This is a structural observation, not a moral one. Clergy are professional preservers of their tradition’s worship practice. Their professional identity, their congregation’s expectations, their training — all of it is oriented toward maintaining the inherited forms.
Asking clergy to lead their congregation into genuinely new, fused worship practice is asking them to undermine the basis of their own authority. The rare clergyperson does it anyway — but as an exception that proves the rule, not a model for systemic change.
The interfaith worship change that has actually happened historically tends to come from:
- Young people whose cross-tradition friendships made inherited distinctions feel artificial
- Lay musicians and worship leaders with broad ecumenical exposure
- Communities founded around mission rather than tradition maintenance
- Individuals who converted or moved between traditions
Hendricks’s observation applies directly to Unificationist interfaith work: if the plan for religious unity depends on established religious leaders agreeing to modify their worship practice, it will not happen in any meaningful timeframe. The populist church model is better positioned — it’s not bound to tradition in the first place.
This is one reason the Hub (LA, 2008) worked: young adults, free of institutional loyalty, built something together that clergy couldn’t.