Posts Tagged ‘Roxburgh’

In The Missional Leader, Alan Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk describe the crises that many churches are experiencing as “the reactive zone”. In the reactive zone, ‘battle lines form around issues other than those that are critical to the life of the system. People take dies and demonize each other over secondary issues, which further reduces the system’s ability to address the real crisis” (p. 52 -53).

Ten years ago, in Confessing The Faith, Douglas John Hall wrote about the metamorphosis that was happening in our churches.  He acknowledged that it causes some anxiety for laity and for tenured theological academics.  However, he pointed out that it is the clergy who ‘find themselves on the biting edge of this cold front’ (p. x).  It is the clergy who are the most vulnerable when the church enters into the reactive zone.

Have you have heard of a friend or a colleague in ordered ministry who has been badly wounded or damaged in a church fight? Do  you know more than one such person?  Do you know this person personally? What did you do when you heard about it?  Did you call?  send an email?  invite that person to go for a coffee? Did you speak out when you knew there had been some injustice?

How many of these people do you consider to have been eminently suited for ministry/church leadership but who have now left ordered ministry because of the anger, hurt, frustration, or despair?

If you are in ordered ministry, do you think it could not happen to you?

Roxburgh and Romanuk note that ‘a leader who wants to innovate missional change must learn to deal with change and transition (Missional Leader, p. 162).  This leader must be creative and take bold risks.  However, when they talked with a group of actual leaders in churches, the authors were struck by the low morale of the leaders–  their sense of discouragement and their lack of hope for their congregations.  They concluded, “Without addressing this malaise among leaders and congregations, there will be little innovation in missional life.” (p.16)

I have been on a quest to discover resources for ministers to survive and hold fast while their churches are in the reactive zone.  Increasing numbers of congregations are there.  Nothing in my seminary training prepared me for living in that zone.  That was thirty-three years ago.  As far as I know, it is still the case that very little is done to prepare people in ordered ministry to lead congregations that are in crisis or dying.

When ordered ministers respond to the treatment they receive either by leaving ordered ministry or by going on long-term disability, the initial response of the governance structures has sometimes been to say that what is needed to improve the discernment process for people wanting to go into ordered ministry.  The implication:  If better people were going into ministry the church wouldn’t have these issues to deal with.

Part of what makes ministry such a dangerous vocation is the conflict that comes with the territory.  It is not just that missional leaders must take bold risks that will sometimes get them into trouble.  It is also that there can be no change without conflict.  When that is added to the normal conflict that is an inevitable part of human relationships, congregational leaders find themselves in the eye of a storm.

A few years ago, my spiritual mentor was talking with another retired minister about yet another situation in which a minister was being ‘bushwhacked’ by his congregation.  Said the retired minister, “In over 30 years, I’ve never seen it this bad.”

There are many reasons why it’s ‘this bad’. Among them is the paradigm shift that is happening in our culture and in our churches.  Many of the structures with which we currently function were created to deal with different realities.  We try to function in the gap that is created by this, but often issues don’t get resolved.  Then, the issues escalate into problems.  Then, the problems escalate into crises and things get ugly.

On top of that, many people generally are anxious, confused, and distressed by the effects of the world shifting under their feet.  Some people are emotionally immature and some have toxic ways of relating with others.  They bring those characteristics with them into the church which has somehow conveyed the message that ‘being loved’ means they will not be confronted.  Then, for some reason, when the church itself is under stress, these people can gain a disproportionate amount power and influence, wreaking havoc.  And, for some reason, good people who should and could speak up, remain silent or walk away.

This is a part of the church’s life that is often unacknowledged in helpful ways.  Life in the reactive zone is full of deep valleys that are full of pain, hurt, frustration and even despair.  A lot of collateral damage happens there.

When we do not speak about those realities, we give them even greater power than they already have to shape our churches in destructive ways and to wound and even destroy those who are in ordered ministry.  “Unspoken feelings and anxieties act like a powerful, dominating control mechanism.  They are like the unpredictable chaos out of which anything can emerge not as relationality but as dominance and control.”  (The Missional Leader, p. 88)

We are on our way to something new.  I haven’t yet seen the promised land.  I haven’t even  seen the Jordan River.  But I have seen one or two of the birds that circle overhead when water is near.  We can call it a paradigm shift, rapid discontinuous change, the transformation of the church, a time of exile or wilderness wandering.  Whatever name we give to it, “the passage will almost certainly be stormy, disruptive, disorienting” (The Missional Leader, p. xiv)

If we witness to the newness that God is bringing to birth among us, there will be opposition.  We live in a world that ‘yields most painfully to change’, as Robert Kennedy once said in a speech in Capetown, South Africa.  The clergy may find themselves silenced, exiled and threatened by the keepers of the status quo.  Some of those leaders will be acting merely to preserve their own power.  Some will be acting out of jealousy when they see new life and do not know how to be a part of it.  Some will simply be scattering their own emotional baggage – a different kind of missionary activity, if you will.

