“A Very Friendly Church”
In my travels, I often ask congregations, “What are you known for in your community? What do visitors and newcomers most often say, positively, about your church?” The most common response I hear is, “They say we are a very friendly congregation. We’re like a family.” Episcopalians tend to be quite pleased with that compliment. It contrasts strikingly with the old image of us as cold and unwelcoming. It does not quite satisfy me, though, especially when it sounds like laurels to rest upon.
Of course, being friendly is a desirable goal. A congregation is not going to get anywhere at all without it. Our coolness of former days (and, let’s face it, persisting still in some locales), has cost us dearly in lost growth opportunities. Still, friendliness as end-goal is riddled with pitfalls.
• First, every congregation considers itself friendly, and most actually are. So how does OUR friendliness set us apart from the church down the road?
• I visit many congregations that are excessively friendly—to each other! While the new couple or single visitor stands ignored in the corner.
• “Friendliness” before worship or during the Peace equals irreverence and ruins any dignity or spiritual focus of the liturgy. If the Celebrant has to call the congregation down to begin or to continue—that’s TOO much socialization, or at least the wrong time for it.
• Being “like a family” makes my skin crawl a little. Are we really that dysfunctional?
Jesus did say we’d be known by our love. But there is a difference between love and socializing. Love welcomes within the circle. Socialization chatters.
I do love it that Episcopal congregations in our diocese are noted as being friendly and welcoming. May it ever be so, and more universally so. When it comes to the question of what we are known for in our community, and what people compliment a congregation on, I’d love to see us move beyond simple friendliness and on to something deeper than that. Some examples:
• “They’re the ones people turn to when they are in trouble or need help.”
• “That congregation is committed to a life of prayer.”
• “This is the most spiritual and inspiring worship I’ve encountered in a long time.”
• “I experience joy here.”
• “This is where the leading advocates for justice and compassion in our community worship.”
• “This is a church that receives people as they are, not as how they ought to be.”
• “This church teaches and practices a way of walking closer with God.”
• “I met Jesus in that congregation.”
The list goes on. None of those praises exclude friendliness; in fact, none would be possible without it. They illustrate, however, an important truth: friendliness in a church congregation is a beginning, not an ending.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
A Volley from the Canon, #88
A Volley from the Canon, Number 88
WHAT CONGREGATION LEADERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
OR
“Ten Things Your Confirmation Class May Have Failed to Mention
About the Episcopal Church”
During the past half-century, The Episcopal Church has done, frankly, a horrible job at retaining those people who have grown up in it, the first such period in which that has been the case (but ditto for the entire Main Line of Christianity). However, at the same time, it has done a marvelous job of attracting—US!—the immigrants from other denominations and communions, or from church-less-ness, who have made The Episcopal Church our spiritual home. We’ve never in our history had so large an influx.
Something else we have not done terribly well is teaching new recruits and even “cradlers” about ourselves, our own communion. Consequently, we often encounter conflicts based on mis-communications or erroneous suppositions, often brought along from other churches or from no-church. Here are some examples.
1. We practice all three historic ordinations in The Episcopal Church, not just one as in Protestantism, and recognize the order of laity as well. Each of these four orders has its role to play in the mission of the church. They complement one another, but they are different.
We receive the order of laity upon our baptism. Some of us later experience, and have affirmed by the larger church through agonizing formation and examination, a call to the holy orders of ordained ministry; one might then be ordained a deacon, either as a permanent vocation, or as a passage to priesthood. The deacon models the role of servant in the congregation, and has a particular responsibility for raising the plight of the poor, sick, and out-cast to the attention of the community. Some deacons are, in due course, ordained to the priesthood, and are given authority to carry out some of the functions of the bishop in a locality, the “parish,” in his or her absence. A few priests are eventually ordained bishop, to serve as chief pastor and leader of the church in their geographic area, or “diocese.” Yet, inside every bishop, there remains a priest, a deacon, and a baptized person. Each order is separate, and distinct.
2. The Episcopal Church is not a congregational church, nor is it a presbyterian one—Episcopal means “having the governance of bishops.” The basic unit of the Episcopal Church is the diocese, and the bishop (“ordinary”) of the diocese is head pastor to all. Each congregation, from parish to preaching station, is a local branch of the diocese, and it falls under the supervision of its bishop (episkopos means “overseer”).
3. Ministries come under Episcopal oversight, too. Priests serve local congregations under the authority and by appointment of the bishop. (Remember that service called “The Institution,” when the bishop “installed” the new rector or missioner?) Priests are expected to have a high level of professional competency, and thus they enjoy a degree of autonomy in their work. Nevertheless, they work under their bishop, and their authority is derived from his or hers. Deacons, from the inception of the order (Book of Acts), have “belonged” to the bishops. They may be assigned to the supervision of a priest, but only on loan. They work directly for and on behalf of their bishop. And the laity? They also place themselves under the pastoral care of their bishop, in the sacrament of confirmation or reception.
4. Vestries, wardens, and congregations do not “hire” a rector or missioner. Rather, they prayerfully, and with the assent of their bishop, “call” one. Bishops want their congregations to be happy with the selection of their clergy, and the laity are rightly involved in the discernment of the best candidate for their clergy leadership. But the question is not “who is the best person we can get to fill this position?” but “whom is God calling to serve in this role, in this place and at this time?” The “call” cannot be issued without the approval of the bishop. It is the bishop who makes the appointment.
5. Therefore, a vestry cannot “fire” its rector, and the rector cannot “quit.” That would be like one partner in a marriage saying to the other, “You leave now!” Sure, you hear of it happening occasionally, but it is not proper or canonical, and it can only stand if all parties assent to it. When relational problems develop between an Episcopal rector and his or her congregation, the bishop (often through staff) is involved in working through the conflicts and achieving an appropriate resolution—which might, though not painlessly, involve a parting of the ways, but hopefully leads to reconciliation.
6. The vestry, then, is not the clergy’s employer, and the senior warden is not the clergy’s supervisor. The bishop is. Episcopal bishops tend to meet with their clergy often, and to know them well. Not much happens in an Episcopal congregation that the bishop does not know about almost instantaneously. A good senior warden is a friend, trusted confidante, valued aide, and sometimes advisor to a clergy leader, and has an important role in supporting and encouraging him or her. Vestries do well to select a Warden who is equipped for those roles, and not one who has the goal of “shaping up” the clergy—to their own liking.
7. The governance of the Episcopal Church includes all four orders, is modeled after the United States Congress, and is representative—but it is not entirely democratic. In parish meetings, laity have predominance. In diocesan conventions, priests and laity share equally. In General Convention, bishops have equal voice to the other orders. It takes a three-quarters majority in any diocesan deputation to cast an affirmative vote on a resolution in the House of Deputies (laity and priests/deacons), and either the Deputies or the Bishops can block action from the other house. The church is not geared for precipitous or ill-considered shifts in practice. By design, it takes time to turn this ship! Sometimes, it takes patience and restraint to live in it, too.
