You, as an influencer in the civic sectors, along with the clergy, as influencer in their sector, will both benefit from an overview of the Religion Sector 3.0 landscape of religion in society.

You may actually be further ahead in recognizing the arrival of the Religion Sector 3.0 era, if even simply from engaging with these Blogs and this website.  You can provide the lead for associates and for clergy in traversing the shift from 2.0 to 3.0.

Someone I worked with early on related to me after participating in an organizing meeting – “I knew they were in 2.0, but I didn’t yet know what the 3.0 would be for them.”

There is a lot of guidance in a “A Local Official’s Guide to Working with Clergy and Congregations,” which I co-authored.  I often use the “Guide,” replacing “Local Official’s” with a Post-it with “Educator’s” or “Health Professional’s” or any other community leader.

Section 5, “Involve and Prepare Local Agency Staff and Departments,”  recommends involving associates, regardless of your realm, in conversations from the outset, gaining their perspective, in general, and their sense of how specific outcomes might benefit from opening up an “appropriate and efficient” path to these assets.

Within the “Guide” it highlights that:

Education and training in Multi-Faith Awareness (for example, including a faith component in diversity training) will help fill what is often a vacuum on this topic among agency staff.  Such education provides county and city departments with insight and skills to more effectively engage with and serve the diversity of faith in the community.

The first critical step is setting up your own infrastructure which enables you to establish with all clergy that you are committed to a mutual continuity of relationship.  Seeing clergy as constituents in your realm will benefit from the three components that are the foundation for any process of Constituent Engagement.  In this case:

1. Database – clergy and congregations – all or sortable by delineation or project specific subset,
2. Spectrum Engagement – denominations, demographic and geographic,
3. Relationship Formation – Structurally and Person to Person.

For the first two, I am available for any technical assistance in the design of these components.

The third is where success happens or does not happen, long term and across the spectrum.

Interestingly, you will gain four-fold in initiating the clergy relationship formation.

A. Securing the clergy relationships for you,

B. Giving your associates access to an entirely new scope of beneficial relationship – this is all clergy, not just the self-selecting clergy who possibly they seek or seek them,

C. Providing clergy newfound relationships with civic sectors’ leaders,

D. It will also include, as they will attest to as remarkable for them, mutual clergy engagement with clergy associates with whom they have no contact – remarkably, and to make the point, this consistently includes clergy who are in congregations within a few miles of them.

What’s Next:  Some factors that make it happen…Part 2 – An essential prerequisite – Your ability to become fluent in speaking “Multi-Faith.”

After That: Some examples of applications. – Please let me know if you have a project to consider – jaymiller@blueconnect.org

 

I began my Blogs, below, with “Religion Sector 3.0” and then “Two Steps Forward – None Back,”  Next, in “An Interlude,” I explored the immediate shift from flashes of race influenced violence in our society which were accompanied by isolated calls and long sought waiting for a response.  Now that call is not isolated.

In addition to acknowledging these significant moments, I related how moving “forward” in these moments benefits from how Religion Sector 3.0 can aggregate the call and response in the local community, throughout the nation.

Now I return to Religion Sector 3.0 and “exploring how this makes a difference.”  What are the sweeping benefits as we shift from the historic and currently dominant Religion Sector 2.0 to the Religion Sector 3.0 era?

The magnitude of this difference is a result of a designed Religion Sector, which includes the infrastructure for engaging all clergy and congregations in a region.

“A Local Official Guide to Working with Clergy and Congregations,” which I wrote in collaboration with the California Institute for Local Government, lists three benefits for community leadership and institutions of all the civic sectors* of society.  These also benefit individual constituents who are sharing more and more in advancing issues throughout society.

• Extending Local Agency Education and Outreach
• Deepening and Diversifying Public Engagement
• Partnering in the Delivery of Programs and Services

*government, education, non-profit, business, religion

Individual community leaders and individual constituents, are the essential “influencers” when it comes to moving “forward.”  Those who want change will have to stand against systemic institutional and cultural barriers.  It is only with their success at “extending, deepening and partnering” that they will be able to move forward, breaking through these barriers.

We are currently deadlocked within our formal state and national institutions and in our local modes of collective discourse.   New visions will need to emerge from new perspectives which are going to depend on “extending and deepening and partnering,” so more people and a greater diversity of people share in the collective discourse.

As I stated in the last Blog, the congregation is the institution in every community with the greatest number of people, meeting more frequently and maintaining expansive communication by email and website.  Those individuals affiliated with any single congregation represent to a greater and greater degree, the diversity of race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, political alliance.  The list goes on.

