Why is 90% of the Work Done by 10% of the People? -- Do We Want to Know, or Do We Want to Complain?

You've no doubt heard the phrase, "90% of the work is done by 10% of the people." I know I've been part of the 10% many times -- in church, at school, in organizations that support my kids' activities. Inside the 10%, a sort of smug superiority can breed, bringing about an "Us v. Them" mentality. As in, We who attend all the Meetings and drop Everything to Do All the Things are inherently better that the absent Them, who clearly not have their Priorities in Line, else they would be more like Us. 

I have three kids, as you probably know, ages 17, 15, and 11. I volunteer, trying my best to give my of my time and talents in an equal share to all the activities my kids are involved in. I'm a band mom, a choir mom, a soccer mom, an art mom, a color guard mom. I've been a dance mom, a Cub Scout mom, a baseball mom, a basketball mom, a swim mom. I've also been the director/advisor who has been in charge of various activities. I understand how important parent support is, and I've always been a supportive parent. 

You get the idea. I'm no slouch. 

At the same time, I don't identify with the smug members of Us that judge those who can't get to meetings. After all, there is only so much time in one day, in one week. We're also hobbling our way out of a pandemic, and though some would like to ignore it, there are people who are still immunocompromised and afraid to mix with strangers. There are still people who are healing from the emotional and mental stress of the past 2 years and adding One More Thing just seems impossible. 

I've been thinking recently about why more people don't volunteer these days. Where are those 90%? Why don't they show up? I've already mentioned some possible pandemic-related reasons, but we were starting to see a decline in volunteers prior to 2020. One organization I am part of is facing a new season without most of the officer positions filled. Pleas for help are send out to mass membership on a regular basis. No one is stepping up. 

While I believe there are factors specific to that organization that are in play, I think there are two main reasons people don't volunteer as much any more. And no, actually, I don't think simply having the time is one of them. We have time, and frankly, we are masters at wasting it-- Americans spent 1300 hours on social media in a year, according to this article from Forbes. We have time -- we are just making decisions about how to spend it. 

* First, people are desperately seeking meaningful connection and purpose in their lives. If your meetings are cold, impersonal, or cliquey, why would anyone come back? Why would they prioritize their time to include such an experience? 

* Second, people will devote time, money, energy, sweat, tears, blood -- to a cause they can understand and get behind. Just last weekend, students at Penn State University raised over $13.7 million dollars to fight childhood cancer. 

I recently attended a meeting in which I asked some (I thought) reasonable questions about what the organization I've already mentioned above had planned to do with tens of thousands of dollars in the account. The treasurer and leader of the group gave logical explanations of future plans and expenses. I suggested that we increase communication and transparency so that those who aren't more regularly involved would understand the importance of becoming involved. In return, I was belittled and scolded and chastised. One person nearly threw their back out, huffing and puffing over the audacity of my suggestions and questions. There was a wagging finger involved, guys. This was serious business, evidently. 

(Silly me, I thought when someone said, "Does anyone have any questions?" that meant I was free to ask questions. Lesson learned!) 

When the financial goals were explained, it made sense to me to articulate those to the group at a large, so they could get behind a cause. But, I now realize my seeking a solution was a threat to the smug members of the 10% who want to feel superior to the 90% who can't make it to every meeting (as I was chastised for). So that means we don't have a clearly articulated cause for people to get behind, and judging by the way I was treated at the meeting, we don't have the meaningful connection people are seeking.  

(To be very fair, I believe the majority of the people present appreciated my contribution. I saw many nodding heads, and several people talked to me afterward, affirming my decision to speak up.) 

Instead of having a "Well, it's about time you made it to a meeting" attitude, we need to have a "I'm so glad you are here" attitude, if we want people to return, to chip in, to move the needle beyond the 10% volunteer force. 

I did a little bit of research to see what others are noticing about the drop in volunteerism, and I came across this article published on PTO Today. Turns out, what I'm seeing at a local level is fairly universal: "Researchers agree on six motivators [for volunteering]. People volunteer to make a difference in others’ lives; to support an organization, community, or cause; to learn something new; to develop personally or professionally; to feel better about themselves; and to meet people."

If we truly want to increase the number of volunteers in an organization, we need to drop the "Us v. Them" mentality and take a hard look at why people aren't coming out. Are we demanding too much of people? Are we meeting too often? Are we communicating effectively? Are we encouraging a positive, welcoming environment, or are there too many people on personal power trips? Are we sharing leadership? Does every voice truly matter? Are we leading with our shared values, or are we allowing personal agendas to muddy the waters? 

In order for true change to occur, we need to be able to ask the hard questions of ourselves. Otherwise, we fiercely guard the status quo and continue to get the same results. 

"We" is Invalid: Sacrament or Magic Spell?