8. If anyone claims to speak for the Episcopal Church, but proclaims a position contrary to that of the General Convention, that person is misrepresenting the church. Only the General Convention determines the teaching, discipline, and policy of the Episcopal Church.
9. There are no “independent contractors” or “clergy at large” in the Episcopal Church, especially in terms of ministry. Note our striking lack of famous independent televangelists or “Minister’s Name Ministries.” Everyone belongs to, and is responsible to, some ecclesial authority, generally their bishop.
10. Contrary to popular belief, the Episcopal Church is not an “anything goes” denomination. We are not as stringent as the Catholic Church or the Church of Latter Day Saints. It is tough to get excommunicated from TEC (but you can manage to do it). We have learned over the centuries that it is best to allow a considerable amount of leeway in terms of opinions people might express, and even, to a lesser degree, actions they might take. After all, if they contradict the General Convention, they speak only for themselves. We are all still subject to the disciplines of our particular order, though—laity, deacons, priests, or bishops—the order to which we are called by God, and in which ministry we are affirmed by our bishop.
WHAT CONGREGATION LEADERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
OR
“Ten Things Your Confirmation Class May Have Failed to Mention
About the Episcopal Church”
During the past half-century, The Episcopal Church has done, frankly, a horrible job at retaining those people who have grown up in it, the first such period in which that has been the case (but ditto for the entire Main Line of Christianity). However, at the same time, it has done a marvelous job of attracting—US!—the immigrants from other denominations and communions, or from church-less-ness, who have made The Episcopal Church our spiritual home. We’ve never in our history had so large an influx.
Something else we have not done terribly well is teaching new recruits and even “cradlers” about ourselves, our own communion. Consequently, we often encounter conflicts based on mis-communications or erroneous suppositions, often brought along from other churches or from no-church. Here are some examples.
1. We practice all three historic ordinations in The Episcopal Church, not just one as in Protestantism, and recognize the order of laity as well. Each of these four orders has its role to play in the mission of the church. They complement one another, but they are different.
We receive the order of laity upon our baptism. Some of us later experience, and have affirmed by the larger church through agonizing formation and examination, a call to the holy orders of ordained ministry; one might then be ordained a deacon, either as a permanent vocation, or as a passage to priesthood. The deacon models the role of servant in the congregation, and has a particular responsibility for raising the plight of the poor, sick, and out-cast to the attention of the community. Some deacons are, in due course, ordained to the priesthood, and are given authority to carry out some of the functions of the bishop in a locality, the “parish,” in his or her absence. A few priests are eventually ordained bishop, to serve as chief pastor and leader of the church in their geographic area, or “diocese.” Yet, inside every bishop, there remains a priest, a deacon, and a baptized person. Each order is separate, and distinct.
2. The Episcopal Church is not a congregational church, nor is it a presbyterian one—Episcopal means “having the governance of bishops.” The basic unit of the Episcopal Church is the diocese, and the bishop (“ordinary”) of the diocese is head pastor to all. Each congregation, from parish to preaching station, is a local branch of the diocese, and it falls under the supervision of its bishop (episkopos means “overseer”).
3. Ministries come under Episcopal oversight, too. Priests serve local congregations under the authority and by appointment of the bishop. (Remember that service called “The Institution,” when the bishop “installed” the new rector or missioner?) Priests are expected to have a high level of professional competency, and thus they enjoy a degree of autonomy in their work. Nevertheless, they work under their bishop, and their authority is derived from his or hers. Deacons, from the inception of the order (Book of Acts), have “belonged” to the bishops. They may be assigned to the supervision of a priest, but only on loan. They work directly for and on behalf of their bishop. And the laity? They also place themselves under the pastoral care of their bishop, in the sacrament of confirmation or reception.
4. Vestries, wardens, and congregations do not “hire” a rector or missioner. Rather, they prayerfully, and with the assent of their bishop, “call” one. Bishops want their congregations to be happy with the selection of their clergy, and the laity are rightly involved in the discernment of the best candidate for their clergy leadership. But the question is not “who is the best person we can get to fill this position?” but “whom is God calling to serve in this role, in this place and at this time?” The “call” cannot be issued without the approval of the bishop. It is the bishop who makes the appointment.
5. Therefore, a vestry cannot “fire” its rector, and the rector cannot “quit.” That would be like one partner in a marriage saying to the other, “You leave now!” Sure, you hear of it happening occasionally, but it is not proper or canonical, and it can only stand if all parties assent to it. When relational problems develop between an Episcopal rector and his or her congregation, the bishop (often through staff) is involved in working through the conflicts and achieving an appropriate resolution—which might, though not painlessly, involve a parting of the ways, but hopefully leads to reconciliation.
6. The vestry, then, is not the clergy’s employer, and the senior warden is not the clergy’s supervisor. The bishop is. Episcopal bishops tend to meet with their clergy often, and to know them well. Not much happens in an Episcopal congregation that the bishop does not know about almost instantaneously. A good senior warden is a friend, trusted confidante, valued aide, and sometimes advisor to a clergy leader, and has an important role in supporting and encouraging him or her. Vestries do well to select a Warden who is equipped for those roles, and not one who has the goal of “shaping up” the clergy—to their own liking.
7. The governance of the Episcopal Church includes all four orders, is modeled after the United States Congress, and is representative—but it is not entirely democratic. In parish meetings, laity have predominance. In diocesan conventions, priests and laity share equally. In General Convention, bishops have equal voice to the other orders. It takes a three-quarters majority in any diocesan deputation to cast an affirmative vote on a resolution in the House of Deputies (laity and priests/deacons), and either the Deputies or the Bishops can block action from the other house. The church is not geared for precipitous or ill-considered shifts in practice. By design, it takes time to turn this ship! Sometimes, it takes patience and restraint to live in it, too.
8. If anyone claims to speak for the Episcopal Church, but proclaims a position contrary to that of the General Convention, that person is misrepresenting the church. Only the General Convention determines the teaching, discipline, and policy of the Episcopal Church.
9. There are no “independent contractors” or “clergy at large” in the Episcopal Church, especially in terms of ministry. Note our striking lack of famous independent televangelists or “Minister’s Name Ministries.” Everyone belongs to, and is responsible to, some ecclesial authority, generally their bishop.
10. Contrary to popular belief, the Episcopal Church is not an “anything goes” denomination. We are not as stringent as the Catholic Church or the Church of Latter Day Saints. It is tough to get excommunicated from TEC (but you can manage to do it). We have learned over the centuries that it is best to allow a considerable amount of leeway in terms of opinions people might express, and even, to a lesser degree, actions they might take. After all, if they contradict the General Convention, they speak only for themselves. We are all still subject to the disciplines of our particular order, though—laity, deacons, priests, or bishops—the order to which we are called by God, and in which ministry we are affirmed by our bishop.