In some congregations diverse group of congregants may not worship at the same time.  In some places, a greater diversity exists in geographic clusters of congregations, even on the same block.

In the first month of my assignment to frame the infrastructure for Regional Clergy Engagement, I drove a neighborhood in a community demographically diverse.  I spotted a church spire and headed that way.  The pastor was in and I asked about the congregants.  He related that when he arrived, they were the historic Irish population, with the addition over time of Hispanic and Filipino congregants.  Each convened its own Church Council and gathered at separate worship times.  He began a process of convening sessions of Council representatives, resulting in, among other things, the planning of three shared celebrations each year.   Relationships had changed, misperceptions had significantly diminished, the “community” had emerged.

Within the infrastructure provided by Religion Sector 3.0, the vibrant cluster in this congregation became the vibrant clusters of congregations throughout the Peninsula.  All tied together by the “cluster” of clergy framed within the infrastructure afforded by Regional Clergy Engagement.  Each Regional and Area Dialogue, Discussion with superintendents of schools, city managers, state assembly members, health professionals, office of emergency services and emergency managers, etc., reflected the denomination, demographic, geographic mix of the jurisdiction and the constituents they serve.

This made a difference, whether it was engaging around the different perceptions of each other, the challenges of a community crisis, or the role of congregations in a specific projects related to a health issue, disaster preparedness and response, seniors, students academic and personal success, or land use planning.  The list goes on.

The difference is the unprecedented ability to engage all the clergy, and through them all the congregations, and through them the critical portion of community constituents, and through them, their families and friends – the vast representative majority of the community.  With this bandwidth, there is no limit, as the past 15 years has confirmed, to the magnitude of the paradigm shift in moving “forward.”

WHAT’S NEXT: Some factors that make it happen…

THEN: Exploring some examples of applications. Please let me know if you have a project to consider.

Rabbi Jay Miller   RELIGION SECTOR 3.0
1.0  On the Town Square         2.0  Walls of Separation
3.0  Alignment: Among Congregations – Within Society

rabbijaymiller.com      jaymiller@blueconnect.org      650.740.4411

I am posting this on Saturday, June 6.  I am now fully focused on the killing of George Floyd, the cycle of voices raised collectively in demonstrations and the range of responses too much from modes derived from the limited array of Standard Operating Procedures.

“Two Steps Back, None Forward?”  I am stepping aside from the last blog on Religion Sector 3.0, “Two Steps Forward, None Back,” before moving to the promised next blog, “Exploring how this makes a difference.”  That “difference” contains a critical aspect of how we find “Forward” in this current moment.

Monday, I shared one of the two Shakespeare lines I remember, because these are the two I have had the occasion to recite in public performance  “There is a tide, which taken at the flood, leads to fortune.” This line came to me as I was watching various videos of people speaking up, individually and in small groups, affirming the core sentiments of the voices heard in the demonstrations.

Might this cycle bring an unprecedented level of a tide which leads to fortune?

These videos of people speaking up took place in cities scattered around the country and were aimed at moving the conversation above the inevitable noise around the demonstrations — The articulation of the issue, often followed by confrontations that take the focus. These were very articulate statements, each one heard by thousands of people throughout the nation, thanks to social media which made each one ever-present.

I am watching to see if there is a convergence of voices of people framing and reframing the issue and this sufficiently reported by the media.

The upcoming blog on Religion Sector 3.0, “How this makes a difference” will explore, with your welcome perspectives, the ways the innovation of the capacity to engage all clergy and every congregation in a region – city/county – collectively transforms the magnitude of the communal consciousness, the communal discourse and the communal direction “Forward.”

In every community, congregations, individually, are ubiquitous. (Eric Klinenberg – Palaces for the People). Religion Sector 3.0 delivers the unprecedented infrastructure which now can galvanize the benefit of their collective “ubiquitous-ness” in support of renewing community.

Congregations provide the framework for sustained discourse which collectively engages the voices of the full diversity of the community. This discourse can explore and put forth proposals which come out of exchanges reflecting the full spectrum of personal perspectives.

Today we lack the arena for communal discourse that is not conducted within the framework of self selecting subsets.  We have, this week, heard the frustration of the never-ending experience of movement “Forward” seized by the forces of polarized factions.

It is ironic that when religions, commonly perceived of as the most contentious of factions, were approached with a different premise, and in the context of 21^st century collaborative modes of organizational design, they responded enthusiastically to the opportunity for bonding across the spectrum.  This is gave them the unprecedented and unexpected experience of joining together to collectively fulfill their common conviction, as clergy and as congregants – their belief in the core principles of both community and humanity.

