Dear Pilgrims,

Once again thank you for all of your comments and responses to these occasional ramblings. For those of you who are keeping score, Steven has broken out of his batting slump and starting to get the hang of little league pitching.

Ive been doing some interesting reading lately as I begin to think about what it means to be a pastor and a church in the 21^st century.* Clearly, as I move around the district, there are as many descriptions of 21^st ministry and mission as there are churches and clergy. For some churches it is about survival and others transformation, for some clergy it is about making it to retirement and others initiating radical discipleship; I suspect that most of us, church, laity and clergy alike fall far closer to the middle than to either extreme.

Taken from the book Sizing Up the Shape of the Church by George Hunsberger, Reggie McNeal notes that ones understanding of the church becomes determinative for the churches agenda.

This quote is ripe for reflection and criticism but it certainly offers food for spiritual reflection. Every church should ask the question How has God shaped our mission to the community? Or, perhaps another way, What have I/we (as our personal interest) placed in Gods way inhibiting my/our transformation as a person/church?

I suspect that many churches fall into all three of the categories above; personally I think there is nothing wrong with that, but lets not stop there. How do we take the best of who we are as a community of faith and pepper it so that we continue to stretch with God into something that God desires and not just what is comfortable for us?

Blessings,

Gary

*Ive been reading:

www.CourageousSpace.com

Dan Smith and Mary Sellon

If no one has told you this before, we want you to hear it now. Congregational renewal entails shifting the culture of a congregation. And, shifting the culture of a congregation generates conflict, significant conflict. Some of the conflict will make sense to you; you'll see it coming. But, if your congregation is typical, at some point you'll be blindsided by conflict that seems to rise from nowhere and leaves you wondering if your congregation can survive it.

One common definition of conflict is: the people involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests, concerns, or values. It's the sense of threat that causes the problems. When people feel they stand to lose something deeply important, they not only resist, they fight. Congregational renewal requires people to make significant shifts in their practices and how think about church, their community and their relationship with God. People naturally wonder and worry how these shifts may compromise what they hold to be most important about their congregation.

People satisfied with the status quo may find the very idea of renewal threatening. Others will be fine with the concept, but not with the reality of changing. "We explained over and over what the plan for renewal was and what it would entail," a board member of a small California church shared. "The congregation approved it unanimously and we called a pastor based on that plan. But now that he's here and we're actually addressing these things, all hell has broken loose. I've lost count of the times people have said, 'Yes, I voted for renewal, but I didn't know it meant that.'"

Congregations typically possess limited skills and comfort in dealing with conflict. Many learned somewhere along the line that Christians aren't supposed to disagree with each other at church. This means they don't openly share differing viewpoints. They stuff their frustration, until it leaks out or boils over. At that point, four particularly destructive attitudes typically arise: blame, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling (refusing to respond). Relationship researcher, John Gottman, calls them the four horsemen of the apocalypse because of their ability to stymie connection and creativity.

Blame, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling are natural ways we protect ourselves when we feel threatened. The subject of church is very personal to people. In renewal, you're making significant shifts to a place where people currently find meaning and experience belonging. The people in your congregation have personal attachments to particular traditions, practices, and routines; they are venues in which they have experienced God. Those facing significant change in other aspects of their lives may feel overwhelmed. We often hear some form of the phrase, "I need my church to be the one place that doesn't change." When changes begin to take place, even much-desired changes, the climate can become highly charged and very emotional.

Many congregations avoid conflict at all costs. They swing between putting lids on disagreements and cleaning up messes when the contained pot boils over. Their discomfort leads them to back away from renewal when conflict arises. They don't know what to do and going forward feels like it might split or kill their congregation. Conflict, however, is not the enemy of renewal, but a natural by-product of the renewal process. When managed skillfully, conflict generates the energy needed to help a congregation stretch and grow.

A more uncommon definition of conflict sees it simply as two or more differing ideas bumping up against each other. This perspective values conflict for the way it wakes people up and provokes new lines of thinking. It encourages people to remain open and creative, even as they experience discomfort. Surfacing differing positions and ideas creates the pool that spawns new thoughts, new ideas, and unexpected growth Addressed early and well, conflict is a creative moment where God can help something new happen in your midst.

If youre working renewal in a congregation, be ready for conflict and help your leaders be ready. Your perspective on conflict and your methods for working with it will greatly determine whether conflict spurs your congregations renewal process or derails it. Learn how to be present with and work appreciatively with conflict. As a leader in your church, make it a priority to help your congregation develop skills in managing and utilizing conflict.

