For several months, the council of First Church had been discussing how it might make the morning worship service more friendly and hospitable to visitors. After lengthy discussion, they finally voted to introduce an informal time of greeting prior to the official beginning of worship. This was announced the next Sunday and began the following week. People were asked to take opportunity to greet someone they didn't know or hadn't seen in some time and to have a few moments of conversation.
Two weeks into this new approach, the folks who came early and who normally sat in the back of the auditorium began to circulate a petition seeking to end this "disruption of the service," as they saw it. By the third week, representatives of this group visited the pastor at his home, presented the petition, and insisted that the council change the decision that had been made. Interestingly, this group had even gotten a visitor to sign their petition.
The council met in an emergency session later that week and decided to withdraw the decision they had made five weeks earlier. At their next monthly meeting, council members engaged in some reflection on this experience. Two insights emerged. First, someone noted that they appeared to have given away their power as a council in capitulating to a vocal minority in the congregation. Second, another person observed that they had likely also given away the issue of introducing any further changes in worship, and that it would be a long time before they would have the freedom to try to introduce any other innovations.
(This Case Study comes from Chapter 7 (Spirit-Led Growth and Development) in Craig Van Gelder's book, The Ministry of the Missional Church)
Questions for reflection:
1. If you were the pastor, how would you have handled this situation differently? Or would you?
2. If you were one of the council members, how would you have handled this situation differently? Or would you?
3. What does this case study say to you about addressing change in the church?
4. As a leader, what do we learn about your role in addressing change in the church?
Ken M
3 comments:
As I read the case study I felt myself getting frustrated with the 'vocal minority.' I have met thse folks before:).
A Few Comments
1) Perhaps this decision would have been recieved had the conversatio been opened to a wider audience then just the council.
2) Presenting the change as a term limited experiment with a built in evaluation with in X months may also have helped the nay sayers.
3) I think backing down was a bad idea. The pastor/council would have been wise to respond with an assurance that the concerns were heard but still wanted to give the change a try for a certain period of time with some sort of evaluation to follow.
4)Pastor would need to lead his council to be gracious to the vocal minority while remaining firm in their resolve to continue the greeting time.
5)At a deeper level this case study leads to the consideration of the role of authority in a Christian community.
Rob's comments are right on target. I am especially interested in his last comment which calls to question, "the consideration of the role of authority in a Christian community."
How do we as leaders deal meaningfully with the issue of teaching and living the "role of authority in Christian community?"
In an email conversation, Rob also shared some reflection from our last meeting together. With his permission, I share these thoughts and quotes here:
One other thing. I was thinking about our conversation about strengths and weaknesses. A superb book came to mind that I have returned to several times. It is entitled, Powers, Weakness, and the Tabernacling of God by Marva Dawn. I think it is her best book. It is a tremendous study on the role of human weakness and God's presence revealed in our weakness up against the powers and principalities of this world.
The following is a quote from the book:
“The more confidence we have in our own strength and abilities, the less we are likely to have in Christ. Our human weakness is no hindrance to God. In fact, as long as we do not use it as an excuse for sin it is good to be weak. But this acceptance of weakness is more than acknowledging our limitations. It means experiencing a power much greater than our own and surrendering to it. Eberhard Arnold, a founder of the Bruderhofs, said, “This is the root of grace: the dismantling of our power. Whenever even a little power rises up in us, the Spirit and the authority of God will retreat to the corresponding degree. In my estimation this is the single most important insight with regard to the kingdom of God” (Johann Christoph Arnold).
One more quote from her book:
Why have we turned pastors into successful CEO's instead of shepherds for the weak?
Why do we search for pastors who are handsome, sophisticated, charismatic--instead of models of suffering?
Why do our churches adopt practices of business life and its achievement models?
Why do we resort to gimmicks, or what Jacques Ellul calls Technique, instead of practicing an 'unadulterated handling of the Word?"
If that weren't enough, one more quote: "Our churches act as fallen powers when they forget the cross at their center."
I wonder how we bring the best of what she has to say to a healthy conversation about leading out of our strengths? Perhaps a better word for 'strength' is 'gifting?' At least the word 'gifting' invites us to remember the source of our perceived 'strengths."
Post a Comment