When you read the literature on the missional church, some of it gives only a slight nod in the direction of the opposition and conflict that clergy encounter.  Some will offer one or two strategies to deal with it.  However, they often tend to suggest that such conflict can be easily resolved simply by learning appropriate conflict management techniques or by the leader maintaining a non-anxious presence.  A Field Guide for the Missional Congregation gives the example of a congregation that had decided to begin a new contemporary worship service.  This decision also meant that the traditional worship service would move from 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.  When a member of the congregation complained about this to Carol, the congregational president, Carol explained, in a non-anxious way, that this was a way to reach youth and visitors.  The complainant listened to Carol then said, “I never thought of it that way.  I guess that’s important, isn’t it?  I can come early.”  (p. 71)

It may be that easy.  It may not be.  Those who resist change can be determined and persistent.  They can exercise their power in abusive ways.  It is  the minister who often gets caught in the cross-fire.  In such situations, the clergy lose hope and energy.  Sometimes they also lose their jobs.  Some even lose their vocations.

On one level, most ministers are not surprised.  When we signed on to follow Jesus, we knew that a cross came with the package.  We who have died and risen with Christ in baptism know that it is going to cost us something.  There will be scars.  That doesn’t make it easy.  It does not mean that we are equipped to deal with the challenges.  It does mean that, if we are going to stay in this terrible, glorious vocation and even lead some of God’s people through the wilderness, we shall need to find resources to hold on, to endure in the face of resistance, conflict, opposition and sometimes, abuse.

Mostly what I have found so far has been helpful advice – tools and techniques– for dealing with conflict and managing change.  These have largely been adopted from the business and social services worlds.

  • Maintain a non-anxious presence.
  • Establish healthy communication styles.  Don’t allow rumour, gossip, third-party comments, anonymous input
  • Face conflict head-on
  • Insist on truth-telling.  No secrets.  End the ‘confidential’ meetings
  • Work on your own emotional maturity and become a person of integrity and courage – a leader worthy of the trust of people

Much of it is good advice.

We had better learn all we can about systems theory, conflict management, organizational skills and abusive behaviours and how to stop them. We had better work on our own emotional baggage and character formation.

And we need to be on a very intentional journey of spiritual formation, opening ourselves to the transforming work of God.  Get a spiritual mentor.  Find a team of peers who will keep you honest and accountable but who will also provide a place to vent and will support you through the tough parts.  Develop deep and robust practices and disciplines of praying, indwelling scripture and keeping Sabbath.

One of the most helpful things that my spiritual mentor said to me was that I needed to recover a sacrament that Jesus had given to his disciples.  It is one that we have neglected but it was commanded by our Lord when he sent the disciples out into the villages and town to proclaim the arrival of the Realm of God.  If they were not welcomed, they were ‘wipe the dust of the town off their feet’.  And they were to say as they were leaving, “Nevertheless, know this:  the Realm of God has come near to you.”  Then, Jesus said, “I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town,” (Luke 10: 12) which can be a very comforting assurance when the hurt is new and fresh.

That said, if we are going to find the resources to endure the struggle, we need something beyond all that.  Douglas Hall contends that the only resource strong enough to help us endure is theology.  We shall need to live into this theologically.  And that ‘living into it theologically’ shall need to be at some depth, not just shallow proof-texting (p. x).  We shall need to find what Newbigin described as ‘some kind of faith that [will] fortify us… against apathy and despair” (Weston, Lesslie Newbigin: Missionary Theologian, p. 2)

It is this deep theological reflection that I have found missing in much of the literature about the missional church.  It may be simply that I haven’t been reading the right books. However, I took great comfort from one of the ‘Haynerisms’ that Steve Hayner used to say:  “It is more important to ask the right questions than to have the right answers.”

So, I want to ask three questions about living theologically in the reactive zone:

The categories that commonly occur in the missional church conversation provide good places to start.

1)  Missional churches are Incarnational.  What does it mean that the Jesus whom we follow is a crucified Lord?  Sometimes our crucified Saviour is hard to recognize in the heady promises that pepper the missional church conversation:  that if we just ‘sneeze’ into the right conditions, the gospel will travel like an unstoppable virus into all the world (Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways); that a non-anxious presence will turn around a floundering church in short order to the great acclaim of all the leadership in the church; that if you just put the proper structures and processes in place, your congregation will thrive.