Appreciative Inquiry Redux
ONE MORE COMMENT ON MUTUAL MINISTRY REVIEW THROUGH APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY
While the Appreciative Inquiry method does not accomplish everything, I have never known a Mutual Ministry Review using Appreciative Inquiry NOT to produce a plan of action for the coming year or so that addressed concerns of all present. I have never known the process NOT to bring the majority of the participants closer together and in better relationship with one another than previously, so that the likelihood of their working together productively was improved. These are helpful and positive results, but they might not be exciting, and they certainly might not resolve all issues. That is not their goal.
The process does not always satisfy everyone, particularly in settings where there is significant and deep conflict, usually of long standing. When people come to a meeting “loaded for bear,” they are predictably disappointed if they do not have the opportunity to designate and shoot a bear. Bear-hunting, though a traditional practice, is nevertheless unproductive to the healthy functioning of a congregation. The very fact that people crave it indicates that the level of conflict in the organization is high. Nothing positive is gained from a session in which an emotional explosion takes place and antagonists square off to blame one another for all perceived failings. No real resolution occurs: combatants bide their time to fight another day.
One person’s “truth-telling” is another’s “venting” or “scape-goating,” and there is a distinction to be made between stating facts and expressing opinions, which can be lost in the heat of an angry and alienating exchange. There is a time for the truth-telling aspect of that, though—in the calmer and safer environment of the Conflict Resolution process, led by an experienced and competent facilitator. A Mutual Ministry Review through Appreciative Inquiry is a short-term activity to be done occasionally as a check-up on how the organization is functioning. Conflict Resolution is a longer-term and more involved project.
Appreciative Inquiry, then, is not Conflict Resolution. It is a way of stepping outside conflict to accomplish some positive change. It can help a congregation move forward, even while preparing to deal more directly with its conflicts in a deeper way.
While the Appreciative Inquiry method does not accomplish everything, I have never known a Mutual Ministry Review using Appreciative Inquiry NOT to produce a plan of action for the coming year or so that addressed concerns of all present. I have never known the process NOT to bring the majority of the participants closer together and in better relationship with one another than previously, so that the likelihood of their working together productively was improved. These are helpful and positive results, but they might not be exciting, and they certainly might not resolve all issues. That is not their goal.
The process does not always satisfy everyone, particularly in settings where there is significant and deep conflict, usually of long standing. When people come to a meeting “loaded for bear,” they are predictably disappointed if they do not have the opportunity to designate and shoot a bear. Bear-hunting, though a traditional practice, is nevertheless unproductive to the healthy functioning of a congregation. The very fact that people crave it indicates that the level of conflict in the organization is high. Nothing positive is gained from a session in which an emotional explosion takes place and antagonists square off to blame one another for all perceived failings. No real resolution occurs: combatants bide their time to fight another day.
One person’s “truth-telling” is another’s “venting” or “scape-goating,” and there is a distinction to be made between stating facts and expressing opinions, which can be lost in the heat of an angry and alienating exchange. There is a time for the truth-telling aspect of that, though—in the calmer and safer environment of the Conflict Resolution process, led by an experienced and competent facilitator. A Mutual Ministry Review through Appreciative Inquiry is a short-term activity to be done occasionally as a check-up on how the organization is functioning. Conflict Resolution is a longer-term and more involved project.
Appreciative Inquiry, then, is not Conflict Resolution. It is a way of stepping outside conflict to accomplish some positive change. It can help a congregation move forward, even while preparing to deal more directly with its conflicts in a deeper way.
A Volley from the Canon, #86
A Volley from the Canon, Number 86
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY
As a dog-lover, I’ve been interested in training techniques for a long time. I remember when choke collars, physical correction, and much scolding were considered essential parts of dog training, which focused largely on what the trainer wanted the animal NOT to do. Negative reinforcement techniques do actually work to eliminate unwanted behaviors. More recently, however, trainers have begun to teach animals what they DO want them to do, instead, working with the creature’s own interests and desire to gain. That works, too, but it has an added advantage: whereas negative reinforcement accomplishes a goal at the expense of the trainer’s relationship with the animal, positive reinforcement accomplishes the same goal and also builds the relationship.
Humans are much more complicated (?), but the same holds true for us. When we are criticized, and when corrections are harsh enough to overcome our resisting reactions, and when we can’t get away, we do tend to conform to the behavior the one in power is attempting to force upon us. We’ll still act out negatively when we think we can get away with it, though. Alternatively, when we receive encouragement and positive reinforcement for good or desired behavior, we will go all out to produce more of that behavior in order to receive more praise. Consequently, we have less time and inclination to engage in less desirable behaviors, to the point that often, they will cease altogether. This principle is actually borne out in behavioral studies.
With which adviser will we have the stronger and more productive relationship?
Appreciative Inquiry is a method of evaluating the effectiveness of group and individual efforts by concentrating on doing more and better that which is already working. It does not mean that we cannot acknowledge weaker areas or growing edges. It just means that criticism and judgment will not be the focus of our conversation.
The result is that a Mutual Ministry Review, using Appreciative Inquiry methods, can be an opportunity for positive growth and encouragement, contributing to a stronger working relationship among clergy and lay ministers in a congregation. It can be something to look forward to and lead to celebration, rather than being a dreaded and anxiety-producing task akin to being sent to the principal’s office in school. Vestry, Wardens, and Clergy all come out with a clearer vision of what their goals and purposes are in a congregation, and how they can accomplish those things more effectively and more collegially. Most of all, it emphasizes that all of our works, and all of our responsibilities, are shared together. We have “many gifts—but the same Spirit working in us.”
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY
As a dog-lover, I’ve been interested in training techniques for a long time. I remember when choke collars, physical correction, and much scolding were considered essential parts of dog training, which focused largely on what the trainer wanted the animal NOT to do. Negative reinforcement techniques do actually work to eliminate unwanted behaviors. More recently, however, trainers have begun to teach animals what they DO want them to do, instead, working with the creature’s own interests and desire to gain. That works, too, but it has an added advantage: whereas negative reinforcement accomplishes a goal at the expense of the trainer’s relationship with the animal, positive reinforcement accomplishes the same goal and also builds the relationship.
Humans are much more complicated (?), but the same holds true for us. When we are criticized, and when corrections are harsh enough to overcome our resisting reactions, and when we can’t get away, we do tend to conform to the behavior the one in power is attempting to force upon us. We’ll still act out negatively when we think we can get away with it, though. Alternatively, when we receive encouragement and positive reinforcement for good or desired behavior, we will go all out to produce more of that behavior in order to receive more praise. Consequently, we have less time and inclination to engage in less desirable behaviors, to the point that often, they will cease altogether. This principle is actually borne out in behavioral studies.
With which adviser will we have the stronger and more productive relationship?
Appreciative Inquiry is a method of evaluating the effectiveness of group and individual efforts by concentrating on doing more and better that which is already working. It does not mean that we cannot acknowledge weaker areas or growing edges. It just means that criticism and judgment will not be the focus of our conversation.