Churches with a missional mindset are eager to reach out to those in their communities. In the process, they are likely to grapple with the question asked of Jesus, which prompted the parable of the Good Samaritan: Who is my neighbor? Church folk often think demographically at this point, and seek to describe how the neighbors look. (The Research Office heartily endorses this and provides resources to assist with this worthy task.) In jumping to this place, however, they often overlook a related question that can greatly impact the determination of who composes their neighbors: How do I define my community? Put another way: What boundaries constitute the community we are called to primarily serve? Or, in terms similar to the question posed to Jesus: Where is my neighbor?

John Wesley noted that the world was his parish. This is true in some sense of all churches living out the tradition he started. Even so, it is important that churches come to grips with their primary local ministry area. Amazingly few churches seem to have given this much thought. The Research Office fields requests for demographics by asking about defining the geography of interest to the church, and finds most callers need to reflect about it. Some quickly assume a zip code or two, or throw out a distance from the church to draw a concentric circle around it. These approaches might be valid in some cases, but should involve serious thought rather than an impulsive guess

Several factors need to be considered when identifying what geography covers the community served by a church The overriding issue is Gods calling on the church. This is something which is spiritually discerned and comes to churches in a variety of ways. This newsletter will not attempt to suggest how this may come about other than encouraging concerted prayer toward that end. This discernment can often be made in conjunction with practical considerations. For example, a church should identify the important factors that have historically informed the sense of community, and whether or not they are still valid. Have times changed? Has the neighborhood changed? Has the congregation changed? Was there once a clearly defined sense of who they served? Is it still valid?

A key component in community assessment relates to the usually obvious level of urbanity. Community for an isolated rural church is very different than that for a densely populated urban neighborhood. The rural church may define community as the handful of people who all look alike and live within 10 miles. The urban church may have more folks within two blocks than the rural church has for miles, and that cluster may be highly diverse. And if not, then one does not have to go far to find diversity of all kinds in a typical highly urbanized area. Between these two ends of the spectrum we find suburbia, exurbia, and small-to-midsize towns and cities, each with their own distinctions about what community means.

The size of the church also impacts who it serves A megachurch is a regional church, by definition, with thousands of congregants driving past many other churches to get there. A small-to-midsize church tends to be much more of a neighborhood church, though our mobile society is much less concerned about nearness than our ancestors were. In some parts of the US, there are United Methodist churches every six or seven miles or so, harking back to the horse and buggy days when they were established. Proximity to other churches can be an issue in determining community.

Certainly there are often many churches of other religious affiliations within the boundaries of most church communities. Sometimes they are other United Methodist churches. Each church will need to consider whether nearby churches impact its definition of community or not. Obviously, if neighboring churches are being totally ineffective in reaching those around them, there should be less concern about nearby ministry impact.

A common tendency of church folk, when asked to define the boundaries of their community, is to look at where their current people live. This can be helpful and then again, not so helpful. It is certainly a good place to start. One common instance where this is not helpful is the case of an aging urban church, whose members have moved out of the neighborhood as they or the community changed, and now drive back from various outlying areas. The church has no ministry in those areas and is not likely to. Even in cases where some people drive much farther than others for the right reasons, it may be unrealistic for church outreach to extend there, given the limitations of smaller churches. It is really about where the church can realistically minister to the whole community, not just to a few outlying members. Ministry means doing something that truly impacts the lives of folk beyond the flock in a focused way.

Churches will often overstate their ministry boundaries when they have not given the issue genuine consideration. They have never really gotten out a map and drawn out boundaries. When this is done, it turns out that miles are really bigger than imagined. Also, natural boundaries are often factors. These include rivers, railroad tracks, freeways, and the like. In urban areas, a few blocks can mark a huge transition in income, race, ethnicity, school districts, and other urban realities, which can serve to form boundaries every bit as real as a river.

Churches thinking in terms of a concentric circle of some distance around the church should consider what that circle intersects. Portions of the circle may be outside natural boundaries and therefore include people who are not realistically part of the ministry area. Some churches with a particular mission focus are regional by nature, however, even if they are not large. These include churches targeted to reach a particular population group and not a particular geography. These could include racial/ethnic churches, for example.

Curiously, paragraph 341:4 of The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church refers to the bounds of a pastoral charge, though in a context different from the discussion here. It would be interesting to learn what the writers of this paragraph considered obvious enough not to define. It was likely written a century ago when assumptions were very different than now and a parish concept prevailed. In todays world, being missional demands that we know where we are going when we move ministry outside the four walls of the church.


Copyright 2009 General Board of Global Ministries
Published by: