Anthony B. Robinson: Leaders are stewards of a (hopefully clear) mission
Peter Steinke is well-known for applying systems thinking to congregational life and leadership. In reflecting on his experience of more than 200 “interventions” with congregations experiencing conflict, he said that the one characteristic common to all these congregations was they lacked a clear sense of overall purpose or mission.
That rings true to my own work with congregations and their leaders. When there’s no clear sense of core mission or purpose, a vacuum results. Congregations are as vacuum averse as nature. Stuff fills the vacuum. Frequently that “stuff” is a welter of minor matters (carpet color and kitchen-use rules are especially popular) that congregations obsess over because they have no clarity about what’s major. Sometimes what fills the vacuum are people a colleague calls “power grabbers”: those with an undue need for power.
Often I work with congregations on discovering or renewing a sense and statement of purpose or core mission. The effective leaders I see are good stewards of a congregation’s mission. They are in touch with it themselves, able to use it to help people discern next steps, and ready to articulate it in ways that strengthen congregational identity and direction.
Sometimes a congregation’s members who have been through exercises in developing a “mission statement,” whether in the church or another setting, are wary of such an exercise. I understand. Frequently the work on mission statements is long on process and short on discernment. There’s too much of us and not enough of God in it. Moreover, for many congregations coming up with a mission statement becomes the end when it should be a beginning. A long, difficult process culminates with the production of a mission or purpose statement which then goes on the shelf or in the file. Once you have it, I suggest to leaders, you have to use it.
I use the words “sense and statement” of purpose as a way of warding off the temptation to think it’s only about coming up with a clever slogan or catchy statement. A succinct, compelling statement is valuable, but only when the statement is underwritten by a strong sense of “why are we here?” “Who has God called us to be?” “What has God called us to do?” “What is God’s mission in our time and place in which we are called to join?” Pastoral leaders need to be animated by such a sense of purpose if their ministry is to have purchase. At the same time, they need to be able to support a congregation’s discernment rather than simply assert their own views.
Often when speaking at events I get a question like this: “What do you do if a few people or a small group in the congregation don’t like the mission statement or direction, when they complain (loudly and to whoever will listen) that they or their interests aren’t included by it?”
First, be sure the process of discernment has been sufficiently open and unhurried to allow for wide participation. If that’s been the case and what’s going on is that people are impeding movement because they fear they will lose power, I say, “Vital congregations are prepared to let people go. Your mission or purpose is more important than any one person, family or small group.”
That’s tough for many long-established congregations, especially those that have come to think and speak of themselves as “a family” (not the best ecclesiological image). Many churches and clergy seem to be willing to turn themselves into pretzels trying to please malcontents and grumps. It seldom works.
Remember: your God-given, congregationally-discerned mission/purpose is more important than any one person or family in the congregation (no matter how important they think they are). Trying to placate one or two, we fail to see how the life of the whole community or congregation is undermined.
Steinke is right, a strong sense of purpose or mission strengthens a congregation’s capacity to resist infection and enjoy health and vitality.
Anthony B. Robinson is a speaker, teacher and author whose books include “Transforming Congregational Culture,” “Leadership for Vital Congregations,” and his most recent, “Changing the Conversation: A Third Way for Congregations.”
Family
Tony I love your comments on how the church as family isn't the best metaphor. It's so regnant now in our imagination for some reason. I also like your naming of the hesitation folks will have about a process of coming up with a mission statement. I share that, but see better how it can be of help now. I'd worry about a sort of 'lowest common denominator' kind of statement that says everything and nothing ('We want to grow, welcome, serve blah blah blah') that sounds indistinguishable from what every other do-gooder organization is supposed to be up to.
wise words
Tony,
Thank you so much for this thoughtful blog. I want to express my appreciation for encouraging us to think more carefully and more theologically about our metaphors for the church. As popular as the metaphor of "family" may be, it is woefully inadequate; it simply will not bear the weight we place upon it. It is no accident, I think, that the Bible provides so many different, contrasting and complementary metaphors and images for church. Remember, for example, the variety of "Images of the Church" Paul Minear described in his classic study by that name; and the paradigmatic "models of the church" described by Avery Dulles. Too often we impoverish our practice of ministry and leadership by not engaging the richness of metaphors, models and images provided in Scripture. Again, thank you for calling into question something that many of us take for granted.
Not to focus unduly on that
Not to focus unduly on that one aside. Nevertheless: Better not abandon the family metaphor. It's just one image, model, or paradigm among many, for sure. But it's a pretty central one. The American church didn't just make it up -- it comes from the ministry of Jesus ("Who is my mother, brother, sister...?" "Here is your son...Here is your mother") and the early church ("they went to Lydia's home and...encouraged the brothers and sisters there"). People need a sense of community, something bigger than the fragmented, blended, variously-shaped nuclear famly. Something that binds us cross-generationally as lots of people live alone. Church as family is the best (and obviously most conflicted) metaphor for that. Furthermore, descending to a crass marketing standpoint, it would be bad strategy to leave a theology of family to the Mormons, who elevate it to their own great advantage.
Post new comment