The result is that a Mutual Ministry Review, using Appreciative Inquiry methods, can be an opportunity for positive growth and encouragement, contributing to a stronger working relationship among clergy and lay ministers in a congregation. It can be something to look forward to and lead to celebration, rather than being a dreaded and anxiety-producing task akin to being sent to the principal’s office in school. Vestry, Wardens, and Clergy all come out with a clearer vision of what their goals and purposes are in a congregation, and how they can accomplish those things more effectively and more collegially. Most of all, it emphasizes that all of our works, and all of our responsibilities, are shared together. We have “many gifts—but the same Spirit working in us.”
A Volley from the Canon, #85
A Volley from the Canon, Number 85
MUTUAL MINISTRY
The phone rings or the email alert dings: I have a message from a Senior Warden.
“It’s time for us to evaluate our rector, according to his/her contract,” he tells me. “Can you come out and facilitate a job performance review?”
The quick answer, just here among us friends, is ‘NO.” That is not what we do, and it is not what the clergy-vestry Letter of Agreement calls for. What we do is called a Mutual Ministry Review, and it involves an assessment of what is working best among the whole congregation, particularly its leadership, lay and ordained.
It’s easy to see where the request was coming from: a traditional business model of employer-employee relations. In an environment in which laborers are a commodity to be used up, chewed up, and spat out, to be easily replaced by other fresh units in abundant supply, that is a tempting, albeit unappealing model. It is not a Christian model, and it holds no attraction for the church.
First, clergy are not expendable or easily replaced. Even under the best conditions, a change in clergy leadership is costly, time-consuming, and disruptive to the life of a congregation. When a congregation is fractious, intractable, adversarial, and blame-projecting, and after it has burned through a couple of rectors in short, contentious order, it renders itself unattractive to future clergy leadership—especially the ones with more gifts, who are in higher demand elsewhere. By its own behavior, the congregation can send itself into a downward spiral, even a death spiral, of conflict and judgment. The whole congregation would do well to pay close attention to the care and feeding of its ministry leadership, both lay and ordained.
Second, as important as strong clergy leadership is to a congregation, clergy do not have all the power to attract or repel either present or future members. The best and brightest rector cannot build a congregation where the folks in the pews are shooing them out the back door as fast as the clergy can lure them in the front. Nor can the clumsy and inept pastor run everyone off where the congregation is warm, supportive, and spiritually committed. Many a congregation has stalled under competent clergy leadership and many a congregation has thrived under inept clergy leadership. It is simply not fair or honest to place all responsibility, and especially all blame, on the clergy leader.
And it doesn’t work. Next week, in a follow-up, I will explain the Appreciative Inquiry process, which is much more effective than a negative critique in producing positive change in the behavior of congregational leaders. Part three of this trilogy will be “What congregational leaders need to know about the Episcopal Church.”
MUTUAL MINISTRY
The phone rings or the email alert dings: I have a message from a Senior Warden.
“It’s time for us to evaluate our rector, according to his/her contract,” he tells me. “Can you come out and facilitate a job performance review?”
The quick answer, just here among us friends, is ‘NO.” That is not what we do, and it is not what the clergy-vestry Letter of Agreement calls for. What we do is called a Mutual Ministry Review, and it involves an assessment of what is working best among the whole congregation, particularly its leadership, lay and ordained.
It’s easy to see where the request was coming from: a traditional business model of employer-employee relations. In an environment in which laborers are a commodity to be used up, chewed up, and spat out, to be easily replaced by other fresh units in abundant supply, that is a tempting, albeit unappealing model. It is not a Christian model, and it holds no attraction for the church.
First, clergy are not expendable or easily replaced. Even under the best conditions, a change in clergy leadership is costly, time-consuming, and disruptive to the life of a congregation. When a congregation is fractious, intractable, adversarial, and blame-projecting, and after it has burned through a couple of rectors in short, contentious order, it renders itself unattractive to future clergy leadership—especially the ones with more gifts, who are in higher demand elsewhere. By its own behavior, the congregation can send itself into a downward spiral, even a death spiral, of conflict and judgment. The whole congregation would do well to pay close attention to the care and feeding of its ministry leadership, both lay and ordained.
Second, as important as strong clergy leadership is to a congregation, clergy do not have all the power to attract or repel either present or future members. The best and brightest rector cannot build a congregation where the folks in the pews are shooing them out the back door as fast as the clergy can lure them in the front. Nor can the clumsy and inept pastor run everyone off where the congregation is warm, supportive, and spiritually committed. Many a congregation has stalled under competent clergy leadership and many a congregation has thrived under inept clergy leadership. It is simply not fair or honest to place all responsibility, and especially all blame, on the clergy leader.
And it doesn’t work. Next week, in a follow-up, I will explain the Appreciative Inquiry process, which is much more effective than a negative critique in producing positive change in the behavior of congregational leaders. Part three of this trilogy will be “What congregational leaders need to know about the Episcopal Church.”
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Volley from the Canon, #84, "Get Out the Word!"
A VOLLEY FROM THE CANON, #84
“GET OUT THE WORD!”
We have historic, attractive churches, which often are not open during the week when people might be passing by to notice. We put signs out front, which direct people to our worship times and to our websites. Those signs can only bear so much information, though.
We can learn a technique from realtors. They put out weather-proof stands to hold brochures on a property right in front of the property, for those who pass by and see the for-sale sign when no one is there. I’ve seen such at churches, too—sometimes cleverly constructed to mimic the architecture of the church itself, sometimes sheltered within enclosed entry porches. They can contain an attractive color folder on the church life, the current parish newsletter, a note of invitation including event times, and contact information. How about a means of requesting prayers by the congregation? An opportunity to request some kind of pastoral attention? An offer to participate in the congregation’s service ministries?
People do drop by church buildings at odd times, especially historic and beautiful ones. In a perfect world, they would be able to go inside to pray or to learn more about the congregation’s life. Alas, that is no longer practical in many places. In response, we can bring some of the inside out for casual visitors to discover.
Perhaps some will be drawn to return, when the family is home!
“GET OUT THE WORD!”
We have historic, attractive churches, which often are not open during the week when people might be passing by to notice. We put signs out front, which direct people to our worship times and to our websites. Those signs can only bear so much information, though.
We can learn a technique from realtors. They put out weather-proof stands to hold brochures on a property right in front of the property, for those who pass by and see the for-sale sign when no one is there. I’ve seen such at churches, too—sometimes cleverly constructed to mimic the architecture of the church itself, sometimes sheltered within enclosed entry porches. They can contain an attractive color folder on the church life, the current parish newsletter, a note of invitation including event times, and contact information. How about a means of requesting prayers by the congregation? An opportunity to request some kind of pastoral attention? An offer to participate in the congregation’s service ministries?
People do drop by church buildings at odd times, especially historic and beautiful ones. In a perfect world, they would be able to go inside to pray or to learn more about the congregation’s life. Alas, that is no longer practical in many places. In response, we can bring some of the inside out for casual visitors to discover.
