Answering Questions
As this summer continues to be one of leaping from atrocity to atrocity, we need to think about the presence of the church within the world. Are we saying or being anything of help? How are we living within our communities? Are we making any difference? How can we engage the world? How can we draw others to the redeeming grace of God? How can we move beyond the negative stereotypes of being religious? Basically, we need to do a self-assessment. The following major questions--WHO? WHAT? and WHY? are means by which to make this assessment.
WHO?
This question connects on several levels. Each level begins to inform our self-understanding of whom someone from outside meets as they come through the door.
There is the basic, literal level of identifying who actually sits in the pews. Who is there? How many? How old are they? Where do they fall on the economic strata? Educational strata? Are they predominantly married or single? Children? Or no? All manner of demographic information comes to the fore. This view is the face of the congregation--the first impression--that can immediately invite someone in or begin to close the door.
The second level is the theology of the congregation. Is it a progressive fellowship? Is it an evangelical gathering? Or is it a blended family of faith, with all manner of theologies present on any given Sunday? In our highly partisan context, there are many voices that make this part of our self-identification competitive--there is only one correct stance, so be sure your group is on the right side. As a church, though, that impulse needs to be disenfranchised. Faith is not a competition. It is life itself. Therefore, being able to understand the faith stance of one's community is imperative as that community tries to engage the world beyond its walls. Each stance has something in and of itself to offer, for there are seekers for each stance. Some folks need a more rigid code of conduct, and one that is less amorphous in facing the issues within the world. They need someone to draw lines between what is acceptable and what isn't. They need a simpler means for dealing with issues of enormous complexity--someone to tell them what is a strong answer or response to a given morass. Others, though, have been harmed by such rigidity. What they need is welcome. They need room to breathe, to explore, and to examine issues deeply, especially if one answer is no longer as sure or certain. They need someone willing to face the ambiguity of life as it comes, not making an attempt to order it. They need to hear voices willing to admit more than one way, speaking more grace, and crossing lines rather than enforcing them. If Peter and Paul serve as proper examples, then this dynamic between progressive and conservative sub-elements has always been a piece of being church. Finally, though, there is a third option of being a mixed community of faith. In these congregations, one will find voices from all over the theological spectrum. They are able to co-exist because they chose to co-exist, preferring a more relative stance--my experience leads me to this conclusion; your experience leads you to that conclusion; so both conclusions are valid. Being together trumps being right.
The third level is recognizing what type of congregation a church is. For example, in our presbytery, we have four basic types--
Established church -- a traditional congregation in every way--worship, church
school, Wednesday Night Fellowship, Youth Group, etc.
New Worshipping Community -- out of the box, might not look like anything
known, but has a core of faith practice
Ethnic Fellowship -- (1) or (2) above, but comprised of Non-Anglo people
Resurrection Remnant -- a group left after the departure of an established
church to another denomination, seeking a resurrected life
A major concluding piece of this examination is whether or not we are content as we are. Is this who we want to be? Is there room for change? Can we change? Should we change? Or should we focus on who is here now, and develop ministry from there?
WHAT?
Once we get a clear sense of who is present, we begin to assess what we do. How are we putting people to work as they seek to live their faith? What activities define our congregational life? Where are we focusing most of our human and material resources? Where and on what are we spending our money? What often happens as congregations begin to really examine their activity, they find that they are trying to be a full-service church--i.e., provide all things for all people--even if they are maxing themselves out in the effort. The full-service church is model falling into obsolescence. Fewer and fewer congregations have the numbers to really accomplish this work. They get spread a mile wide, but an inch deep. They discover the fallacy of multitasking--i.e., I am not able to do many things expertly simultaneously, but rather wind up doing many things badly. A self-examination that proves extremely effective here is to look at what a congregation does really, really well. What is a program that nearly everyone left feeling great about what happened--worker and consumer alike? Where do members find the greatest affirmation? Where do outsiders meet the best of who a congregation is? Answering these questions and the like lead a congregation to focus on the best--play to your strengths. Allow that focus to become the draw to newcomers--we are the church that does THIS! Join us! Focus on the ministries and works of faith that bring the most fulfillment, meaning, and purpose to members' lives--that's the goal, right? To bring people into the redeeming presence of God, discovering the gifts God blesses them with as they fulfill the promise of being children of God? So, a church needs to review its activities to be sure that happens.
