Emerging Spirit
My blogging with The United Church of Canada (UCC) started over 7 years ago. It began during a programme called Emerging Spirit. At that time, we were trying to understand the ripples of transformation that were – and continue – to affect most institutions that have been traditional anchors: Churches, NGOs, benevolent and community organisations, non-profits and even our governments have had to wrestle with the tensions that exists between what are called modern and postmodern cultures. Since then, we have continued to try to navigate these shifting waters and figure out how best to share a message that we believe remains most relevant.
As my denomination – in which I walk and work, in which I try to find ways to live out a life grounded in faith – continues to discern a path, we have begun to make decisions and some possible direction has begun to emerge. A significant part of this possible direction comes from The Comprehensive Review:
Prior to my current role in ministry, I was involved in secular contexts such as conflict resolution, restorative justice and organisational development and transformation. I appreciate our current intention to imagine anew, to ask difficult questions and to look into the mirror and embrace renewal even when it is difficult. I also recognise that – in many ways – I am outside of this process. I have not, nor have I, facilitated the unfolding gatherings of UCC folk. I am also not in a place to know the nuances within this larger conversation.
“People help the people”
It has been my experience that any culture change – from as intimate as a family to as large as an (inter)national organisation – must begin from a place of values and identity. From the stories that we use to describe ourselves, we discover shared motivations and drives. In such places of story, what is life-giving and passion-filled is discerned.
Without these – often intangible moorings – no amount of process adjustment, changes in structure, or shifts in responsibility are enough to nurture that which may emerge. In fact, sometimes investing in the how-things-work as opposed to why-do-we-do-what-we-do has – in my experience – often only fed inertia and apathy. This stumbling block occurs even when there is a collective recognition that something is afoot, yet there is uncertainty how to harness the shifting energy.
As I share some of my own questions, I would love to hear from those who have journeyed through institutional transformation. I would love to listen to your stories about being revitalised. I also know it would be a gift for those who have been part of The Comprehensive Review to share reflections about where you have been and how you have found this experience energising. I do not know where we may be going, but I do know that the questions we ask determine the path upon which we shall tread and – ultimately – the future at which we shall arrive …
Hi Richard, I was involved, marginally, in the process of congregational consultation (facilitated two). The questions were mainly about structure, although not entirely so. People were also asked what they upheld and valued about their ministry together, and the ministry of the wider church. I’d heard some critique suggesting the questions were not open ended enough, and perhaps yours have enough wondering to meet that challenge.
Being more on the experiential side of the spiral, and feeling the urgency put upon us by our financial folk, I appreciated the possibilities set out in the report of the Comprehensive Review Team. Not that I’m entirely in thrall of a model that seems to propose loosely knit networks of congregations getting together every five years to check in, supported by staff through an as yet to be determined funding scheme. But I do appreciate being able to begin to talk about something specific. I also appreciate the almost absolute freedom indicated in the model, and the assurance that currently credentialed ministry personnel would be able to regulate and support one another, while congregations/charges/ministries/networks/co-ops would be able to evolve other forms of leadership.
I wonder about the loss of financial support for new forms of ministry that is generated (in BC Conference, anyway) through the sale of property that’s no longer of use. We’ve just begun a process that will (one hopes) provide seed funding for groups who are interested in offering something relevant to the needs of their communities. I’m sure we can respond whether funded or not, and appreciate that the Comprehensive Review model offers staff support and networked assistance to congregations/groups/ministries/etc, but those (we call them Pro-Vision) funds could be used to support opportunities that are destined to fail, in most traditional senses of the term, so that new initiatives might grow out of the experiences of the experimenters.
I suppose my wondering questions are around what the federation of congregations/ministries/teams/co-ops would look like 20 years on. Would there be informal geographic associations alongside loosely knit associations of interest? Would seminary credentialed ministry personnel fade out as electronic information banks become available to leaders who think critically and develop theology collectively? I wonder…I’m sure the proposed model won’t be the last word, but I think it’s a pretty courageous first step. I wonder if we’ll be able to, as you say, trust God and one another enough to imagine it together?
Thanks for this Keith! It must have been an interesting experience – would you describe it as life-giving? In your experience, does the proposed discussion model then reflect what you were hearing in your facilitated conversations? It is always interesting to explore how the ‘data’ generated is used and whether it is able to challenge. In particular, if a path has been determined, what happens if the stories (data) do not in fact reflect it? Does that make sense?
I also appreciate the tension you have named between conversation and financial urgency. As usual, I often do not wear either/or lenses, so necessity can indeed move us into action. Of course the balance required not to be hasty or – ‘throw the water out with the baby – is also something to be considered.
Finally I am inferring that your experience in these conversation found people were engaged? Passionate about the content of potential? Or maybe that’s an assumption I need to check?
Thanks once more for your taking time to respond and engage my friend and Brother!
Hello Richard, yes, it was life giving. Both times. Lots happening, lots of faith, and a bit of frustration with lack of support or getting in the wayedness…I’d say the discussion model for Presbyteries hits on key questions (at least in my mind they are key questions). I’m not sure about where stories and path intersect, although I’d say the stories (we don’t feel a lot of connection to/support from the wider church) are reflected in the proposal. However there is confidence and assurance in a national identity as an open, affirming, welcoming house of God attempting to practice unconditional love in a variety of human settings.
OTOH I see nothing about changing our governance model with respect to the anachronistic, patriarchal and myopic structure we’ve imposed upon our pension plan, but maybe that’ll be in another round. Please note I am specifically not saying nor attempting to impugn anything but the finest motivation to the people on the Board of the Pension Plan, just observing that the way we have chosen to structure and qualify them has pretty much ordained (and there’s a term I don’t use lightly – the puns keep rollin’ on) the outcome of their deliberations in advance.