Perhaps some will be drawn to return, when the family is home!
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
A Volley from the Canon, #82, "And the Award for Avoidance Goes to..."
A VOLLEY FROM THE CANON, NUMBER 82
“And the Award for Avoidance Goes to….”
I’ve recently caught on to a powerful technique for avoiding actually dealing with an unpleasant reality. It’s subtle, and it works every time.
What we can do--when presented with an unpalatable quandary, the solution to which will be difficult, complex, and controversial, however necessary-- is put off that unpleasantness indefinitely by discussing and arguing over the CAUSES of the quandary. In reality, of course, the causes are of little consequence at this point. In any case, there is nothing to be done about them, and all of our points about them may be quite valid to some degree. However, discussing the causes is endlessly fascinating. Everyone has an opinion about it, most of those opinions may be at least partly correct, and no one can disprove any of them. The endless discussion accomplishes its purposes, though: first, we get the pleasure of assigning blame, preferably as far from ourselves as possible. Second, the fixation on causes prevents us having to have the more difficult discussion about what to do, or to engage in the hard work of implementing a plan, or to face the inevitable conflict any plan that involves change would encounter.
It isn’t that we don’t want to address the matter, oh, no. We just never get around to it. We have to figure out what caused it, first.
“And the Award for Avoidance Goes to….”
I’ve recently caught on to a powerful technique for avoiding actually dealing with an unpleasant reality. It’s subtle, and it works every time.
What we can do--when presented with an unpalatable quandary, the solution to which will be difficult, complex, and controversial, however necessary-- is put off that unpleasantness indefinitely by discussing and arguing over the CAUSES of the quandary. In reality, of course, the causes are of little consequence at this point. In any case, there is nothing to be done about them, and all of our points about them may be quite valid to some degree. However, discussing the causes is endlessly fascinating. Everyone has an opinion about it, most of those opinions may be at least partly correct, and no one can disprove any of them. The endless discussion accomplishes its purposes, though: first, we get the pleasure of assigning blame, preferably as far from ourselves as possible. Second, the fixation on causes prevents us having to have the more difficult discussion about what to do, or to engage in the hard work of implementing a plan, or to face the inevitable conflict any plan that involves change would encounter.
It isn’t that we don’t want to address the matter, oh, no. We just never get around to it. We have to figure out what caused it, first.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
A Volley from the Canon, #81 Quick, Easy Therapy and Spiritual Retreat
A Volley from the Canon, #81
Quick, Cheap Therapy and Spiritual Retreat
Trinity Episcopal Church, Waterloo, Iowa has a monthly drum circle session.
Led by Ellen McKeon, a reading teacher, the group meets on the first Friday evening of every month. Anyone may attend, bringing their own drum, or borrowing from a collection of percussion instruments that have accumulated at the church over the years. They are arranged on a cloth-covered table with candles in the center of the room.
There are very few rules to holding a drum circle. The idea is to relieve stress and to build community. No musical background or skill is expected. The drum cadences may be as simple as mimicking one’s own heartbeat, or tapping out the words to a very familiar song. Or they can become highly complex and individualized. Participants claim that the discipline of maintaining rhythm in a group has helped them with other instruments they play, and many find the sessions to bring them a sense of peace and tranquility as well as a cherished social outlet.
Just last month, The General Theological Seminary held a seminar on use of a drum circle for the teaching and practice of prayer.
Drumming and drum circles have connections to Native American and African customs, but these Episcopalians in Iowa find the practice to be universal and primal in meaning. This is an activity that truly can be undertaken by anybody, anywhere.
Quick, Cheap Therapy and Spiritual Retreat
Trinity Episcopal Church, Waterloo, Iowa has a monthly drum circle session.
Led by Ellen McKeon, a reading teacher, the group meets on the first Friday evening of every month. Anyone may attend, bringing their own drum, or borrowing from a collection of percussion instruments that have accumulated at the church over the years. They are arranged on a cloth-covered table with candles in the center of the room.
There are very few rules to holding a drum circle. The idea is to relieve stress and to build community. No musical background or skill is expected. The drum cadences may be as simple as mimicking one’s own heartbeat, or tapping out the words to a very familiar song. Or they can become highly complex and individualized. Participants claim that the discipline of maintaining rhythm in a group has helped them with other instruments they play, and many find the sessions to bring them a sense of peace and tranquility as well as a cherished social outlet.
Just last month, The General Theological Seminary held a seminar on use of a drum circle for the teaching and practice of prayer.
Drumming and drum circles have connections to Native American and African customs, but these Episcopalians in Iowa find the practice to be universal and primal in meaning. This is an activity that truly can be undertaken by anybody, anywhere.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
A VOLLEY FROM THE CANON, # 80 When Praying Becomes Prying, part 2
A VOLLEY FROM THE CANON, # 80
When Praying Becomes Prying, part 2
I know sincere Christian people who have dropped out of intercessory prayer groups because they discovered that what was really happening there was a long conversation about the personal tragedies of others not present. We mean it only in the kindest, most compassionate way, of course! But there is a reason why those tabloid journals fly off the supermarket check-out racks, and why the evening news focuses on human misery and foolishness; and that reason is not flattering to human nature. People love to share bad news and play the “Ain’t it awful!” game. If we can do it in the guise of Christian charity, all the better.
There is another issue, though, related to intercessory prayer: how much information do I really need to pray for someone? I say, not much, and I believe it to be a spiritual issue. If we need to imagine the actual body part or cancer cells of the actual sick person in order to pray effectively for their healing, what does that say about WHOM we believe to be doing the healing? Aren’t we taking over God’s job? Not only do we not do the healing, we also do not know what kind of healing is most needed by the person for whom we pray. God does.
This carries over to the sacrament of unction, too. Several times, when presenting myself for unction at worship, I’ve been asked by the ministers to report what malady I am requesting prayer for. They may be people I don’t even know, and there may be a crowd of others standing around nearby. So, first, I don’t understand why they need to know in order to pray for a gift of healing. I consider that an invasive request in a public setting. God, after all, already knows my whole list. It would be a shame for people not to present themselves for unction out of fear that they might be challenged in that way. Now, if I go up and say, “I’m starting a new round of chemo-therapy this week, and I’m hoping for good results,” then that is a revelation offered of my own free will, and that’s fine. What I am suggesting is that the intercessors ought not to ask.
But in addition, how can I narrow my prayer request down to one thing? I could answer, “Well, I’m just generally a mess, and I need help and healing,” and that would be more accurate. We all need the hand of Jesus laid upon us for all kinds of troubles, physical, mental, and spiritual. Why tie God’s hands by concentrating only on one thing? I’d sooner have God feel free to fix up whatever needs fixing, even if I’m unaware of it.
Most importantly, we should remember that it is God who does the healing. Jesus encourages us to offer ourselves to be a part of that, through prayer and laying on of hands. How that works is, I suppose, in the category of Holy Mystery. I was moved some years ago by Madeleine L’Engle’s story of learning this truth when her husband Hugh was suffering in his final illness. At some point, she realized she did not know what to pray for: what was the best outcome for her husband? She learned simply to offer him to God in prayer, and let God decide how to respond. If we can keep our minds focused on that reality, we stand a chance of keeping our natural over-inquisitiveness at bay.
When Praying Becomes Prying, part 2
I know sincere Christian people who have dropped out of intercessory prayer groups because they discovered that what was really happening there was a long conversation about the personal tragedies of others not present. We mean it only in the kindest, most compassionate way, of course! But there is a reason why those tabloid journals fly off the supermarket check-out racks, and why the evening news focuses on human misery and foolishness; and that reason is not flattering to human nature. People love to share bad news and play the “Ain’t it awful!” game. If we can do it in the guise of Christian charity, all the better.
There is another issue, though, related to intercessory prayer: how much information do I really need to pray for someone? I say, not much, and I believe it to be a spiritual issue. If we need to imagine the actual body part or cancer cells of the actual sick person in order to pray effectively for their healing, what does that say about WHOM we believe to be doing the healing? Aren’t we taking over God’s job? Not only do we not do the healing, we also do not know what kind of healing is most needed by the person for whom we pray. God does.
This carries over to the sacrament of unction, too. Several times, when presenting myself for unction at worship, I’ve been asked by the ministers to report what malady I am requesting prayer for. They may be people I don’t even know, and there may be a crowd of others standing around nearby. So, first, I don’t understand why they need to know in order to pray for a gift of healing. I consider that an invasive request in a public setting. God, after all, already knows my whole list. It would be a shame for people not to present themselves for unction out of fear that they might be challenged in that way. Now, if I go up and say, “I’m starting a new round of chemo-therapy this week, and I’m hoping for good results,” then that is a revelation offered of my own free will, and that’s fine. What I am suggesting is that the intercessors ought not to ask.
But in addition, how can I narrow my prayer request down to one thing? I could answer, “Well, I’m just generally a mess, and I need help and healing,” and that would be more accurate. We all need the hand of Jesus laid upon us for all kinds of troubles, physical, mental, and spiritual. Why tie God’s hands by concentrating only on one thing? I’d sooner have God feel free to fix up whatever needs fixing, even if I’m unaware of it.
Most importantly, we should remember that it is God who does the healing. Jesus encourages us to offer ourselves to be a part of that, through prayer and laying on of hands. How that works is, I suppose, in the category of Holy Mystery. I was moved some years ago by Madeleine L’Engle’s story of learning this truth when her husband Hugh was suffering in his final illness. At some point, she realized she did not know what to pray for: what was the best outcome for her husband? She learned simply to offer him to God in prayer, and let God decide how to respond. If we can keep our minds focused on that reality, we stand a chance of keeping our natural over-inquisitiveness at bay.
A Volley from the Canon, #79, When Praying Becomes Prying, Part One
A Volley from the Canon, #79
WHEN PRAYING BECOMES PRYING, Part One
Most of our congregations have intercessory prayer groups, and all of them have intercessory prayer as part of the Prayers of the People. We rightly put great emphasis on diligence in prayer on behalf of others in need, at home and around the world. Additionally, many of our congregations have also rediscovered the power and pastoral responsiveness of the sacrament of unction, even in “regular” Sunday Eucharists and not just segregated into special “healing” services. Every celebration of Holy Communion ought to be an occasion for healing; and anointing and laying on of hands with prayer for healing certainly has a place there. But there’s a down-side to both of these opportunities for praying, and that is that they also present the temptation to pry into the lives and travails of our fellows.
This is a time when the medical community is required by law to observe strict privacy policies concerning patients’ private health and treatment information, and it’s about time: in the past, I’ve heard health professionals shouting details about people’s medical records and treatments across waiting rooms and pharmacies. We would be wise to adopt the more careful norms voluntarily. Most of the time, people request prayers for a particular purpose, and they are comfortable having their church community know about what they are going through. But we must be careful. The church, and particularly the clergy, ought not to be the source of unauthorized information-sharing about private health information. Let not the intercessory prayer team ever function as the Gossip Hot-line in any Episcopal congregation!
I strongly urge clergy and lay pastoral visitors who attend the sick at home or in hospital to ask this question sometime during their visit: “What would you like me to tell people who ask me about your condition?” Most of the time, the person will reply that it is fine to fill church members in on their illness and treatment—after all, they are usually speaking of it freely themselves. However, they need the opportunity to make that choice. If they respond, “Just say I had a minor illness and am recovering,” we must leave it at that.
I’ve experienced some church members being fairly pushy in asking me about other parishioners’ conditions. Sometimes it is necessary to say, “I really don’t know the details,” (which is generally true even if I know more than I’m saying), or “You need to talk to her (or the family) about that.” I wouldn’t mind at all having a church member complain to the sick person that their priest would not reveal what kind of surgery she had. I would mind terribly having it reported that I, or a lay pastoral visitor, gave out the whole story at Bible Study!
(to be continued)
WHEN PRAYING BECOMES PRYING, Part One
Most of our congregations have intercessory prayer groups, and all of them have intercessory prayer as part of the Prayers of the People. We rightly put great emphasis on diligence in prayer on behalf of others in need, at home and around the world. Additionally, many of our congregations have also rediscovered the power and pastoral responsiveness of the sacrament of unction, even in “regular” Sunday Eucharists and not just segregated into special “healing” services. Every celebration of Holy Communion ought to be an occasion for healing; and anointing and laying on of hands with prayer for healing certainly has a place there. But there’s a down-side to both of these opportunities for praying, and that is that they also present the temptation to pry into the lives and travails of our fellows.
This is a time when the medical community is required by law to observe strict privacy policies concerning patients’ private health and treatment information, and it’s about time: in the past, I’ve heard health professionals shouting details about people’s medical records and treatments across waiting rooms and pharmacies. We would be wise to adopt the more careful norms voluntarily. Most of the time, people request prayers for a particular purpose, and they are comfortable having their church community know about what they are going through. But we must be careful. The church, and particularly the clergy, ought not to be the source of unauthorized information-sharing about private health information. Let not the intercessory prayer team ever function as the Gossip Hot-line in any Episcopal congregation!
I strongly urge clergy and lay pastoral visitors who attend the sick at home or in hospital to ask this question sometime during their visit: “What would you like me to tell people who ask me about your condition?” Most of the time, the person will reply that it is fine to fill church members in on their illness and treatment—after all, they are usually speaking of it freely themselves. However, they need the opportunity to make that choice. If they respond, “Just say I had a minor illness and am recovering,” we must leave it at that.
I’ve experienced some church members being fairly pushy in asking me about other parishioners’ conditions. Sometimes it is necessary to say, “I really don’t know the details,” (which is generally true even if I know more than I’m saying), or “You need to talk to her (or the family) about that.” I wouldn’t mind at all having a church member complain to the sick person that their priest would not reveal what kind of surgery she had. I would mind terribly having it reported that I, or a lay pastoral visitor, gave out the whole story at Bible Study!