Many authors writing for the church that is emerging are bravely venturing into new territory and trying to find the way as best they can. They will not always get it right, but at least they are trying to find a new way. For that, those of us who are following behind, can be grateful.  However, where they seem to be driven by a need for success (whether that is defined as big churches or as many little church sites), we lose sight of Jesus who left his disciples with the closing words, “the world will hate you for it” (Walter Brueggemann, Peace, p.157)

Most of the churches I know are not models of success and competence.  They struggle and stumble and fall.  Many of them are broken and will not easily be fixed.  Does the Incarnation also have something to say to such congregations? Can we only be ‘missional’ when we look successful?  Is there not a word of grace in our brokenness and in our failure?  What does it look like to believe that, even when we do not succeed, when we are the broken Body of Christ, God is at work?  What if our mission in a world addicted to competence and control is to demonstrate what God’s kingdom means when we are not capable and successful?  What if that is the way the world will experience what grace really means?

2)  The mission of God is the reconciliation of the world.  The work of the church is to witness to the shalom that is God’s purpose for and work in the world.  As the Body of Christ, we are a foretaste of the end (telos) God intends for all people.  Meanwhile we live in an age that is becoming more and more prone to choosing violence as its way to respond to conflict.  The way we navigate conflict within our churches becomes part of our witness to such a world. The way we navigate the crises can be the way we incarnate the peace that Jesus comes to bring. What does this mean for the way we deal with conflict in our midst? In many of our churches, even the existence of conflict is denied and hidden.  It goes underground and festers.  We shy away from telling each other the truth because we are afraid of confrontation. What does shalom look like when there are deeply held and/or irreconcilable differences?  We had thought that caring was enough: that, if we all just cared enough, things would all work out.  Things don’t all work out.  Out of our ‘caring’ for one another, we end up telling lies to one another, not wanting to confront each other with the truth, fearing that the truth will hurt and so we shall not be ‘caring’.  I once asked Stanley Hauerwas how we go about living in a Sermon on the Mount kind of community.  He said in his usual pastoral way, “Don’t lie. It’s the lies we tell each other in the name of love that are killing us. Peace requires confrontation. We have to love each other enough to tell the truth to one another. Don’t lie.”

3)  Hospitality to strangers is an elementary practice for missional churches.  That presents challenges for us when we consider the strangers outside our walls.  What does ‘hospitality to strangers’ require of us when the stranger is the person sitting next to us in worship?  when the stranger is the person who opposes everything we propose at the Board level?  when the stranger is actively at work to undermine us?

I do not know the answers to many of the questions.  Indeed, I probably do not even know yet the right questions to be asking.  But I trust that giving voice to these issues and asking the questions that they raise will lead to the next step on the journey toward God’s future.  In that spirit, I finish with a quotation from Doug Hall in Confessing the Faith:

To be a Christian today, and more particularly to be in some office of Christian leadership, is in my opinion an infinitely more interesting, challenging, demanding, and also, of course, often unnerving, lonely, and frustrating sort of venture than anything drawn from the long past of ‘business-as-usual’ Christianity… the church is in a state of crisis.  ‘Crisis’ krisis, means judgment.  None of us escapes this judgment; there is pain in it, and much uncertainty.  But when we consider the ‘face’ of the Judge, we know that the pain is only the pain of truth, and that the uncertainty can be borne because it is only the other side of trust (faith).  (p. xi)

Wherever else God may send us, our ‘context’ — the context that determines all the rest — is the abiding, steadfast love and faithfulness of God.  This God meets us in Jesus Christ, claims us as God’s own, and sends us into the world in the power of the Holy Spirit to be servants and witnesses of the good news of God’s Reign.


Read Full Post »

This is the twelfth in a series of posts about the differences between a pastoral and a missional church.  The phrase ‘from pastoral to missional’ came from Harold Percy, who was one of the first people to articulate for me the shift I was experiencing in congregations.

I have come across a few different ways of describing the differences between the two models of church. Somewhere in the past, I picked up a chart in which Harold Percy compares the attitudes and expectations in the two models. These posts will work through that chart of comparisons and give some explanation of what I think the differences imply for the way a mainline congregation operates.

The eleventh difference is described this way:

When thinking of the community, the pastoral church asks:  “How can we get these people to support the church?” 

When thinking of the community, the missional church asks: “How can the church support these people?”


In Missional: Joining God in the Neighbourhood, Alan Roxburgh describes the Church as part of a three-way friendship with the Gospel and the Culture. The three friends grew up together and developed a deep relationship over the years. Then, they gradually drifted apart, losing touch with one another. One day, two of the friends were delighted to receive an email from the other friend, inviting them to spend a weekend at his home. The friends enjoyed catching up with each other. However, as the evening progressed, the friend who had invited the other two began to dominate the conversation. He turned every topic to a discussion about his needs, his questions, his plans. The other two friends left the weekend feeling that they had been used to meet his agenda.

In a few different situations, I have found Roxburgh’s depiction of the Church to reflect what happens as congregations try to find their way into the future. They recognize that they have lost touch with the culture around them. Two, three, four generations of people are missing from the faith community. The congregation wonders what went wrong: Why did their children, who were brought to worship and to programmes at the church all through their childhood, drift away? Why do their grandchildren have little interest in being part of the church’s life?

Many congregations begin to ask those questions when it becomes apparent that, if they don’t find adequate answers, the congregation will not survive. Their need to find new people for their faith community drives them to try to reconnect with the culture around them. They ask, “What do we need to do to get more people to support our church?” They look for tactics that they can adopt in order to make their congregation grow.

The Missional Church conversation is not driven by church-centred questions. The focus is not on “How can we get more people to support our church?” Rather, the focus is on what God’s Holy Spirit is already up to in our neighbourhoods.

I have found that it is very difficult for many people in the church to shift their focus. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have sometimes invited them to search out someone who is not involved in a church and ask them four questions:
What is important to you?
What are you passionate about?
Where do you feel God’s presence?
Where do you feel God’s absence?

My instructions are that they are to ask the questions and listen to the answers. Any questions they ask are to be for clarification only. They are not to try to correct or convince the person of something. They are just to listen to him or her.

Some people have taken up the invitation. They have asked the questions of young people and of the elderly. They have asked family members and acquaintances. The answers have been varied. Some of them have been heart-breaking.

However, whenever I have been part of a church gathering where the reports of the conversations have been given, the conversation inevitably turns to the question, “What can we do so that these people will come to our church?” What programme can be offered? What changes can we make so that these people will want to join us?
Even when I have pointed out to the group that the point of the exercise was to hear what God is up to in people’s lives (and not to find out how to make our churches grow), the group reverts to the church-centred question.

The missional conversation assumes that God is out ahead of us, at work in our neighbourhoods and in people’s lives. We go, listening and looking for the signs that God is already on the premises, already at work, although often in ways that don’t look like what we are used to. Nadia Bolz Weber, in an interview with Faith and Life, I think, says the church sometimes is like someone who says, “There are so few pay phones any more. Isn’t it a shame that people have given up on communicating with each other by phone.”

Roxburgh spends a lot of time reflecting on Luke 10. One of the things he points out is that in that passage it is the disciples who are to receive the hospitality of the people to whom they are sent. So often, we think of ourselves as the ones providing hospitality, as those who are offering something to others. It is a major shift to put ourselves on the receiving end of their hospitality. So the question becomes, “Can we create a space safe enough that they are willing to host us, i.e. to share with us the story of God’s work in their lives?”  And, “Are we training ourselves to become the kind of people who, when they trust us enough to invite us into their spiritual lives, can reflect with them what those nudges from the Holy Spirit mean?”
If it is true that God is already at work in their lives, a point at which we can meet is in giving them language to describe what they are experiencing. Of course, we need to know our own stories well enough to recognize God when God is acting in surprising places and ways in people’s lives. I think of my former theology professor, Steve Hayner, who is dying of pancreatic cancer. Through his writing in his Caring Bridge blog, he is able to help us recognize God’s grace even in his suffering and in his dying. Who would have thought that such a journey would be filled with such blessedness, so much joy in the midst of such great sorrow and suffering? He knows the Story well enough that he is convinced that God’s grace is to be found in suffering. He names it in his own life and so helps us recognize it in our lives as well.

Read Full Post »

Our congregation will soon be in the midst of a discussion about the future of the building which houses the church. After extensive investigation, it is apparent that the building is not in danger of imminent collapse. However, like many urban congregations, a relatively small number of people bear the financial responsibility for a large building. It was built in a time when people were not conscious about the need for accessibility for people with handicaps. Now, however, many people in the congregation find all the stairs increasingly difficult to navigate. The sanctuary is beautiful but its heating and electrical systems need updating. Among the people., there are significantly different opinions about what is the best way forward.
I am reminded of a section in Roxburgh and Romanuk’s book, The Missional Leader, which speaks of such a time in congregational life. They advise that the temptation will be to shut down the tension by choosing one side or the other. The creative way forward will consist of both sides listening to each other and listening to God through prayer and engagement with the scriptures to discern what new life God has in mind for the congregation.
I am also reminded of the wise words spoken by a woman in another congregation that was facing a potentially divisive issue:
“We are going to be talking about things that are very important to us. In the midst of the discussion, some of us will say things that we ought not to say. Some of us will hurt others with our words. Some of us will be hurt by what others say. Let us do our utmost to treat each other with great dignity and respect. And, when we finish the discussion, let us remember that we leave here as brothers and sisters in Christ, members of one Body.”
So often congregations try to avoid conflict. That, of course, is deadly for the well-being of the congregation and for the gospel. The attempt to keep things secret and hidden takes up a great deal of energy. It requires people to deny the truth. “Where there is no truth, there is no trust. Where there is no trust, the gospel cannot be heard.”
So, I am grateful for those voices in the church that help us find a way through the difficult times when we disagree with each other.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: