I received a copy of Carol Howard Merritt's book, Reframing Hope, several months ago, soon after it was published. I made a promise I would review the book and share my insights on her work.
I couldn't bring myself to read it. I read the book in fits and starts, never getting beyond the first 20 pages. I like to keep my promises, so the book sat on my desk, mocking me. I met Carol at Unconference11 (#unco11) in May and talked with her a few times. She is gracious and encouraging both in social media circles and in person, and has many great things to share with the church. So I felt worse about not publicly contributing to the conversation about her book.
After a bi-coastal trip for congregational redevelopment last month and racking my brain in considering what I learned, I ripped through the book. I don't do this very often. I tend to take my time with books, pondering stories, philosophies and theologies. After hearing the stories from my colleagues about congregational decline at my training and also the stories of God at work delivering a sense of urgency in struggling communities, a title containing "hope" gained new cache in my vocation.
Why today? Why now?
For ten years until about 8 weeks ago, I served the church as an interim pastor. I brought great passion to my work, giving witness to God amid the vortex of congregational dynamics associated with a congregation in a pastoral leadership gap. I always considered myself a bearer of hope in the interim ministries I served.
What I realized as I read Reframing Hope was that there was a gap in the hope for Christian faith communities I could deliver as an interim pastor. My reasoning is that as an interim pastor, I always had an escape hatch. My time with a congregation averaged about 15 months, or at a retreat in a consultation. I was exhausted (usually in a good way) from the work, but I knew that after the limited time with the congregation, I could leave. I was the pastoral equivalent to how many grandparents function (though this is evolving). They get the grandkids for an afternoon, an overnight, or a weekend or longer, but often there is an end in sight. Grandparents have hope for their grandchildren. But I hear from many grandparents with a wry smile after a long exhale: "they go home." As an interim pastor, I always got to go home. It doesn't mean grandparents or interim pastors aren't passionate about their congregations, but the distance is different.
Now I find myself in a congregation that has significantly struggled in recent years. My wife and I bring our daughters to St. John's Lutheran Church in Lakewood, Washington, and ponder what God might be up to. We're looking for a home in the area. We're thinking about the schools for our daughters. Our relationships in the community take on greater weight. The stories of faith in the congregation take on a new sense of the Spirit for me. In the stories of past and current hurts of the people at St. John's, the Incarnation of God in Christ is palpable.
Reframing Hope is an incarnational book. It is about the presence of God witnessed in the life of congregations. This is not an academic exercise book. However, Reframing Hope calls on some good academic resources to give witness to the movement of God from numerous facets of congregational life as well as Howard Merritt's personal faith and ministry stories. It also gives a historical survey of the church in the American context and perspectives on emerging approaches to faith and congregational formation, from ancient practices to social media, recognizing the imperative of contributions of all God's people to sharing the grace of God in Christ with the world. Reading Reframing Hope probably wouldn't have made as much a difference to me as an interim pastor. It's a solid contribution for any ministry consideration. However, there is a fine line between personal investment and incarnational investment in ministry. I'm learning that, and Reframing Hope is a good reference point for my ongoing discernment.
I believe hope in Carol Howard Merritt's Reframing Hope is about incarnation--God's presence using the multitude of opportunities available to congregations ranging from classical liturgies to social media and beyond. I find this hopeful as I work to partner with the people of St. John's in redeveloping a community of faith. During my recent training in Newark, there were times I was downright fearful. Soon there will be a time I won't be traveling 30 minutes to get home after time at the church. Reframing Hope will continue to be a good conversation facilitator as St. John's movies into God's preferred future.
If you love a congregation (or many) and struggle to find how that congregation recognizes God at work in a changing world, I commend to you Reframing Hope to your ongoing discussion.
Showing posts with label UCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UCC. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Mainline Recovery
I didn't learn the term Mainline Protestant until my seminary days. During seminary, I increased applied dexterity of its usage, as I observed professors and students analyzing, discussing and lamenting both perceived and documented denominational relationships, strengths, weaknesses, cultural influence, history, theologies and mission partnerships.
Calling the denominations of Mainline Protestantism "Mainline," is similar to identifying myself an athlete, even though I haven't been a competitive athlete since the 1990's. My ability level has changed ever since I needed reconstructive knee surgery in 2004. I was an athlete at one time, but I would be delusional to call myself an athlete now, even though I still participate in fitness. I still put together enough training to race or prepare my body for a physical test of some sort, but I am no athlete. The fact that I am no longer an athlete does not deny my humanity. I still need to practice faithful stewardship of the body God gave me--I have other endeavors in which to serve God that require energy, thought, discernment, articulation, concentration, and occasionally a need to run. My body still needs to be at its best. But I am not an athlete.
