I receive inspiration from stories of changed lives through innovation.
Boarding schools in theory aren't innovative, but a public boarding charter school in Washington, D.C. (featured on "60 Minutes"), is innovative because it creates opportunities for change and success for youth at risk in the city. Children aren't required to attend the Seed School in SE Washington, they go by choice and application. Students are awarded admission via lottery.
Without realizing it until today, the common thread in my most recent posts is the importance of safety in order to thrive. For congregational meetings, a safe place through boundaries should be fostered in order that all parties have the opportunity to speak. For cities to thrive culturally and economically, citizens need to feel safe. For children to concentrate on their learn at school, they need to feel safe. The threat of violence, public ridicule, or humiliation can drive and group toward paralyzing anxiety. But no system of safety is impermeable. Safety is not the only issue, as healthy social situations balance both safety and risk. Two business people recognized the creative tension of working with safety and risk, and an innovative educational model birthed.
What I find compelling about the school is the testimonials and results of the students and the entrepreneurial acumen of the school's founders, gathering both public and private money to build the school. Kids and families opened the emotional vault for anything related to The Seed School. The Seed School also has a track record of success in test scores and college placement. Is the school perfect? No. But the school raised the bar for education, caused reflection on education practices, and changed the lives of dozens of inner-city children. What a wondrous blending of public and private funds and energy.
Sometimes I see that congregations lose sight of the fact that changed lives and transformation is at the root of Christian witness. Grace matters. Mercy matters. Forgiveness matters. So much energy is wasted on maintaining the status quo in congregations that it's easy to forget that transformation is the raison d'etre of the church. Thank you Seed School for reminding me about the goal of transformation and the thought and action processes behind creating a culture of transformation.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Church and Livable Cities
How does a congregation or the church contribute to a livable city? Is a livable city a good goal for the church to strive? Safety, creativity, cultural activities, quality outdoor spaces, conglomerations of talents contribute to what distinguishes a livable city.
The research, writings and questions of Richard Florida have interested me for years, but my personal investment in community escalated in the past year. I am more attentive to the kind of community where my children will grow. I live in a place where the culture is familiar to me. My wife is connecting with communities all over Western Washington learning about their needs as she works with local congregations to plant new congregations. The video shown above inspired my thinking of the church and livable cities.
I believe the church contributes to a livable city or town. Deeply embedded in Lutheran theology is proclaiming Christ while loving and serving our neighbor. The question that regularly passes through my mind is, "who is my neighbor (Luke 10:29)?" People looking to dwell and work in a livable city, whether it already is a livable city or people work to create one from a broken urban or rural setting--implicitly ask the question, "who is my neighbor?" We want to at least know that our neighbors do not pose a physical threat to us. We are at our best we seek to serve our neighbor, learn more about their gifts and seek to partner with them for the betterment of the community. The church in proclaiming Christ and serving our neighbor contributes to a livable city. The church might see the contributing to a livable city as an opportunity to share the Gospel, but I wonder if creating a livable city is made an obligation through the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Effective Congregational Meetings
"We (in the church) tolerate bad behavior in the name of Jesus."
--Church consultant, Peter Steinke (author of numerous books on congregational systems)
(Full) congregational meetings often digress into forums for bad behavior precisely because leaders fail to set conduct guidelines. The failure is rooted in reasoning that Christians should be able to get together and conduct productive meetings because Christians are naturally good people with good intentions. Congregational meetings fall to the least common denominator quickly. An ill-prepared grand stander or an angry member can quickly derail meeting goals and objectives. Leaders and members generally cower at confrontation or respond with heightened emotion, like throwing gasoline on a fire. The destructive speech or action ends up being tolerated because Christians should be kind and include others perspectives (so the reasoning goes).
Faithful process does not exclude people from participation. Faithful process gives people equal opportunity to speak, sharing perspectives and ideas. However, a meeting environment altered by rancor excludes diverse perspectives, ideas and opinions. A rancorous meeting environment communicates to the congregation that the meeting is not a safe environment to speak publicly. For some people, the fear of public speaking is worse than death. What can a congregation do to conduct good and faithful congregation-wide meetings?
One implicit concern of congregations and their meetings is that conduct guidelines can somehow minimize the "family" atmosphere of a congregation (I am concerned about the "family" identity for congregations, but that is for another post). On the other end of the "family" atmosphere continuum for meetings is that congregations distance themselves from a bureaucratic ethos. Conduct guidelines are appropriate for Synod/Presbytery/judicatory meetings, but not for congregational meetings. Guidelines for congregational meetings show a higher degree of respect for members and participants because guidelines communicate that each person's contribution and time is valued, and that their contribution can be shared in a place that will not bring public ridicule or intimidation. Another concern is that intelligent people should be able to conduct a civil and productive congregational meeting without conduct guidelines. Regardless of the concern, relationships without expectations and boundaries are moving down a destructive path.
