Entries Tagged 'strategy' ↓

As we discuss the importance of focusing on transformation, we need to remember that it happens one step at a time.

I was reminded of this listening to the Fundraising is Beautiful podcast. Jeff Brook and Steven Screen remind listeners to do one thing at a time.

They point out that many fundraising efforts fail when they try to accomplish too much at once. They try to educate, inspire grassroots lobbying, show impact, fundraise, raise awareness and more all in one communication. Jeff and Steven point out that when you try to do all that at once, you usually fail at everything.

Instead, they recommend doing one thing at a time. If it’s a fundraising letter, focus the letter on raising funds. Then you can follow up with showing impact or educating in the newsletter.

A key part of their argument is that you have a relationship with your members, so over time you can work on your laundry list of goals, but it has to happen one action at a time.

So while I’m championing the importance of transformation, likewise transformation happens one step at a time.

You can’t transform someone from a passive bystander to an uber-activist in one step; and you’ll probably scare them away if you try.

So plan each action with an eye toward transformation and recognize you’ll get there one step at a time.

Jennifer Mills‘ story is a poignant example of personal transformation. Working for an interfaith organization, I also see transformation within religious communities.

Let me give you two examples from the Banners Across America anti-torture effort.

In this campaign, some congregations signed on that we knew would support it. For example, the local Quaker meeting and ministry partnership of Northside Presbyterian and St. Aidan’s Episcopal have strong histories of speaking out on social justice issues.

It was easy to convince them to put up banners.

But not every congregation was as easy.

One of our board members attends a local congregation that has a history of being more moderate. They tend to avoid social issues. So when he brought the banner idea to the Church Council, he faced a harder sell.

Is it too political? Will it alienate members?

After an hour of debate, the vote came in: a unanimous vote for hanging the banner.

It was a transformation for this church from not talking much about these issues to actively engaging with them. Furthermore, it was a transformation from discussing the issue within the church walls to visibly taking a stand in public.

The pastor has told me that he thinks that years from now the congregation will look back at this decision and see it as the turning point when the congregation decided to go “the Jesus way” of speaking out on moral issues like torture.

That’s transformation!

Another board member had a similar challenge when she brought the banner to her church. In the end, her congregation decided they didn’t have enough unity to hang a banner; but they did agree to host forums to discuss the issue within the congregation.

This too is transformation. This is engaging a congregation that hasn’t been very involved and reaching out to people who don’t yet agree with this position. It’s reaching new audiences. And I’m as satisfied by this “engaged no” as I am with the easy yes from the Quaker meeting.

I’m pushing transformation hard right now for two reasons.

First, it’s why we’re here. If we’re not going to be serious about work for social transformation, we might as well go home.

Second, transformation is possible. Here’s one example of individual transformation and helping someone grow from inactive to being an amazing organizer.

Every fall at the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ) we organize a delegation to the School of the Americas Watch rally and vigil in Ft. Benning, GA.

Three years ago Jennifer Mills was a first-year student at the University of Michigan. She had planned on going down to Georgia on the bus organized by the Adrian Dominican Sisters, but her test schedule didn’t allow that.

So she road with us.

I’ll be honest, we didn’t give her the most comfortable of trips; especially after other folks locked her out of the room we had booked for her.

Maybe it was because of her experience sleeping in the car that the next year she came to me and said, “we should bring our own bus.”

I was skeptical; busses are expensive. But I supported Jennifer, and I’m glad she did.

She worked hard to fill the bus. She created a partnership with the UAW to fill the seats. She found campus funding to help cover costs.

Thanks to her, for the last two years we’ve taken a bus to Ft. Benning.

Before she came down on that first trip, Jennifer was not an activist. Today, Jennifer is on the ICPJ Board, she’s received a peacemakers award from Pax Christi of Michigan, and she’s looking to follow Dr. Paul Farmer’s example of ensuring that the world’s poorest have access to quality healthcare.

Now ICPJ can’t take credit for all the hard work Jennifer has done, but by giving her a structure and support to grow as an activist ICPJ has been part of her personal growth and transformation as an activist.

Transformation is possible, and Jennifer is an excellent example of it.

I wrote earlier about the importance of seeking social transformation.

I intentionally never defined that term; it will be different for different contexts.

For me and for my context as an interfaith peace and justice organizer, here is what transformation means to me:

• Transformation of individuals: Changing the way a person relates to a concern, especially what they do about it. Maybe it transforms them from being actively proclaiming that global warming is a hoax to just being quiet about the issue. Or, it could mean that they grow from taking individual action for peace in Iraq to organizing their neighborhood to take action together.
• Transformation of congregations: Just like individual transformation, congregational transformation happens along a continuum. It can mean getting a congregation that is hostile to faith-rooted concern for the peace to give it a fair hearing; or it could mean moving discussion of social justice concerns from the social hour to the pulpit. Or, in the case of the Banners Across America anti-torture banner campaign, it could mean moving the discussion from inside to outside the congregation walls.
• Transformation of society is changing policies or structures to make a more just and peaceful world, which can be anything from increasing funding for food stamps, improving public transformation, getting peace education in the schools, or a whole lot more.

There are many ways to envision transformation, but we won’t create it unless we know what we’re trying to create.

What does transformation mean to you?

What if we only did things that we knew would contribute to social transformation?

What if we agreed to never again do a half-hearted speaking event or a ten-person rally?

Sometimes as organizers we set our goals too low. We’re content with vague ideas of “raising awareness” or “speaking out” without really seeing how it will really make a difference.

I challenge all of you in social change work to set the bar high for program you do, so that whatever you do truly promotes transformation.

Transformation can take many forms; I’m not going to dictate what it should mean for you and your organization. In another post I’ll share what it means for me.

I am going to insist, though, that you relentlessly pursue social transformation. Cut away everything that does not vigorously promote transformation.

Otherwise we’re just going through the motions.

In the famous Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi, one of the key teachings is about attention:

The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy’s cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him. More than anything, you must be thinking of carrying your movement through to cutting him. You must thoroughly research this.

Now of course as a peace organizer, I have no intention of cutting anybody. But I do respect Musashi’s point about the need to have fierce dedication, focus and intent with each movement.

In our organizing and activism, every movement should be focused on peacemaking. If we hold a meeting, it should be to bring us closer to peace. If we rally and protest, it should be to bring us closer to justice.

If we think only of rallying, only of meeting, only of protesting, we will be unable to bring peace. If our efforts are only because they are things we should do, then we will waste effort.

Let us bring the same focus to stopping violence that Musashi brought to prevailing through violence.

I pretty critical of activists’ focus on public education. Sometimes I wonder if “consciousness raising” is a waste of time.

But the story of Thomas Clarkson proves me wrong.

I read about Clarkson in Adam Hochshild’s Bury the Chains, an excellent book of the history of the abolitionist movement in England.

Hochshild gives high praise for the role that Clarkson played in the abolition movement, saying that it was when Clarkson decided to become involved was the “single moment at which the anitslavery movement became inevitable.”

How did he get involved?

He learned about the injustice of slavery.

He was competing in a prestigious Latin essay contest, and the more he researched slavery, the more the injustice of the situation weighed on him. It “wholly engrossed [his] thoughts,” and he abandoned his plans to become an Anglican clergyman and instead devoted himself to abolishing the slave trade.

I think we focus too much on raising awareness and too little on promoting action, and I seriously doubt the activist refrain that “if they only knew…” then they certainly would take action (whoever “they” are).

Thomas Clarkson shows that sometimes when people learn about an issue, then they do take action.

And sometimes, the impacts of this consciousness raising ring through the history books.

I blogged earlier about how ICPJ needs to look closely at the challenges and trade offs involved in recruiting the next generation of activists.