A Catholic priest in Arizona resigned this week, after performing "invalid" baptisms for over two decades. I'll admit, when I saw the headline, I immediately wondered what this guy had been doing to make the baptisms "invalid"-- using wine instead of water? Dunking dogs, perhaps? Maybe he wasn't actually a priest and it was like Catch Me If You Can, the Sequel.

Nope. What a letdown. According to Newsweek, Father Andres Arango used the wrong pronoun while performing the sacrament. That is, instead of saying, "I baptize you..." he said, "We baptize you...." This man resigned "with a heavy heart" and the Diocese reported that they didn't have an exact number of invalid baptisms performed by Arango, but the estimate is "in the thousands" and that they were going to do all they could to correct the error. 

Sigh. Where to start? 

OK, first -- Pronouns. I fully agree that pronouns matter. If someone tells me they prefer I use the pronoun "they" when referring to them, I respect and honor that. In fact, as an English major and former English teacher, I land staunchly in the "words are important" camp. Ask anyone who has ever argued with me over the connotations that words carry -- I am a close reader and a close writer. So, "We" versus "I" makes a difference. Hold that thought. We'll come back to it. 

Next -- Baptism. It's a big deal. I was raised Protestant, and I decided to be baptized when I was 12 or so. It was a huge deal. I went to one of those megachurches with removable steps that covered an actual pool that was used for baptisms. I wore a white robe with weights sewn along the bottom hem to avoid embarrassing floating issues. I waded into the water with my pastor and experienced "trine immersion," which is just a fancy way of saying I was dunked 3 times. My memory is blanking on whether I went face forward or backward. (That alone should bring my baptism into question, now that I think about it.) 

Some churches go to actual bodies of water for baptism. Some just sprinkle some water in a symbolic way. Some -- like the Catholic church -- baptize infants by pouring water over their heads. That's how my three kids were baptized, after I converted to Catholicism. 

(By the way, my Protestant baptism "counted" when I converted . . .because Catholics believe "in one baptism," according to the Nicene Creed.) 

My children -- and presumably the thousands baptized by former-Father Andres -- were brought to the church by their parents and godparents for their sacramental bath. Unlike me, they had no say in the matter. Infant baptism is actually a promise made by the parents, the church, the families. In my children's baptism, WE came together to promise to raise our children in the faith, to help them grow in their relationship with God. 

WE.  

There's that word again. In infant baptism, the WE matters more than the I. Yes, there is a priest performing the sacrament, in persona Christe, or in the person of Christ. I don't diminish that at all: the priest takes on the role of Jesus, and that's important and special. But if "we are the body of Christ," then what's "invalid" about a well-intentioned priest saying, "we" instead of "I"? 

I could see the church correcting the priest, making sure that he uses the correct wording moving forward, making some sort of statement, explaining the significance of the priest's role in sacraments. WE call these "teachable moments" in education. 

But, to call these baptisms "invalid" seems extreme to me.  After all, I've been to many, many masses and sacramental celebrations where the priest missed words or skipped whole paragraphs or added his own embellishment to the liturgy. I suppose all of those masses, funerals, weddings, baptisms, and penance services were "invalid," too. 

(I kid you not -- one time, I read the words, "For those who love trampolines and other forms of outdoor recreation, we pray to the Lord" during the Prayer of the Faithful at a funeral mass. The priest always personalized the liturgy so as to help the family remember their loved one fondly in the midst of their grief.) 

This is where I get so frustrated with the Catholic church. Yes, the tradition matters. But the people matter more. Do "thousands" of people need to be stressing over whether their baptisms were valid right now? Imagine the domino effect here. If you need to be baptized to be confirmed, and your baptism was "invalid," is your confirmation now "invalid" as well? What about the rest of their sacraments? Does a pronoun substitution that is more inclusive pose such a threat to the establishment? Did a priest need to resign over this? Come on. 

The hair-splitting legalistic arguments over valid and invalid pronouns aside, here's what really bothers me: Does the church actually think that God is so small and so weak that an unintentional human error would invalidate the Holy Spirit? What kind of God is that? What happened to omnipotence? Are pronouns God's kryptonite? Baptism isn't a magic spell. It's not like that scene when Harry Potter says, "Diagonally" instead of "Diagon Alley" and ends up in the wrong place. 

It's this sort of thing that sends people running from the pews. Think about it -- if a priest who gave his life to the service of God can have his work "invalidated" for not being perfect, where's the hope for the rest of us? What happened to forgiveness? 

I don't get it. Maybe there is much more to this story, and I don't dare to speculate. But if it's really that this man used "we" instead of "I" in the Rite of Baptism, and that made thousands of baptisms "invalid," and he either had to or felt compelled to resign over it, then I just don't know what to think anymore.