After working with Peter Steinke's "Bridgebuilder" process for severely conflicted and stuck congregations, I found that the guidelines Steinke offers for the public grievance portion of the process (aka "listening post"), can also be effective for congregational meetings. The key point to conduct guidelines is that the congregation agrees to the guidelines. Here is a list of common guidelines adapted from Steinke's work with brief explanations:
1. The meeting will last _______ minutes (choose an appropriate and realistic time frame. Don't go over 90 minutes).
Hold those leading the meeting accountable to preparation for the meeting. Respect the time of people in your congregation. Time is a valuable resource. Respect goes a long way.
2. By 2/3 vote of those present at the meeting, the meeting can be extended one time for 30 minutes.
Empower the congregation through choice.
3. Each member present at the meeting may speak for 2 minutes. If everyone speaks who wishes to speak in the original time boundaries, a person may speak for one additional two-minute period.
This guideline makes meeting leaders accountable for providing a meeting agenda and information about topics with adequate time for members to prepare their research and thoughts. Thus participants are also accountable to prepare their statements because they have a limited time to speak.
4. Members are encouraged to use "I" statements when speaking (for example "I think," "I feel," "I notice").
This kind of statement contrasts with the nebulous "they" or "a group of us think." This guideline helps speakers clarify their thoughts and provides a path for direct communication.
5. No verbal attacking, blaming or abusing will be tolerated.
6. Members will be asked to refrain from applause, cheers, boos or similar expressions.
#5 and #6 are other measures offer participants a safe space to publicly communicate.
7. Other ground rules may be incorporated by the members at the discretion of the chair of the meeting.
In higher levels of congregational conflict, a facilitator from outside the congregation can be helpful. If a pastor or congregational president is perceived as taking a particular side dealing with an issue, a professional may be hired or volunteer to facilitate the meeting. Neighboring pastors or congregational leaders can exchange facilitating duties in each respective congregation. In contentious situations, objectivity and attention to good process allows the congregation to come to a clearer, more representative decision when a representative decision is called for.
Congregational meetings are often seen as a necessary evil to move a congregation forward. Boundaries and guidelines for meetings help each member to clarify their relationship and mission while empowering its members to contribute to the creative process. Leaders need to remember that the anxiety of a congregational meeting stirs a desire to defend positions, but the meeting is an opportunity for leaders to learn about the congregation. Conduct guidelines provide the space for a greater cross section of the congregation to present their ideas using the mind that God gave each of us.
--Church consultant, Peter Steinke (author of numerous books on congregational systems)
(Full) congregational meetings often digress into forums for bad behavior precisely because leaders fail to set conduct guidelines. The failure is rooted in reasoning that Christians should be able to get together and conduct productive meetings because Christians are naturally good people with good intentions. Congregational meetings fall to the least common denominator quickly. An ill-prepared grand stander or an angry member can quickly derail meeting goals and objectives. Leaders and members generally cower at confrontation or respond with heightened emotion, like throwing gasoline on a fire. The destructive speech or action ends up being tolerated because Christians should be kind and include others perspectives (so the reasoning goes).
Faithful process does not exclude people from participation. Faithful process gives people equal opportunity to speak, sharing perspectives and ideas. However, a meeting environment altered by rancor excludes diverse perspectives, ideas and opinions. A rancorous meeting environment communicates to the congregation that the meeting is not a safe environment to speak publicly. For some people, the fear of public speaking is worse than death. What can a congregation do to conduct good and faithful congregation-wide meetings?
One implicit concern of congregations and their meetings is that conduct guidelines can somehow minimize the "family" atmosphere of a congregation (I am concerned about the "family" identity for congregations, but that is for another post). On the other end of the "family" atmosphere continuum for meetings is that congregations distance themselves from a bureaucratic ethos. Conduct guidelines are appropriate for Synod/Presbytery/judicatory meetings, but not for congregational meetings. Guidelines for congregational meetings show a higher degree of respect for members and participants because guidelines communicate that each person's contribution and time is valued, and that their contribution can be shared in a place that will not bring public ridicule or intimidation. Another concern is that intelligent people should be able to conduct a civil and productive congregational meeting without conduct guidelines. Regardless of the concern, relationships without expectations and boundaries are moving down a destructive path.
After working with Peter Steinke's "Bridgebuilder" process for severely conflicted and stuck congregations, I found that the guidelines Steinke offers for the public grievance portion of the process (aka "listening post"), can also be effective for congregational meetings. The key point to conduct guidelines is that the congregation agrees to the guidelines. Here is a list of common guidelines adapted from Steinke's work with brief explanations:
1. The meeting will last _______ minutes (choose an appropriate and realistic time frame. Don't go over 90 minutes).
Hold those leading the meeting accountable to preparation for the meeting. Respect the time of people in your congregation. Time is a valuable resource. Respect goes a long way.