(to be continued)
A Volley from the Canon, #79, When Praying Becomes Prying, Part One
A Volley from the Canon, #79
WHEN PRAYING BECOMES PRYING, Part One
Most of our congregations have intercessory prayer groups, and all of them have intercessory prayer as part of the Prayers of the People. We rightly put great emphasis on diligence in prayer on behalf of others in need, at home and around the world. Additionally, many of our congregations have also rediscovered the power and pastoral responsiveness of the sacrament of unction, even in “regular” Sunday Eucharists and not just segregated into special “healing” services. Every celebration of Holy Communion ought to be an occasion for healing; and anointing and laying on of hands with prayer for healing certainly has a place there. But there’s a down-side to both of these opportunities for praying, and that is that they also present the temptation to pry into the lives and travails of our fellows.
This is a time when the medical community is required by law to observe strict privacy policies concerning patients’ private health and treatment information, and it’s about time: in the past, I’ve heard health professionals shouting details about people’s medical records and treatments across waiting rooms and pharmacies. We would be wise to adopt the more careful norms voluntarily. Most of the time, people request prayers for a particular purpose, and they are comfortable having their church community know about what they are going through. But we must be careful. The church, and particularly the clergy, ought not to be the source of unauthorized information-sharing about private health information. Let not the intercessory prayer team ever function as the Gossip Hot-line in any Episcopal congregation!
I strongly urge clergy and lay pastoral visitors who attend the sick at home or in hospital to ask this question sometime during their visit: “What would you like me to tell people who ask me about your condition?” Most of the time, the person will reply that it is fine to fill church members in on their illness and treatment—after all, they are usually speaking of it freely themselves. However, they need the opportunity to make that choice. If they respond, “Just say I had a minor illness and am recovering,” we must leave it at that.
I’ve experienced some church members being fairly pushy in asking me about other parishioners’ conditions. Sometimes it is necessary to say, “I really don’t know the details,” (which is generally true even if I know more than I’m saying), or “You need to talk to her (or the family) about that.” I wouldn’t mind at all having a church member complain to the sick person that their priest would not reveal what kind of surgery she had. I would mind terribly having it reported that I, or a lay pastoral visitor, gave out the whole story at Bible Study!
(to be continued)
WHEN PRAYING BECOMES PRYING, Part One
Most of our congregations have intercessory prayer groups, and all of them have intercessory prayer as part of the Prayers of the People. We rightly put great emphasis on diligence in prayer on behalf of others in need, at home and around the world. Additionally, many of our congregations have also rediscovered the power and pastoral responsiveness of the sacrament of unction, even in “regular” Sunday Eucharists and not just segregated into special “healing” services. Every celebration of Holy Communion ought to be an occasion for healing; and anointing and laying on of hands with prayer for healing certainly has a place there. But there’s a down-side to both of these opportunities for praying, and that is that they also present the temptation to pry into the lives and travails of our fellows.
This is a time when the medical community is required by law to observe strict privacy policies concerning patients’ private health and treatment information, and it’s about time: in the past, I’ve heard health professionals shouting details about people’s medical records and treatments across waiting rooms and pharmacies. We would be wise to adopt the more careful norms voluntarily. Most of the time, people request prayers for a particular purpose, and they are comfortable having their church community know about what they are going through. But we must be careful. The church, and particularly the clergy, ought not to be the source of unauthorized information-sharing about private health information. Let not the intercessory prayer team ever function as the Gossip Hot-line in any Episcopal congregation!
I strongly urge clergy and lay pastoral visitors who attend the sick at home or in hospital to ask this question sometime during their visit: “What would you like me to tell people who ask me about your condition?” Most of the time, the person will reply that it is fine to fill church members in on their illness and treatment—after all, they are usually speaking of it freely themselves. However, they need the opportunity to make that choice. If they respond, “Just say I had a minor illness and am recovering,” we must leave it at that.
I’ve experienced some church members being fairly pushy in asking me about other parishioners’ conditions. Sometimes it is necessary to say, “I really don’t know the details,” (which is generally true even if I know more than I’m saying), or “You need to talk to her (or the family) about that.” I wouldn’t mind at all having a church member complain to the sick person that their priest would not reveal what kind of surgery she had. I would mind terribly having it reported that I, or a lay pastoral visitor, gave out the whole story at Bible Study!
(to be continued)
A Volley from the Canon, #78, Pray without Ceasing
PRAYER WITHOUT CEASING
THE BREATH PRAYER
Years ago, my friend Ron DelBene of the Diocese of Alabama used to advocate what he called “Breath Prayer.” He did not mean prayer related to one’s breathing, as in some eastern disciplines. He meant prayer that is as natural and constant as breathing.
This is far from a new idea. The most common example would be the “Jesus Prayer,” which, with many variations, goes, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” That works for a great many Christian people. But Ron asked, what if that is not your own prayer, at least at this time in your life? What would be your own, personal “breath prayer,” the one that expresses, economically and directly, your own heart’s desire?
He suggested, in prayer, to formulate one. Start with addressing to whom you are praying: “Lord,” or “Dear Jesus,” or whatever is the most appropriate form of address for you in your relationship with The Divine. Then, guided by the Spirit, express what matters most to you, that involves your own spiritual life, at the present time. Keep it short and to the point, because you’ll be repeating it.
That’s your “Breath Prayer.” Repeat as needed—meaning as often as possible, while driving, applying make-up, showering, jogging, standing in the supermarket line, and so on. Try variants such as placing emphasis on different words in series, and note how the meaning cycles.
Your Breath Prayer may last you for years, or you may wear it out. You’ll know, if that happens. But for the time of its usefulness, having and using a Breath Prayer can be a wonderful and meaningful way to practice “praying without ceasing.”
A blessed and holy Lent to all.
THE BREATH PRAYER
Years ago, my friend Ron DelBene of the Diocese of Alabama used to advocate what he called “Breath Prayer.” He did not mean prayer related to one’s breathing, as in some eastern disciplines. He meant prayer that is as natural and constant as breathing.
This is far from a new idea. The most common example would be the “Jesus Prayer,” which, with many variations, goes, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” That works for a great many Christian people. But Ron asked, what if that is not your own prayer, at least at this time in your life? What would be your own, personal “breath prayer,” the one that expresses, economically and directly, your own heart’s desire?
He suggested, in prayer, to formulate one. Start with addressing to whom you are praying: “Lord,” or “Dear Jesus,” or whatever is the most appropriate form of address for you in your relationship with The Divine. Then, guided by the Spirit, express what matters most to you, that involves your own spiritual life, at the present time. Keep it short and to the point, because you’ll be repeating it.
That’s your “Breath Prayer.” Repeat as needed—meaning as often as possible, while driving, applying make-up, showering, jogging, standing in the supermarket line, and so on. Try variants such as placing emphasis on different words in series, and note how the meaning cycles.