The nomenclature of "Mainline" remains stuck in both academic and ecclesiological parlance. This usage is also delusional much like any self-identification as an athlete. Just because the denominations of the Mainline have been in decline for the better half of a century does not take away that these denominations are still part of the body of Christ. They still have an opportunity for faithful service in the name of Christ. Like a professional athlete, it's challenging to give up the broad social influence it once had. Professional athletes retire over and over again, hoping to regain a sliver of influence they once had, because it feels good (ask Brett Favre and Michael Jordan). Mainline Protestant denominations still approach their contexts recognizing their denominations have been in decline for decades, but energy is focused on who or what is to blame. A sense of entitlement of broad social influence rings in writing and speeches of Mainline Protestant denominational leaders--this entitlement showed in worship wars and the living on the back end of the church growth movement, as well as today's battles over human sexuality. Denominations of Mainline Protestant traditions continue trying to catch lightning in a bottle, hoping to grow the church. We love to stack our delusions on top of each other.
I do think my Mainline Protestant colleagues are turning a corner. Maybe we're progressing through the stages of grief and embracing a spirit of faithfulness. Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, I never understood the culture of broad social influence of Mainline Protestantism. I saw remnants of this during my years in the Midwest, but like any individual or group in recovery, there's a desire to name the hurts of the past. I still think "Mainline" is delusional. I've tried to create my own terminology to identify the past. I tried "20th Century Brand Protestantism," which receives the occasional courtesy laugh, but doesn't enter into conversations. Mainline Protestants are in recovery, and in the midst of discovering how God desires us to participate in the body of Christ and follow through in faith, we'll occasionally need to talk about what was. As long as we recovering Mainline Protestants aren't delusional about our applications and place in society, we can call our collective traditions what we want, and I'll stop pulling out my hair. I can't afford to do that, anyway.
Calling the denominations of Mainline Protestantism "Mainline," is similar to identifying myself an athlete, even though I haven't been a competitive athlete since the 1990's. My ability level has changed ever since I needed reconstructive knee surgery in 2004. I was an athlete at one time, but I would be delusional to call myself an athlete now, even though I still participate in fitness. I still put together enough training to race or prepare my body for a physical test of some sort, but I am no athlete. The fact that I am no longer an athlete does not deny my humanity. I still need to practice faithful stewardship of the body God gave me--I have other endeavors in which to serve God that require energy, thought, discernment, articulation, concentration, and occasionally a need to run. My body still needs to be at its best. But I am not an athlete.
The nomenclature of "Mainline" remains stuck in both academic and ecclesiological parlance. This usage is also delusional much like any self-identification as an athlete. Just because the denominations of the Mainline have been in decline for the better half of a century does not take away that these denominations are still part of the body of Christ. They still have an opportunity for faithful service in the name of Christ. Like a professional athlete, it's challenging to give up the broad social influence it once had. Professional athletes retire over and over again, hoping to regain a sliver of influence they once had, because it feels good (ask Brett Favre and Michael Jordan). Mainline Protestant denominations still approach their contexts recognizing their denominations have been in decline for decades, but energy is focused on who or what is to blame. A sense of entitlement of broad social influence rings in writing and speeches of Mainline Protestant denominational leaders--this entitlement showed in worship wars and the living on the back end of the church growth movement, as well as today's battles over human sexuality. Denominations of Mainline Protestant traditions continue trying to catch lightning in a bottle, hoping to grow the church. We love to stack our delusions on top of each other.
I do think my Mainline Protestant colleagues are turning a corner. Maybe we're progressing through the stages of grief and embracing a spirit of faithfulness. Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, I never understood the culture of broad social influence of Mainline Protestantism. I saw remnants of this during my years in the Midwest, but like any individual or group in recovery, there's a desire to name the hurts of the past. I still think "Mainline" is delusional. I've tried to create my own terminology to identify the past. I tried "20th Century Brand Protestantism," which receives the occasional courtesy laugh, but doesn't enter into conversations. Mainline Protestants are in recovery, and in the midst of discovering how God desires us to participate in the body of Christ and follow through in faith, we'll occasionally need to talk about what was. As long as we recovering Mainline Protestants aren't delusional about our applications and place in society, we can call our collective traditions what we want, and I'll stop pulling out my hair. I can't afford to do that, anyway.
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.
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.
Monday, May 3, 2010
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.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Sunday Surprise: The Impact of Blessing
First Lutheran Community Church of Port Orchard hosted its first "Celebrating Faces" worship service Sunday, January 31. The intent behind the service is an intentional outreach to give thanks for people who serve in particular roles in a community--offering a particular message, music, encouragement and hospitality. The emphasis toward regular worshipers in the congregation was personal invitation to colleagues and friends. The 11am worship service on the last Sunday of the month will focus on a specific vocational track to share in an offering of thanks. The January 31 service emphasized health care workers. As outreach has not been my specialty in over 11 years of ordained ministry, I didn't know what to expect from the results of the efforts of numerous volunteers and my preparation and vision casting. Even though my expectations for the gathering were limited outside of dedicated work and hospitality, I was surprised that the greatest impact among those in attendance appeared to be the individual blessings of health care workers.
Blessing was not in my original worship planning. As I pondered what would make this service distinct from other worship opportunities at FLCC, all I had planned was slightly changing the sermon and offering some different music. Though I have yet to find another congregation that is offering a "vocational outreach service," I did learn that the PCUSA and UCC has designated Sundays during the year for awareness, thanksgiving and advocacy. The UCC had a Health and Human Services Sunday, and the PCUSA has some worship resources related to health ministries. These resources sparked some creativity, and a litany and blessing/laying on of hands were added to the order of worship. A sign language interpreter also signed two of the songs during worship.
I confess, I did not preach a great sermon during the 11am service. I was too tight worrying about details during the service--and I became distracted and tense during the sermon. I was too focused on self, rather than the faithful work of the volunteers gathering this group together--there had to be at least 20 volunteers along the way who were always positive about the project. This was a Holy Spirit gathering and I didn't need to worry. I sat down after the sermon, disappointed in my delivery. Then I realized (duh) that this service wasn't about me, but the sharing of thanks and the blessing of God. When I invited the health care workers in the congregation to come forward for blessing/laying on of hands, people started pouring forward. At least 20 people came, and Pastor George Larson and I shared blessings for these health care workers and their healing service for people in their daily work.
This is the fourth service in my 5 months at FLCC where I have presided over a specific group blessing during worship: school children with their backpacks, Affirmation of Baptism, Blue Christmas and now "Celebrating Faces." The desire to be encouraged and blessed was something I didn't see coming--the blessing was easily the most powerful part of the worship service. I am reminded how easy it is to be discouraged in life and that with prayer, thanks, hospitality (we offered a free meal, among other hospitality details), appropriate touch (laying on of hands), and an opportunity to connect with God and others, people can be affirmed in their value in God's world and given the strength to face their days. Though I've never been completely sure about where the greatest impact in any worshiping community lies, the impact of God's blessing repeatedly grabs my attention.
The congregation, volunteers and I still have much to learn about this outreach project--where will it go from here? What can we improve? What can be celebrated? I think we could all agree about the presence of God and the impact of the gathering. My hope is that this outreach can be easily passed on to the next pastor and that the volunteers continue with their insight, passion and initiative.
Blessing was not in my original worship planning. As I pondered what would make this service distinct from other worship opportunities at FLCC, all I had planned was slightly changing the sermon and offering some different music. Though I have yet to find another congregation that is offering a "vocational outreach service," I did learn that the PCUSA and UCC has designated Sundays during the year for awareness, thanksgiving and advocacy. The UCC had a Health and Human Services Sunday, and the PCUSA has some worship resources related to health ministries. These resources sparked some creativity, and a litany and blessing/laying on of hands were added to the order of worship. A sign language interpreter also signed two of the songs during worship.
I confess, I did not preach a great sermon during the 11am service. I was too tight worrying about details during the service--and I became distracted and tense during the sermon. I was too focused on self, rather than the faithful work of the volunteers gathering this group together--there had to be at least 20 volunteers along the way who were always positive about the project. This was a Holy Spirit gathering and I didn't need to worry. I sat down after the sermon, disappointed in my delivery. Then I realized (duh) that this service wasn't about me, but the sharing of thanks and the blessing of God. When I invited the health care workers in the congregation to come forward for blessing/laying on of hands, people started pouring forward. At least 20 people came, and Pastor George Larson and I shared blessings for these health care workers and their healing service for people in their daily work.
This is the fourth service in my 5 months at FLCC where I have presided over a specific group blessing during worship: school children with their backpacks, Affirmation of Baptism, Blue Christmas and now "Celebrating Faces." The desire to be encouraged and blessed was something I didn't see coming--the blessing was easily the most powerful part of the worship service. I am reminded how easy it is to be discouraged in life and that with prayer, thanks, hospitality (we offered a free meal, among other hospitality details), appropriate touch (laying on of hands), and an opportunity to connect with God and others, people can be affirmed in their value in God's world and given the strength to face their days. Though I've never been completely sure about where the greatest impact in any worshiping community lies, the impact of God's blessing repeatedly grabs my attention.
The congregation, volunteers and I still have much to learn about this outreach project--where will it go from here? What can we improve? What can be celebrated? I think we could all agree about the presence of God and the impact of the gathering. My hope is that this outreach can be easily passed on to the next pastor and that the volunteers continue with their insight, passion and initiative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)