2. By 2/3 vote of those present at the meeting, the meeting can be extended one time for 30 minutes.
Empower the congregation through choice.
3. Each member present at the meeting may speak for 2 minutes. If everyone speaks who wishes to speak in the original time boundaries, a person may speak for one additional two-minute period.
This guideline makes meeting leaders accountable for providing a meeting agenda and information about topics with adequate time for members to prepare their research and thoughts. Thus participants are also accountable to prepare their statements because they have a limited time to speak.
4. Members are encouraged to use "I" statements when speaking (for example "I think," "I feel," "I notice").
This kind of statement contrasts with the nebulous "they" or "a group of us think." This guideline helps speakers clarify their thoughts and provides a path for direct communication.
5. No verbal attacking, blaming or abusing will be tolerated.
6. Members will be asked to refrain from applause, cheers, boos or similar expressions.
#5 and #6 are other measures offer participants a safe space to publicly communicate.
7. Other ground rules may be incorporated by the members at the discretion of the chair of the meeting.
In higher levels of congregational conflict, a facilitator from outside the congregation can be helpful. If a pastor or congregational president is perceived as taking a particular side dealing with an issue, a professional may be hired or volunteer to facilitate the meeting. Neighboring pastors or congregational leaders can exchange facilitating duties in each respective congregation. In contentious situations, objectivity and attention to good process allows the congregation to come to a clearer, more representative decision when a representative decision is called for.
Congregational meetings are often seen as a necessary evil to move a congregation forward. Boundaries and guidelines for meetings help each member to clarify their relationship and mission while empowering its members to contribute to the creative process. Leaders need to remember that the anxiety of a congregational meeting stirs a desire to defend positions, but the meeting is an opportunity for leaders to learn about the congregation. Conduct guidelines provide the space for a greater cross section of the congregation to present their ideas using the mind that God gave each of us.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The Mysterious Lives of Church Councils (or fill in the name for your governing board)
(Note: I do not know if the following analysis applies to any congregational board. My only experience rests with ELCA church councils and a session of a Presbyterian (PCUSA) congregation.)
ELCA Lutheran church councils live mysterious lives in their congregations. Congregations look to their council for leadership, but they don't exactly know what they do. Even members who serve on a church council may not be able to describe exactly what they do. One tangible product is a church budget. The rest of the a council's activity becomes a series of decisions of varying worth, lacking strategic nature. Council votes and decisions tend to reflect the degree of urgency in congregational life. Sometimes there are lots of decisions to be made. Sometimes councils can meet for several consecutive months without taking a vote. I think people who serve on church boards appreciate learning about the grace of God through congregational activity, but the general frustration or ennui is palpable in the leadership meeting room.
I write this post because I believe church councils are misused assets. Even though its members spend hours each month attending meetings and managing particular areas of ministry, the gifts of leaders are buried because the council lacks purpose. Council members lack clarity of purpose for their participation. Congregations and councils often lament that so few people are willing to serve on the council. I'm surprised that anyone will serve on a council, especially when they know the purpose and direction of the council is lacking beyond a budget or a particular project. Even if projects and goals are clear and tangible for the council, individual council members lack understanding of expectations for themselves. Here are some common issues I have seen on the governing board in the 10 congregations I have served as pastor and numerous others with which I consulted. I place these issues in two categories.
1. Issues related to expectations for council members:
2. Issues related to basic philosophy and theology of the existence of a council.
ELCA Lutheran church councils live mysterious lives in their congregations. Congregations look to their council for leadership, but they don't exactly know what they do. Even members who serve on a church council may not be able to describe exactly what they do. One tangible product is a church budget. The rest of the a council's activity becomes a series of decisions of varying worth, lacking strategic nature. Council votes and decisions tend to reflect the degree of urgency in congregational life. Sometimes there are lots of decisions to be made. Sometimes councils can meet for several consecutive months without taking a vote. I think people who serve on church boards appreciate learning about the grace of God through congregational activity, but the general frustration or ennui is palpable in the leadership meeting room.
I write this post because I believe church councils are misused assets. Even though its members spend hours each month attending meetings and managing particular areas of ministry, the gifts of leaders are buried because the council lacks purpose. Council members lack clarity of purpose for their participation. Congregations and councils often lament that so few people are willing to serve on the council. I'm surprised that anyone will serve on a council, especially when they know the purpose and direction of the council is lacking beyond a budget or a particular project. Even if projects and goals are clear and tangible for the council, individual council members lack understanding of expectations for themselves. Here are some common issues I have seen on the governing board in the 10 congregations I have served as pastor and numerous others with which I consulted. I place these issues in two categories.