Allison Fine adds a bit more to question in her book Momentum: Ignititing Social Change in the Connected Age.

It is likely that Net-Gen donors will be episodic in their giving. . . . Net-Genners are unlikely to fill out membership applications–they do not think of themselves as members in the traditional sense.

This observation squares with my experience, though I do see a continued sense of membership is smaller, face-to-face groups even if it wanes in connection to larger, impersonal institutions.

What does this mean for ICPJ?

1. We can’t expect business as usual to provide us with a new stream of members.
2. We need to constantly work to stay relevant for our supporters.
3. We need to make it easy for people to share our work when they are pumped up about our work.
4. We need to invite people to make ongoing pledges of support as a way to help build an ongoing relationship.

As I’ve already mentioned, dealing with the changing religious landscape is one of the key questions facing ICPJ for our future.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently released a groundbreaking study on the US Religious Landscape.

It’s loaded with fascinating findings, but one in particular is the growing segment of people who are unaffiliated with any particular religious tradition:

The survey finds that the number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

These has dramatic impacts for groups doing congregation-based organizing like ICPJ.

The ground that we’ve stood on as an organization for 43 years is eroding. Congregations are less and less the the basis for spiritual fulfillment for Americans. And considering the declining membership in mainline congregations, this basis is even more imperiled.

I see three possible responses to this change:

1. Ignore it, at least for now. We’re still doing okay. We still have a good fundraising base and health congregation support. We can ride this horse for a while before it gives out on us.
2. Be part of a revival of congregations. There’s a credible story to tell that congregations have an important role in sustaining activism and spiritual fulfillment. If we help tell this story, it could help reinvigorate our partner congregations.
3. Shift our focus from “religious” activists to “spiritual” activists. Instead of fighting or ignoring the trends, we could ride with them. This would expand our tent, and it would also challenge us to update our language and habits to embrace both formally religious people and informally spiritual people. That’s a tall order, but I think we’re up to it.

Ignoring the shifts is our default position, but I don’t think it’s viable in the long-term.

I find the second option alluring, but I don’t think it’s realistic. I We may be able to have some regeneration effect for religious communities. It is also tricky. We can’t say to people “congregations can help feed your soul and sustain your activism” if our partner congregations are either spiritually dead or hesitant around activism.

I tend to think option three has the most promise, but I’ll be honest, I get nervous thinking about how to navigate the ambiguities of that position. In the short term, it risks alienating our congregation-based core support without attracting large numbers of new supporters.

ICPJ will be having a strategic planning retreat in late summer, and for once I’m not procrastinating thinking about this.

Overall, we’re in a good position: growing donor base, exciting programming, and a great new program coordinator.

And from this position of strength, we’re in a good place to thoughtfully address some of the upcoming big questions we face as an organization. There are three that gnaw at me:

1. Generation Transformation

One thing that a lot of our activists have commented on is that they are mostly, well, middle aged and older.

How important is it for ICPJ to recruit younger activists in their teens, twenties, and thirties?

If it is important, are we willing to make the changes we need to make to be welcoming for them? (No more generation bashing would be a good place to start.)

2. Transformation of the religious landscape

More people are leaving religious congregations and communities than are joining them. The mainline Protestant churches, our long-time bedrock for support, are hemmoraging members. How do we respond to these changes in America’s religious landscape? (more on this question here)

3. How much to focus our effort

Overall we’re very good at doing an okay job on 20 things. Would we be better off doing an amazing job at 2 things? With our energy spread so thin, do we have the capacity to make change on any one area? If we decide to focus more, what happens to the other projects? If we do or do not focus more, how do we ensure that we can respond to new issues, challenges, and opportunities?

Conclusion

We face many questions at ICPJ. Opinionated as I am, I of course have my take on these questions. But above my particular take on this, these are ICPJ questions and we will need broader community so that the decisions we reach are ICPJ decisions.