WHY?
In so many ways, this final question is the most important. It really doesn't matter who comes, nor what anyone does, if there is no understanding of why. Like the question of Who?, this question also intersects with a congregation on many levels.
First, there is the theological, faithful rationale for what is done and gathering people together. For many congregations, this insight is an "ah, hah" revelation. For years, things were done just because they were done. No one really thought about why the people in the pews were there; it was the same group week after week, so be it. The youngest generation entering adulthood is rejecting anything that reeks of habit. They want to know why doing something, joining something, or believing something is important. They often feel that for too long, older generations have just hit them again and again with, "Just do it!" Their push for explanation is a gift of grace. Are we being the people of God we claim to be? Are our activities a response to God's grace? Are they a response to God's call to go and make disciples? Are they helping anyone discover the wonder and joy of being unique acts of God's creative will?
Second, there is responding to someone's question from the community about why a congregation should be a part of it. Rather than responding from a defensive posture of justifying one's existence, a congregation can instead make this part of their own self-examination--what would our community lose if we were not here? On one hand, this line of questions forces us to consider our relevance. If we honestly and confessionally come to the conclusion that nothing would be lost, then we have our focus for our new work. More likely, though, what happens is that we begin to claim our place in the community by seeing what we add to it. For example, an established church becomes the home for a Latino ministry, recognizing that the demographics of a community have shifted, but no one really has adjusted to that changed context. If the church were gone, then that outreach would vanish; ergo, we see why we are here. The same is true for a slew of social justice issues--the church is often the prophetic voice calling for change, justice, or reconciliation; and if it were gone, so, too, would that voice fall silent. But it is also true on the basic level of spirituality. I am not adverse to reflecting that many of our current societal issues are rooted in a loss of seeing the value, worth, and dignity of being human. More materialistic forces determine how we engage with one another (or refuse to, for that matter). The strident partisanship we endure could well be the result of a loss of our soul--we no longer have a core of Spirit; so we replace it with politics, class status, money, work, sex, drugs, etc. The problem is that with the disconnect from God and God's reason for human existence, we fall into the abyss of pursuing things that cannot redeem us or offer any sort of lasting meaning to life. We need to ask ourselves if we within the church are that source of hope.
WHO?
This question connects on several levels. Each level begins to inform our self-understanding of whom someone from outside meets as they come through the door.
There is the basic, literal level of identifying who actually sits in the pews. Who is there? How many? How old are they? Where do they fall on the economic strata? Educational strata? Are they predominantly married or single? Children? Or no? All manner of demographic information comes to the fore. This view is the face of the congregation--the first impression--that can immediately invite someone in or begin to close the door.
The second level is the theology of the congregation. Is it a progressive fellowship? Is it an evangelical gathering? Or is it a blended family of faith, with all manner of theologies present on any given Sunday? In our highly partisan context, there are many voices that make this part of our self-identification competitive--there is only one correct stance, so be sure your group is on the right side. As a church, though, that impulse needs to be disenfranchised. Faith is not a competition. It is life itself. Therefore, being able to understand the faith stance of one's community is imperative as that community tries to engage the world beyond its walls. Each stance has something in and of itself to offer, for there are seekers for each stance. Some folks need a more rigid code of conduct, and one that is less amorphous in facing the issues within the world. They need someone to draw lines between what is acceptable and what isn't. They need a simpler means for dealing with issues of enormous complexity--someone to tell them what is a strong answer or response to a given morass. Others, though, have been harmed by such rigidity. What they need is welcome. They need room to breathe, to explore, and to examine issues deeply, especially if one answer is no longer as sure or certain. They need someone willing to face the ambiguity of life as it comes, not making an attempt to order it. They need to hear voices willing to admit more than one way, speaking more grace, and crossing lines rather than enforcing them. If Peter and Paul serve as proper examples, then this dynamic between progressive and conservative sub-elements has always been a piece of being church. Finally, though, there is a third option of being a mixed community of faith. In these congregations, one will find voices from all over the theological spectrum. They are able to co-exist because they chose to co-exist, preferring a more relative stance--my experience leads me to this conclusion; your experience leads you to that conclusion; so both conclusions are valid. Being together trumps being right.
The third level is recognizing what type of congregation a church is. For example, in our presbytery, we have four basic types--
Established church -- a traditional congregation in every way--worship, church
school, Wednesday Night Fellowship, Youth Group, etc.
New Worshipping Community -- out of the box, might not look like anything
known, but has a core of faith practice
Ethnic Fellowship -- (1) or (2) above, but comprised of Non-Anglo people
Resurrection Remnant -- a group left after the departure of an established
church to another denomination, seeking a resurrected life
A major concluding piece of this examination is whether or not we are content as we are. Is this who we want to be? Is there room for change? Can we change? Should we change? Or should we focus on who is here now, and develop ministry from there?
WHAT?
Once we get a clear sense of who is present, we begin to assess what we do. How are we putting people to work as they seek to live their faith? What activities define our congregational life? Where are we focusing most of our human and material resources? Where and on what are we spending our money? What often happens as congregations begin to really examine their activity, they find that they are trying to be a full-service church--i.e., provide all things for all people--even if they are maxing themselves out in the effort. The full-service church is model falling into obsolescence. Fewer and fewer congregations have the numbers to really accomplish this work. They get spread a mile wide, but an inch deep. They discover the fallacy of multitasking--i.e., I am not able to do many things expertly simultaneously, but rather wind up doing many things badly. A self-examination that proves extremely effective here is to look at what a congregation does really, really well. What is a program that nearly everyone left feeling great about what happened--worker and consumer alike? Where do members find the greatest affirmation? Where do outsiders meet the best of who a congregation is? Answering these questions and the like lead a congregation to focus on the best--play to your strengths. Allow that focus to become the draw to newcomers--we are the church that does THIS! Join us! Focus on the ministries and works of faith that bring the most fulfillment, meaning, and purpose to members' lives--that's the goal, right? To bring people into the redeeming presence of God, discovering the gifts God blesses them with as they fulfill the promise of being children of God? So, a church needs to review its activities to be sure that happens.
WHY?
In so many ways, this final question is the most important. It really doesn't matter who comes, nor what anyone does, if there is no understanding of why. Like the question of Who?, this question also intersects with a congregation on many levels.
First, there is the theological, faithful rationale for what is done and gathering people together. For many congregations, this insight is an "ah, hah" revelation. For years, things were done just because they were done. No one really thought about why the people in the pews were there; it was the same group week after week, so be it. The youngest generation entering adulthood is rejecting anything that reeks of habit. They want to know why doing something, joining something, or believing something is important. They often feel that for too long, older generations have just hit them again and again with, "Just do it!" Their push for explanation is a gift of grace. Are we being the people of God we claim to be? Are our activities a response to God's grace? Are they a response to God's call to go and make disciples? Are they helping anyone discover the wonder and joy of being unique acts of God's creative will?
Second, there is responding to someone's question from the community about why a congregation should be a part of it. Rather than responding from a defensive posture of justifying one's existence, a congregation can instead make this part of their own self-examination--what would our community lose if we were not here? On one hand, this line of questions forces us to consider our relevance. If we honestly and confessionally come to the conclusion that nothing would be lost, then we have our focus for our new work. More likely, though, what happens is that we begin to claim our place in the community by seeing what we add to it. For example, an established church becomes the home for a Latino ministry, recognizing that the demographics of a community have shifted, but no one really has adjusted to that changed context. If the church were gone, then that outreach would vanish; ergo, we see why we are here. The same is true for a slew of social justice issues--the church is often the prophetic voice calling for change, justice, or reconciliation; and if it were gone, so, too, would that voice fall silent. But it is also true on the basic level of spirituality. I am not adverse to reflecting that many of our current societal issues are rooted in a loss of seeing the value, worth, and dignity of being human. More materialistic forces determine how we engage with one another (or refuse to, for that matter). The strident partisanship we endure could well be the result of a loss of our soul--we no longer have a core of Spirit; so we replace it with politics, class status, money, work, sex, drugs, etc. The problem is that with the disconnect from God and God's reason for human existence, we fall into the abyss of pursuing things that cannot redeem us or offer any sort of lasting meaning to life. We need to ask ourselves if we within the church are that source of hope.
Comments
Post a Comment