1. Issues related to expectations for council members:
- Sometimes council members have no idea what is expected of them.
- Sometimes council members have served on a council for many years, and they end up confusing clear expectations for knowing the repetitive patterns and action of a council as well as their familiarity with congregational life
- Sometimes a council member has a job description, but the job description is too lengthy and detailed to be realistic or even read.
- Often times council members have had little or no training in order to fulfill the basic expectations placed on them.
- Many council members do not know how to lead or participate in a formal meeting.
2. Issues related to basic philosophy and theology of the existence of a council.
- I have never seen a council size appropriate for deliberation and leadership. The smallest governing board I have seen is 9, the largest is 23. If all the congregations I served were playing "The Price Is Right," bidding on the ideal size for a governing board, everyone would have lost the game because they overbid. I believe 5 on a council would be ideal, but no more than 7. I believe in this dynamic for many reasons--beginning with the next point.
- What is the true purpose of a congregational council? Is it to represent the desires of the congregation (often divided in separate ministry areas)? Or is the purpose of a council rooted in leadership? Representation and leadership are not mutually exclusive, but what trait is the higher priority? Leadership ability is almost always sacrificed for the sake of representation. I believe representation is overrated. Even if expectations for a council member are clear, representation can still run amok, leading to divisiveness as council members will sacrifice the good of the congregation for their given ministry area. Representation-heavy systems also seek to appease particular populations in the congregation. Representation should not be completely absent, but in congregations--representation is overrated.
- Which way does the power flow with a council? Does the council see itself as a permission giving body for the pastor and/or staff? Does the council spend its meeting time engaging an approval process for ministries? In order for a council to employ the gifts God has given them, a council cannot be good stewards of God's resources without congregational mission or vision. With a clear mission and vision that is owned by the congregation and propels them into service, a council can then serve as partners and helpers with the staff to fulfill the mission. If the council serves as gatekeepers for ministries, then pastors, staff members, even council members and committee chairs are subject to the whims of the congregation. Every congregational action is subjected to how people "feel" about the "job" that someone is doing. The hidden message to many pastors, staff, council members and committee chairs is "you're not meeting our expectations, but we're not going to bother telling you the expectations."
- Prayer, theological reflection, fellowship and devotional time are individually or as a whole group seen as a "waste of time" and "distracting from the purpose of the meeting." Through my study and practice in congregational systems theory, I can sum up my response to this resistance with a proverb: "The council which prays and plays together, stays together." People have a need for a healthy sense of closeness with God and one another. If a council is not brought together with prayer and play, they will find unhealthy means to get close--often through hostility and divisiveness. Prayer and fellowship are both part of the purpose of leadership, not mere spiritual or recreational diversions.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Finding My Place and Opportunity to Serve in "The Great Reset": Making Meaning through Work
During my service at First Lutheran Community Church, I spend 2-6 hours each work day. For some people distance commuting is a way of life. I usually enjoy time in the car--I love my time on the open road. Driving served as great down time for me in the days before children and seriously managing a household. Today, the commute is a burden. For the past two months I have wondered how to better invest that time than an entertaining podcast or music. I've reconsidered my listening time since that 2-6 hours ends up devouring time given to study.
The work of Richard Florida sat on my reading list for years. I bought a book that sat on my shelf (typical). I recently started reading Florida's blog and tweets on economic geography. As a passionate student of church and context, I find Florida's research and analysis useful and refreshing. Many of Florida's ideas and methods continue racing through my thoughts well after completing his book: "The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity."
1. Florida sees current economic challenges as an opportunity, though not through mere naive positive thinking.
2. Florida doesn't (explicitly) espouse a particular current American political ideology. His ideas reflect his research analysis rather than a loyalty to a manifesto or prevalent ideology. He regularly critiques government practices that some political activists would cheer, yet sees a positive place for government action to encourage creative work and a healthy sense of prosperity that other political activists would cheer.
3. Florida recognizes the value of historical practices, yet he challenges practices regardless of their place in history.
4. Florida challenges the practices of commuting and home ownership as accepted means to prosperity. This is one of the most challenging ideas for me because of my thousands of miles of commuting over the last decade. This idea also challenges my desire to own another home, even after the first experience was full of great moments in my family history to go along with the stumbling blocks and pain of home ownership. In what he calls "The Great Reset," where a backlog of creativity and opportunity is becoming unleashed, people in bad mortgage situations will be unable to respond to opportunities because they are stuck in their "owned" homes.
5. In this post-industrial/knowledge based economy, Florida asserts that finding meaning in work is a key component for the economy to thrive. Though Florida addresses meaning and work more clearly and eloquently, I wrestled with this idea on my own for the past 7-8 months, an idea I believe identifies a field of Christian service (maybe even more so for Lutherans). Luther recorded many thoughts on vocation, though I have read that Luther's understanding of vocation is different from our understanding. My challenge will be to understand whether these understandings of vocation can be linked. Regardless of that personal study, I still believe people can find meaning in their work in the context of the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Grace given and received, Christians live out a response not to earn God's love, but to live in thankfulness in service to our neighbor. If we believe in the transforming power of God's grace, that grace should affect how we interact with everyone, from our families, friends, in everyday interaction with co-workers and the general public while doing our work. In the post-industrial/knowledge-based economy, the service-type job sector continues to grow. People who cut hair, or help you buy your groceries or sell you hardware when you need something on a Saturday afternoon are not going to be outsourced to India or China. Therefore making these into meaningful jobs challenges this era's job market. I believe Christians can serve this era well.
My fellow servants at First Lutheran Community Church and I continue to learn about the depth of importance of work and meaning. As FLCC invited people in particular kinds of work to come for worship, fellowship and blessing at three different services earlier this year--our leaders and volunteers learned about the need to connect meaning and work through prayer and blessing. We all agreed that the greatest impact of our service project was the blessing--the laying on of hands and speaking a particular word of thanksgiving and encouragement was positive and moving for many in this community. Florida's observations about meaning and work confirmed what our leaders saw in our ministry.
Many of my recent social interactions reference Florida's latest book. Though not specifically ecclesiological, Florida has presented a new field that can be reached. I believe that field can be harvested by Christians.
The work of Richard Florida sat on my reading list for years. I bought a book that sat on my shelf (typical). I recently started reading Florida's blog and tweets on economic geography. As a passionate student of church and context, I find Florida's research and analysis useful and refreshing. Many of Florida's ideas and methods continue racing through my thoughts well after completing his book: "The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity."
1. Florida sees current economic challenges as an opportunity, though not through mere naive positive thinking.
2. Florida doesn't (explicitly) espouse a particular current American political ideology. His ideas reflect his research analysis rather than a loyalty to a manifesto or prevalent ideology. He regularly critiques government practices that some political activists would cheer, yet sees a positive place for government action to encourage creative work and a healthy sense of prosperity that other political activists would cheer.
3. Florida recognizes the value of historical practices, yet he challenges practices regardless of their place in history.
4. Florida challenges the practices of commuting and home ownership as accepted means to prosperity. This is one of the most challenging ideas for me because of my thousands of miles of commuting over the last decade. This idea also challenges my desire to own another home, even after the first experience was full of great moments in my family history to go along with the stumbling blocks and pain of home ownership. In what he calls "The Great Reset," where a backlog of creativity and opportunity is becoming unleashed, people in bad mortgage situations will be unable to respond to opportunities because they are stuck in their "owned" homes.
5. In this post-industrial/knowledge based economy, Florida asserts that finding meaning in work is a key component for the economy to thrive. Though Florida addresses meaning and work more clearly and eloquently, I wrestled with this idea on my own for the past 7-8 months, an idea I believe identifies a field of Christian service (maybe even more so for Lutherans). Luther recorded many thoughts on vocation, though I have read that Luther's understanding of vocation is different from our understanding. My challenge will be to understand whether these understandings of vocation can be linked. Regardless of that personal study, I still believe people can find meaning in their work in the context of the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Grace given and received, Christians live out a response not to earn God's love, but to live in thankfulness in service to our neighbor. If we believe in the transforming power of God's grace, that grace should affect how we interact with everyone, from our families, friends, in everyday interaction with co-workers and the general public while doing our work. In the post-industrial/knowledge-based economy, the service-type job sector continues to grow. People who cut hair, or help you buy your groceries or sell you hardware when you need something on a Saturday afternoon are not going to be outsourced to India or China. Therefore making these into meaningful jobs challenges this era's job market. I believe Christians can serve this era well.
My fellow servants at First Lutheran Community Church and I continue to learn about the depth of importance of work and meaning. As FLCC invited people in particular kinds of work to come for worship, fellowship and blessing at three different services earlier this year--our leaders and volunteers learned about the need to connect meaning and work through prayer and blessing. We all agreed that the greatest impact of our service project was the blessing--the laying on of hands and speaking a particular word of thanksgiving and encouragement was positive and moving for many in this community. Florida's observations about meaning and work confirmed what our leaders saw in our ministry.
Many of my recent social interactions reference Florida's latest book. Though not specifically ecclesiological, Florida has presented a new field that can be reached. I believe that field can be harvested by Christians.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Ten Commandments Mnemonic Used During Kid Sermon
Last Sunday, I had the highest adult participation during a kid sermon in my experience. People commenting to me wished they had a good memory device for the Ten Commandments back in Confirmation--and I gave them such a device. Their enthusiasm simultaneously reflected jubilation, relief and angst.
I can't take credit for the creation of the study help, only the delivery. I received the device in 1999 from my colleague in South Dakota, Nate Hanson, who served (still serving?) Moe Parish near Hudson, SD. I've used the device ever since. Maybe its origins are deeper, but I have no knowledge of its use outside of South Dakota. Since sharing the memory device, I've received several requests for a typed copy. A You Tube video seems most appropriate, but until I put that together, a blog post will have to suffice.
A Ten Commandments Mnemonic:
1. Hold up one finger. Point to your eye. "First Commandment: I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods."
2. Hold up two fingers. Reach the two fingers to touch the VEINS on your wrist. "Second Commandment: you shall not take the Lord's name in vain."
3. Hold up three fingers. Emphasize the HOLE made when holding up three fingers. Look through the hole. "Third Commandment: remember the Sabbath day. Keep it Hole-y."
4. Hold up four fingers. Hold the four fingers in preparation to salute. "Fourth Commandment: honor your father and mother." Salute.
5. Hold up five fingers. Point the thumb downward as to indicate a medieval death sentence. "You shall not kill."
6. Hold up six fingers (five fingers on one hand and the thumb on the other). Take the single thumb and stab yourself in the heart to depict the pain of adultery. "Sixth Commandment: you shall not commit adultery."
7. Hold up seven fingers (five fingers on one hand and the thumb and index finger on the other, as if pointing a gun and committing a robbery). "Seventh Commandment: you shall not steal."
8. Hold up eight fingers (four fingers on each hand, thumbs folded in). Make a downward scratching motion in the air in front of you. "Eighth Commandment: you shall not BEAR false witness against your neighbor."
9. Hold up nine fingers. Then hold out the nine fingers in front of you, palms up. Show the ring finger, a remembrance of marriage. "Ninth Commandment: you shall not covet your neighbor's wife."
10. Hold up ten fingers. Next, put the tips of fingers up to form a triangle above your head--to look like you are putting a roof over your head. "Tenth Commandment: you shall not cover your neighbor's HOUSE." Lay out one hand to one side and say, "man servant." Lay the other hand out to the other side and say, "maid servant." Take your two index fingers and put them on the side of your head to look like horns and say, "cattle." Lay both palms out and say, "or ANYTHING else that is your neighbor's."
With this mnemonic device, you have Ten Commandments spelled out. Obviously the commandments are not explained, but the device can be used as a base for teaching. In my experience, the commandment itself is memorized after only a few times through--and subsequent quick reviews help. The device works at Confirmation retreats or lessons, serves a quick review for adults, youth group, and keeps kids moving and thinking during a kid sermon or preschool chapel time. If you try it, let me know how it works for you. I can also take questions and would love to help any way I can.
I can't take credit for the creation of the study help, only the delivery. I received the device in 1999 from my colleague in South Dakota, Nate Hanson, who served (still serving?) Moe Parish near Hudson, SD. I've used the device ever since. Maybe its origins are deeper, but I have no knowledge of its use outside of South Dakota. Since sharing the memory device, I've received several requests for a typed copy. A You Tube video seems most appropriate, but until I put that together, a blog post will have to suffice.
A Ten Commandments Mnemonic:
1. Hold up one finger. Point to your eye. "First Commandment: I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods."
2. Hold up two fingers. Reach the two fingers to touch the VEINS on your wrist. "Second Commandment: you shall not take the Lord's name in vain."
3. Hold up three fingers. Emphasize the HOLE made when holding up three fingers. Look through the hole. "Third Commandment: remember the Sabbath day. Keep it Hole-y."
4. Hold up four fingers. Hold the four fingers in preparation to salute. "Fourth Commandment: honor your father and mother." Salute.
5. Hold up five fingers. Point the thumb downward as to indicate a medieval death sentence. "You shall not kill."
6. Hold up six fingers (five fingers on one hand and the thumb on the other). Take the single thumb and stab yourself in the heart to depict the pain of adultery. "Sixth Commandment: you shall not commit adultery."
7. Hold up seven fingers (five fingers on one hand and the thumb and index finger on the other, as if pointing a gun and committing a robbery). "Seventh Commandment: you shall not steal."
8. Hold up eight fingers (four fingers on each hand, thumbs folded in). Make a downward scratching motion in the air in front of you. "Eighth Commandment: you shall not BEAR false witness against your neighbor."
9. Hold up nine fingers. Then hold out the nine fingers in front of you, palms up. Show the ring finger, a remembrance of marriage. "Ninth Commandment: you shall not covet your neighbor's wife."
10. Hold up ten fingers. Next, put the tips of fingers up to form a triangle above your head--to look like you are putting a roof over your head. "Tenth Commandment: you shall not cover your neighbor's HOUSE." Lay out one hand to one side and say, "man servant." Lay the other hand out to the other side and say, "maid servant." Take your two index fingers and put them on the side of your head to look like horns and say, "cattle." Lay both palms out and say, "or ANYTHING else that is your neighbor's."
With this mnemonic device, you have Ten Commandments spelled out. Obviously the commandments are not explained, but the device can be used as a base for teaching. In my experience, the commandment itself is memorized after only a few times through--and subsequent quick reviews help. The device works at Confirmation retreats or lessons, serves a quick review for adults, youth group, and keeps kids moving and thinking during a kid sermon or preschool chapel time. If you try it, let me know how it works for you. I can also take questions and would love to help any way I can.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Congregational Bromides: "We need to have a leader/member/someone who represents the (fill in the blank) group."
Congregations regularly fill leadership positions to serve the church. Boards, councils, sessions, vestries, call/search committees frequently call upon a variety of leaders to serve. What are the criteria for selection into these leadership groups?
I receive puzzled looks when I ask this question. In most cases, people who serve congregational leadership groups are not serving tenured or lifetime appointment, as in a college or university, the House of Lords, or the Supreme Court. Therefore the congregation regularly discerns who will serve in leadership positions. They end up falling in a desperate trap because they don't have enough people to fill positions, and they rush to hopefully find a diverse group of folks to serve in a leadership role.
I find congregations have set up some default criteria for setting up their leadership groups.
1. Represent different as many different ministry areas, demographic groups, theological perspectives, worship style perspectives as possible.
2. Enlist as many people to serve with the leadership group as people are willing.
That's it.
Over the past few years I learned that some congregations are basing leadership ranks based on agreed marks of discipleship. The most common I've seen in ELCA congregations include:
Back to the congregational bromide. I think representation of particular demographic groups and ministry areas for leadership is overrated. I did not say unnecessary, but that it tends to be the only stated (albeit loosely) criterion. Though this single standard could work (why not cast lots instead), I think the odds are low that a group based merely on representation will work. Without criteria and expectations for a leadership roster, it's more likely to have a group with members entrenched in their own perspective and "getting what's coming to them (or what they deserve)" rather than following through on the tasks of leadership. Representing what is important to you or your constituents as the only criterion for leadership moves toward divisiveness, cutoff and resentment over compromises.
Representation in congregation is important, but is overrated.
I receive puzzled looks when I ask this question. In most cases, people who serve congregational leadership groups are not serving tenured or lifetime appointment, as in a college or university, the House of Lords, or the Supreme Court. Therefore the congregation regularly discerns who will serve in leadership positions. They end up falling in a desperate trap because they don't have enough people to fill positions, and they rush to hopefully find a diverse group of folks to serve in a leadership role.
I find congregations have set up some default criteria for setting up their leadership groups.
1. Represent different as many different ministry areas, demographic groups, theological perspectives, worship style perspectives as possible.
2. Enlist as many people to serve with the leadership group as people are willing.
That's it.
Over the past few years I learned that some congregations are basing leadership ranks based on agreed marks of discipleship. The most common I've seen in ELCA congregations include:
- Prayer
- Worship
- Bible Reading
- Service to God and To Others
- Giving - Time, Talent, and Treasure
- Encouraging Others to Grow
Back to the congregational bromide. I think representation of particular demographic groups and ministry areas for leadership is overrated. I did not say unnecessary, but that it tends to be the only stated (albeit loosely) criterion. Though this single standard could work (why not cast lots instead), I think the odds are low that a group based merely on representation will work. Without criteria and expectations for a leadership roster, it's more likely to have a group with members entrenched in their own perspective and "getting what's coming to them (or what they deserve)" rather than following through on the tasks of leadership. Representing what is important to you or your constituents as the only criterion for leadership moves toward divisiveness, cutoff and resentment over compromises.
Representation in congregation is important, but is overrated.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Believe in the Freedom of Music (on the big screen): My Life with Rush
Say the name "Rush," and that four-letter name inspires millions of people. Not the radio commentator for me. I like the power trio from Toronto. I've been listening to Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart at least as long as I've been listening to Lutheran liturgy and hymns, and far longer than any other kind of music I've heard in church. Their music has baffled, inspired and provoked me over three decades. Their work makes me think, ponder, and reflect. For many days over three decades, a Rush song provided the rhythm sequence, guitar riff, or crafted bass rumbling to establish a soundtrack for the day or give me some cathartic moments during a time of frustration. I know there is music in this world that is considered more holy, more critically acclaimed, or more artistic, but no other music in my lifetime has had the reach of Rush.
Rush comes to the Seattle Metro on August 7, and a documentary about their history will be released soon. Thank God for music. Life would be broken, sour and dull without it.