Your Breath Prayer may last you for years, or you may wear it out. You’ll know, if that happens. But for the time of its usefulness, having and using a Breath Prayer can be a wonderful and meaningful way to practice “praying without ceasing.”
A blessed and holy Lent to all.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A Volley from the Canon, #77 The Conflict Paradox
A VOLLEY FROM THE CANON, NUMBER 77
THE CONFLICT PARADOX
People in the church have a phobia about conflict. Jesus prayed, and taught us to pray, that we might be of one mind and one spirit. (He must have had some strong hints of how much conflict we would experience, and how much we would suffer for it over the centuries.) Nevertheless, we’ve never been without conflict and, until he comes again, I suspect we never will be.
But we think we aren’t supposed to. “Aren’t Christians supposed to love one another?” people ask. “Aren’t we supposed to work together, and live in harmony?” Sure. And the harmony will begin with everyone coming into agreement and conformity with ME, right?
We have peculiar and unrealistic ideas about conflict.
Some congregations believe they have no conflict. I know of a few who really don’t—because they have already run off everybody who would dare present any idea contrary to that of the ruling junta. The rest have plenty, but they aren’t admitting it or even acknowledging it, because after all, conflict is bad.
Most people believe that if they acknowledge that there is a conflict and attempt to address it, that will cause people to leave the congregation. Therefore, they put up with a state of chronic tension in hopes of avoiding an outright explosion. Meanwhile, the level of anger grows, until finally, when it blows, it really will be an unpleasant sight to see.
The reality is that constant tension is much more draining than actually facing up to differences of opinion while they are still relatively small. Who wants to worship in a community that is eating itself up over conflict, and fear of dealing with it? No one is comfortable walking on eggshells all the time. So the healthier people will leave and go to church elsewhere. This is why congregations lose so many members: NOT dealing with conflict is what causes member losses!
It is ironic, but true: those congregations that realize when they have internal conflicts and deal with them in a deliberate and constructive manner are the ones that set themselves up for growth, health, and unity of spirit. They also are the ones that have the opportunity to learn from a wealth of points of view, with myriad creative ideas and insights cropping up all the time. Additionally, those congregations that have conflict but deal with it come out stronger than before, not weaker.
(A unit on conflict and dealing with it would be an excellent suggestion for many of our vestries and congregations.)
THE CONFLICT PARADOX
People in the church have a phobia about conflict. Jesus prayed, and taught us to pray, that we might be of one mind and one spirit. (He must have had some strong hints of how much conflict we would experience, and how much we would suffer for it over the centuries.) Nevertheless, we’ve never been without conflict and, until he comes again, I suspect we never will be.
But we think we aren’t supposed to. “Aren’t Christians supposed to love one another?” people ask. “Aren’t we supposed to work together, and live in harmony?” Sure. And the harmony will begin with everyone coming into agreement and conformity with ME, right?
We have peculiar and unrealistic ideas about conflict.
Some congregations believe they have no conflict. I know of a few who really don’t—because they have already run off everybody who would dare present any idea contrary to that of the ruling junta. The rest have plenty, but they aren’t admitting it or even acknowledging it, because after all, conflict is bad.
Most people believe that if they acknowledge that there is a conflict and attempt to address it, that will cause people to leave the congregation. Therefore, they put up with a state of chronic tension in hopes of avoiding an outright explosion. Meanwhile, the level of anger grows, until finally, when it blows, it really will be an unpleasant sight to see.
The reality is that constant tension is much more draining than actually facing up to differences of opinion while they are still relatively small. Who wants to worship in a community that is eating itself up over conflict, and fear of dealing with it? No one is comfortable walking on eggshells all the time. So the healthier people will leave and go to church elsewhere. This is why congregations lose so many members: NOT dealing with conflict is what causes member losses!
It is ironic, but true: those congregations that realize when they have internal conflicts and deal with them in a deliberate and constructive manner are the ones that set themselves up for growth, health, and unity of spirit. They also are the ones that have the opportunity to learn from a wealth of points of view, with myriad creative ideas and insights cropping up all the time. Additionally, those congregations that have conflict but deal with it come out stronger than before, not weaker.
(A unit on conflict and dealing with it would be an excellent suggestion for many of our vestries and congregations.)
A Volley from the Canon, #78, Pray without Ceasing
PRAYER WITHOUT CEASING
THE BREATH PRAYER
Years ago, my friend Ron DelBene of the Diocese of Alabama used to advocate what he called “Breath Prayer.” He did not mean prayer related to one’s breathing, as in some eastern disciplines. He meant prayer that is as natural and constant as breathing.
This is far from a new idea. The most common example would be the “Jesus Prayer,” which, with many variations, goes, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” That works for a great many Christian people. But Ron asked, what if that is not your own prayer, at least at this time in your life? What would be your own, personal “breath prayer,” the one that expresses, economically and directly, your own heart’s desire?
He suggested, in prayer, to formulate one. Start with addressing to whom you are praying: “Lord,” or “Dear Jesus,” or whatever is the most appropriate form of address for you in your relationship with The Divine. Then, guided by the Spirit, express what matters most to you, that involves your own spiritual life, at the present time. Keep it short and to the point, because you’ll be repeating it.
That’s your “Breath Prayer.” Repeat as needed—meaning as often as possible, while driving, applying make-up, showering, jogging, standing in the supermarket line, and so on. Try variants such as placing emphasis on different words in series, and note how the meaning cycles.
Your Breath Prayer may last you for years, or you may wear it out. You’ll know, if that happens. But for the time of its usefulness, having and using a Breath Prayer can be a wonderful and meaningful way to practice “praying without ceasing.”
A blessed and holy Lent to all.
THE BREATH PRAYER
Years ago, my friend Ron DelBene of the Diocese of Alabama used to advocate what he called “Breath Prayer.” He did not mean prayer related to one’s breathing, as in some eastern disciplines. He meant prayer that is as natural and constant as breathing.
This is far from a new idea. The most common example would be the “Jesus Prayer,” which, with many variations, goes, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” That works for a great many Christian people. But Ron asked, what if that is not your own prayer, at least at this time in your life? What would be your own, personal “breath prayer,” the one that expresses, economically and directly, your own heart’s desire?
He suggested, in prayer, to formulate one. Start with addressing to whom you are praying: “Lord,” or “Dear Jesus,” or whatever is the most appropriate form of address for you in your relationship with The Divine. Then, guided by the Spirit, express what matters most to you, that involves your own spiritual life, at the present time. Keep it short and to the point, because you’ll be repeating it.
That’s your “Breath Prayer.” Repeat as needed—meaning as often as possible, while driving, applying make-up, showering, jogging, standing in the supermarket line, and so on. Try variants such as placing emphasis on different words in series, and note how the meaning cycles.
Your Breath Prayer may last you for years, or you may wear it out. You’ll know, if that happens. But for the time of its usefulness, having and using a Breath Prayer can be a wonderful and meaningful way to practice “praying without ceasing.”
A blessed and holy Lent to all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
