The New York Times has an excellent article about a new effort by churches in my current residence, Washington DC, to organize themselves and buy energy as a group, simultaneously saving money and using those savings to promote green energy. The effort is a collaboration of a community organizing group, Washington Interfaith Network, and the DC Project, which promotes green alternatives (disclosure- I am heavily involved with both organizations, and a member of a Luther Place church, which is part of WIN and the energy collaboration). Here’s what they are doing, in brief:
11 churches and a nonprofit youth group got together to solicit reduced-rate bids for electricity — most of it from renewable energy sources — from local suppliers. In the first year of its contract, which ends in May, the group expects combined savings of nearly $100,000.
As the good word has spread, and it gears up to negotiate a second contract, the original group has swelled to 40 members. The bigger alliance plans to exercise even more leverage in the next round of negotiations by requiring bidders to extend the same discounted rate to individual parishioners and members.
And more revenue is on the way: the group is planning to take a cut of those residential savings as a kind of eco-tithe…
The churches in Washington forged their alliance with help from the Washington Interfaith Network, which does community organizing for member congregations and is now receiving a 10 percent cut of the overall electricity savings. The other group that helped bring the churches together, the DC Project, is a nonprofit that promotes weatherization and green energy jobs.
Felipe Witchger, the lead organizer with the DC Project, said that the next contract will require participants, which now also include synagogues and affiliates like unions and advocacy groups, to either buy renewable energy or commit to energy-efficiency upgrades. For the upgrades, he said, workers from neighborhoods with high unemployment and poverty rates would be hired.
Needless to say, I think this is a great initiative, and may lead to even greater things.
I’ve written a lot about Catholic Social Tradition on this blog (well, not lately), and we have also written a lot about alternative ways of envisioning the economy. Generally, CST is a reaction to the broad economy, and promulgates ways for individuals to live in relation to the economy and to seek to change the economy. However, because CST is more philosophical in nature, it doesn’t go the extra mile of thinking about how individual churches can simultaneously be in the economy and change the economy.
Community organizing, on the other hand, has been practiced through churches for decades. It is a direct response to seeing the world as it is, and the world as it should be, and seeking to bring the two closer together. Churches in cities across the country, and increasingly the world, join forces to shape the political conversation around real economic issues. Often, community organizing is about marshaling a small (but still significant) amount of money from within, and a lot of people from within, to move a few people outside (politicians) to deliver a lot of money on the outside (like affordable housing projects, neighborhood revitalization, etc.).
Notice that neither CST nor community organizing speaks directly to the churches themselves being or becoming part of an alternative economy. And yet, churches are employers, social service providers, and consumers- often large ones at that. Realizing that they are economic units, and have autonomy over how they act as such (especially in tandem), can potentially be transformative. What started as an 11 church group-buying initiative is blossoming into a 40 church green energy effort. Who knows what may come next- an alternative energy co-op that creates green jobs? A joint-church solar generation effort? When churches realize that social justice can occur within and in collaboration with neighbors, we can begin to see an alternative economy, closer to the world as it should be, aspiring to the gauntlet that popes and prophets alike have set forth.
“And more revenue is on the way: the group is planning to take a cut of those residential savings as a kind of eco-tithe,”
The motives may be good, but it makes me very uncomfortable when churches enter into commerce. It’s a slippery slope. Bush’s faith based initiatives were a small step toward the mixing of church and state.
Calling it a “tithe” is disingenuous. It’s not a tithe; it’s an untaxed business profit. The fact that churches call it a “tithe” indicates the kind of dishonesty that should be a warning to us all.
Religions should not run businesses or governments.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
@Rodger: when you write that religions should not run businesses or government, you are falling into the classic and dangerous trap of dividing the economy into only two sectors: the market and the government. This is the mainstream economists’ approach, that governments can only distort markets, and they do this through taxes or subsidies. For them, there is no other economic force.
This view overlooks the powerful and significant role that communities play in organizing economic activity. The decision making processes of communities will certainly be different than government organizations or corporations, but this does not mean that we should not let them make economic decisions; in fact, this may be the only group that makes decisions that are closely in the interest of all the stakeholders involved. This article is a case in point.
Are you talking about communities or religions? I saw 14 references to “churches” in that post. There is a huge difference between communities and churches. (I also saw mention of Catholic Social Tradition and even a tag, “Catholic Social Tradition).
So, let’s not allow disingenuous slippage in our meanings. The article was talking about religion.
And, the history of religions is mixed. They tell the world they work for God, but historically, like all groups of people, religions work for themselves. The good works they do is merely their “business.”
It’s like saying that Merck works to save people’s lives. No, Merck works for itself. The life-saving medicines they produce merely are their “business.”
The problem with religions running businesses is they are granted special privileges and powers in our society. No taxes. The appearance of speaking for God. Partial immunity from criticism (Try criticizing, for instance, the Catholic Church, and see what happens). In fact, I probably will get some flack for daring to suggest religions don’t work for God. (No one will criticize me for my equivalent Merck comment, however.)
All of the above is why religion and government make a bad mix, and for the same reasons, religion and business make a bad mix.
But “communities” are O.K.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Rodger- In general, such efforts are interfaith and based in religious institutions because they are a primary way in which people are organized in communities in this country. Acting on common values can produce very bad results, or in this case, very good results. The motivations are often religious, but the rationales and arguments put forward are deeply based on experience in society- it’s always about forming an idea of how the world should be in light of individual self-interests and those common values.
Does that help?
If it’s based on an ideal (“Give me liberty or give me death”), no problem. But if it’s involved with religion (“Onward Christian soldiers”), not so good.
Economic motivations (“Give to the poor”) good. Religious motivations (“Come to church and learn how to give to the poor, and by the way, 10% of what you give goes to the church), not so good.
I do not accept the excuse that because religions are already organized, they must be part of the scheme. The Tea Party, crazy as they may be, have become a powerful organization that, so far as I know, are not religious.
The following quote should scare the crap out of you:
What next? IslaMart?
In short, keep religion out of it, or eventually, you will have an organization run by a religion for the benefit of a religion. That is the way religions operate.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Well, it’s definitely more the former than the latter on both parameters. And the churches are now paying the savings forward to greening initiatives as a pre-req for Round 2.