Rush comes to the Seattle Metro on August 7, and a documentary about their history will be released soon. Thank God for music. Life would be broken, sour and dull without it.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Renegotiating my projects
David Allen serves as the the closest link to link for me to live an organized life. In his book "Getting Things Done" Allen writes about giving yourself the ability to renegotiate terms of your list to get things done. "40 Day Journey with Martin Luther" sat on my desk since the middle of January with the hope of completing the reading and journal entries as blog post for my Lenten discipline. I think I completed 11 days of the 40-day journey. Having judged the book by its cover, I was looking for some other Luther writings for reflection. It was the Luther's Small Catechism with some more complicated reflections--not a bad thing--but not what I was looking for.
It's time to renegotiate.
Rather than have this book sit on my desk cluttering my thoughts with the pain of an unreached goal, I'm proclaiming an ending to the relationship with the book. Renegotiation brings liberation. Luther died a long time ago, he won't mind that I decided not to read this version of the catechism.
More renegotiation sits on the horizon in order that I can focus on different projects and actions. I remember the days when piles of unfinished projects used to paralyze me. Not that the paralysis never occurs anymore, now I know what to do. I don't know if there's anything explicitly theological about this thought process, which is okay.
It's time to renegotiate.
Rather than have this book sit on my desk cluttering my thoughts with the pain of an unreached goal, I'm proclaiming an ending to the relationship with the book. Renegotiation brings liberation. Luther died a long time ago, he won't mind that I decided not to read this version of the catechism.
More renegotiation sits on the horizon in order that I can focus on different projects and actions. I remember the days when piles of unfinished projects used to paralyze me. Not that the paralysis never occurs anymore, now I know what to do. I don't know if there's anything explicitly theological about this thought process, which is okay.
Congregational Bromides: "We Have Financial Problems"
Maybe it's because I serve in Oldline Protestant congregations. Maybe it's because I serve congregations in transition. I've served as pastor and consulted with numerous congregations, and not one of them hold a primary impulse to be hopeful or positive about their financial resources. Every congregation I have ever known lives in the midst of problems, issues or shortages related to money.
I long for different perspectives related not to Prosperity Gospel or scarcity thinking, but something hopeful and faithful. Walter Brueggemann offers the best biblical theology background on the way I look at resources as a Christian, yet I still find myself trying to persuade people that their thinking and related actions lead to their own demise. Even the congregations I know that are flush with cash (usually because of a huge bequest) end up fighting about money. This says to me that resource struggles have less to do with money (though how we understand money and possessions are important) and more to do with mission and attitude.
Mission will be related to a discussion around another congregational bromide at a later date. Let us share some thoughts about attitude. Is money or lack thereof a barrier to do the ministry to which we are called? I look at the simplicity of Jesus' words to his disciples that they didn't need to take anything with them in their ministry, completely relying on the hospitality of others and the relationships that they build and the help they give (Mark 6: 6b-13). I think it's important to make investments in ministry, but are those investments a requirement to do ministry? If I trust that God has already given to me and my community of faith abundantly, then I feel disingenuous going for what can appear to be an annual money grab because we "need" money for ministry (I'm not against stewardship campaigns, I'm looking for a better way of life). Money is not as necessary to start ministry as we think. If we think in this way, giving does not become the need, response or joy of the giver, but the means to an end. If money is merely the means to an end for ministry, then for what reason do we need God?
I think the next time I hear a congregation tell me they have financial problems, I will stop listening. I have yet to hear a unique congregational financial problem.
I long for different perspectives related not to Prosperity Gospel or scarcity thinking, but something hopeful and faithful. Walter Brueggemann offers the best biblical theology background on the way I look at resources as a Christian, yet I still find myself trying to persuade people that their thinking and related actions lead to their own demise. Even the congregations I know that are flush with cash (usually because of a huge bequest) end up fighting about money. This says to me that resource struggles have less to do with money (though how we understand money and possessions are important) and more to do with mission and attitude.
Mission will be related to a discussion around another congregational bromide at a later date. Let us share some thoughts about attitude. Is money or lack thereof a barrier to do the ministry to which we are called? I look at the simplicity of Jesus' words to his disciples that they didn't need to take anything with them in their ministry, completely relying on the hospitality of others and the relationships that they build and the help they give (Mark 6: 6b-13). I think it's important to make investments in ministry, but are those investments a requirement to do ministry? If I trust that God has already given to me and my community of faith abundantly, then I feel disingenuous going for what can appear to be an annual money grab because we "need" money for ministry (I'm not against stewardship campaigns, I'm looking for a better way of life). Money is not as necessary to start ministry as we think. If we think in this way, giving does not become the need, response or joy of the giver, but the means to an end. If money is merely the means to an end for ministry, then for what reason do we need God?
I think the next time I hear a congregation tell me they have financial problems, I will stop listening. I have yet to hear a unique congregational financial problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)