This transformational breakthrough gains the collective assets of all congregations, each one encompassing:

1. The most constituent based arena in every community,
2. The greatest bandwidth of the community diversity – demographic, geographic and philosophical,
3. The vast attendance, array and frequency of weekly gatherings,
4. The voice of an acknowledged influential leader – the clergy,
5. The ultimate in formal and informal communication – the origin of the historic phone tree 😊 – Now the contemporary website, email blasts, Facebook AND the generic “gossip” sustained by a continuity of relationships unlike anything else in our lives today. (Robert Putnam – Bowling Alone).

In the immediate terms of the focus of this week and what is hopefully the sustained undeterred focus, this is “how this makes a difference.”

Furthermore, individual congregations in the 21^st century are predominately a microcosm of our communities – demographic, geographic and philosophical, as mentioned above, also economic, class, education, and so on.  And yes, across the political spectrum – just ask a clergy person after certain sermons.

This is the available arena for structured discourse on a range of key communal issues, building on the current communal fervor, within individual congregations and among congregational geographic clusters.  This is the collective Congregation Based Constituent Engagement (CBCE) not the ever present self selecting subsets of people.  See my next blog for more on this dynamic.

We have heard repeated this week over and over again, the anguish and pleas of a Black person regarding what it is like to watch their children venture out each day into the world.  And to wait for their safe return.  And adults, when willing to acknowledge that this is what they feel when they venture into the world.

When a Black person goes out into the world, they know their race matters. Whether they are in a:

Car

School

Medical Clinic

Job

Airplane

University or College

Business

On the street…

They wonder, will the person who focuses on them as Black be a:

Cop

Teacher

Doctor or Nurse

Supervisor

Flight attendant

Professor

Merchant

Anyone…

Most every congregation across the nation is composed of all these people and so many more.

Congregations offer the arena where we can have the real conversations and confront the reality of all of our lives.  Each one of us, on the list above and everyone else, has something to say about how we see the world we struggle to navigate every single day.

It is only all of us engaged with each other that we have hope for “Two Steps Forward, None Back”

What’s Next: “Exploring how this makes a difference…”

Rabbi Jay Miller   RELIGION SECTOR 3.0
1.0  On the Town Square         2.0  Walls of Separation
3.0  Alignment: Among Congregations – Within Society

rabbijaymiller.com      jaymiller@blueconnect.org      650.740.4411

The context for this post comes from my role as Religion Sector Specialist, which began in 2002.  At that time, I was hired by the Peninsula Community Foundation, now the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.  The Foundation’s goal was to give design to the nationally recognized ad hoc structure of the array of clergy and congregations in every region.

The creation of such a design would provide the basis for the long-sought capacity to engage every clergy person and their congregation or organization. This design and engagement was successful within months.  This initiated the framework for an alignment within (a) the full religion sector, and (b) between the religion sector’s core institutions, the congregations, and the institutions of the other sectors of society, the civic sectors – government, education, human services and business.

The historic image of the “separation” – among congregations of different religions and between congregations and the institutions of the society – found a structure for achieving appropriate and efficient mutual engagement.  The term “wall of separation” – not a part of the U.S. Constitution – transitioned to an “alignment” which honors what is the constitutional religion and state decree, composed of the two clauses: (a) no establishment of religion, and (b) the protection of the right of every individual to practice their religious identity.

The misnomer of a religion and state “wall” had resulted in the marginalization of religion within society, to the unresolved detriment of (a) the institutions of both the civic and religion sectors, and (b) the lives of individuals in a wide array of circumstances.

So, since 2002, I have experienced the resulting era of Religion Sector 3.0, along with the clergy and the leaders of the civic sectors within the scope of the project, initially in one region, and subsequently, as I consulted around the country, in locations in California and other states.

Step by step, I have shared in (a) the clarification of the nature of the unresolved issues, (b) the exploration of their related dynamics, and (c) resolving an array of specific issues.

This is the context for this post, to include you in extending the public discourse, adding to the shift from misperception to the common basis for the exploration of the nature of (a) the religion sector, (b) the relationship between the religion sector’s congregations and the civic sectors, and (c) religion in society.

WHAT’S NEXT: Exploring how this makes a difference…

Rabbi Jay Miller   RELIGION SECTOR 3.0
1.0  On the Town Square         2.0  Walls of Separation
3.0  Alignment: Among Congregations – Within Society

rabbijaymiller.com      jaymiller@blueconnect.org      650.740.4411