This post contains excepts from the report. Due to formatting challenges a number of sections have been omitted from this post namely the detailed notes from the listening sessions.
Report and Recommendations
First Congregational United Church of Christ
Hendersonville, NC
October 4, 2020
First Congregational Church (FCC) has been a vibrant and growing church in recent years. The members see the church as a beacon of progressive Christianity that is
1) A welcoming family
2) A loving family
3) A congregational family
OVERVIEW:
For at least the last year and a half, there has been conflict within the congregation regarding the return of Rev. Richard Weidler (retired FCC pastor since April 1, 2018) into the full life and membership of FCC.
This possible return, after a hiatus of at least one year after the arrival of the new settled pastor Rev. Karla Miller in February 2019, follows a similar pattern of the return of other former pastors of FCC.
On October 10, 2018, the charter for a new Human Resources Ministry (HRM) at FCC (See Addendum A) was approved by the Council to “administer the Personnel Policies for the paid staff of the church and provide support for the staff and lay leadership of the church,” including implementing “all elements of the Personnel Policies of the Church.” Members of the HRM must “maintain confidentiality in all personal matters.”
In October 2019, the HRM started considering and working on a personnel protocol for departing clergy.
In early December, the HRM sought counsel with Rev. Jim Luck, a member of the Committee on Ministry
(CoM) of the WNC Association of the UCC. The HRM also followed the process recommended by J.Russell Crabtree (a.k.a. Fe Avis), President of Crows Feet Consulting, regarding “Considerations for aRetired Pastor’s Reentry into a Congregation” (See Addendum B)
On March 11, 2020, Personnel Policies Section 13: Protocol for Departing Clergy (see Addendum C) was unanimously approved by the HRM and approved by the Church Council that states: “departing pastors are not allowed to attend or rejoin FCUCC at any time,” while FCC members “are now welcome to renew your social contacts with departed clergy.”
The announcement of this revised protocol by email on March 11 sent by Phil Taylor surprised and dismayed many FCC members. But before any congregational discussion could take place, the church was shut down on March 13 due to COVID-19. The usual means of congregational communication and communal discernment process were not available to the congregation.
On May 9, a group of FCC members concerned about this new protocol launched a website:https://fcuccpolicychange.blogspot.com/ to communicate their concerns and document meetings minutesand emails exchanged with church leadership.
On June 10, the Council, in consultation with the CoM and the Associate Conference Minister, the Rev. Dr. Colleen Samson, decided by majority vote to suspend for an indefinite period of time the revised personnel protocol for departing pastors.
On June 11, the Council voted to seek outside assistance to work with FCC on a process of transformation, healing, and reconciliation.
On June 29, The CCH submitted a proposal for listening group sessions with these desired outcomes:
• Determine the challenges and concerns from the congregation, lay leaders, and staff concerning the current state of the congregation
• Clarify healthy next steps for the congregation and leaders.
On July 22, the Council decided by majority vote to engage with the Center for Congregational Health(CCH) for mediation.
PROCESS DESIGN:
Sixteen listening sessions of up to eight persons each were scheduled via Zoom from August 24 through September 1. Listening group sessions were open to all congregation members and active attenders who wished to participate. The aim of the listening sessions was to gather and share information and perceptions about this conflict. In all, around 120 participants signed up, and a total of 108 participants were counted in attendance.
Additionally, I also had listening sessions (via email and/or Zoom) with Reverends Karla Miller and Mark Acker, five members of the HRM, Rev. Jim Luck of the Committee on Ministry (CoM) of the WNC Association of the UCC, and Rev. Richard Weidler, the former pastor.
The HRM, Rev. Jim Luck, Rev. Richard Weidler, and Rev. Karla Miller also submitted statements for nclusion in this report. (see Addendums D, E, F, G)
JB Note: Notes from listening sessions have been omitted because of formatting challenges.
REFLECTIONS ON THE LISTENING SESSIONS:
In the listening sessions, members had many questions about the policy, its purpose, its timing, its intended audience, the process of its approval, its subsequent congregation impact, and its implications for congregational governance and ultimately, its identity. Ultimately, there are questions about former pastor Richard Weidler’s return as a full and participating member of FCC.
These are the content issues, and they are often addressed in conflicting, binary perspectives: whether the protocol is right or wrong, whether or not the HRM has authority to approve protocol, whether or not Rev. Weidler should come back, and who (or which group) is the “transgressor” and who (or which group) is the “victim.”
These content issues are important, and I don’t want to minimize them. But the congregation has been stuck in these content issues for months. I don’t believe a more intense focus on these content issues will get the congregation unstuck.
Therefore, for my report, I will offer three things:
1) my take on how I see systemically what is happening at FCC,
2) a more systemic view that highlights three areas in need of congregational clarity, and
3) recommendations for FCC moving forward.
MY TAKE ON HOW FCC GOT TO WHERE IT IS
While most of the content of the listening sessions focused on the protocol as the “presenting issue,” I will focus on the systemic emotional dynamics taking place in the congregation during the last two years.
Much of this offers “observations” that can be fact-checked, but there are also “interpretations” that should be taken with a grain of salt. Finally, my “conjectures,” “guesses,” and “imaginings” should be taken with a heaping of salt.
In my conversations with Reverends Weidler, Luck, and Miller, my interpretation is that one event that contributed to the emotional intensity and changing landscape of FCC was the sickness and death of Howard Carl. Howard Carl died October 2, 2019, and his Memorial Service was conducted on October 25, 2019, eight months after Rev. Karla Miller’s arrival.
At that time, there was an accepted FCC practice (albeit not written nor codified) that any departed FCC clergy would have no official contact with FCC or its members for a period of at least one year after the arrival of the new settled pastor. Former pastors Kelly and Rathbun adhered to this practice.
(Note: the information in this paragraph came to light with a permission to share on October 4, 1:45 pm)
During the time that Howard was in palliative and hospice care, Rev. Miller asked Howard if there was anyone he would like to come visit him. He did not at any time express a desire for Rev. Weidler to visit him. Had Howard expressed a desire for a visit from Rev. Weidler, Rev. Miller would have been totally willing for this to happen, in spite of the UCC policy of no contact by the former pastor for one year.
When Rev. Weidler asked Rev. Miller for permission to visit Howard, Rev. Miller, in honoring Howard’s wishes, refused. However, in also wanting to honor her sense of pastoral confidentiality, Rev. Miller did not tell Rev. Weidler about Howard’s wishes. Without that information, Rev. Weidler was deeply upset with Rev. Miller’s response. He did stay away, though not with emotional detachment but with emotional intensity. I imagine his intense grief was “picked up” by some church members, who probably saw Rev. Miller as an insecure, heartless rule-follower. This fallout highlighted to the HRM the urgent need to clarify departed clergy protocols, a need that didn’t arise with other departed pastors.
I also imagine that this event with Howard’s sickness and death was only the “tipping point,” and that there were other emotionally intense interactions among Rev. Weidler, some church leaders and members, and the church staff, even before Rev. Weidler’s retirement announcement.
Regarding the departed clergy protocol, the HRM could have followed the policy/process recommended by Rev. Jim Luck and the CoM in December of 2019. That process required a discernment period of up to three years, requiring mutual agreement from the current pastor, the former pastor, the congregation, and the CoM. During that period, Richard would be prohibited from any social contact from FCC members.
However, the HRM and church leaders were already in the “hot seat” for at least three months (from October to December 2019). By “hot seat,” I’m referring to a general intense emotional climate, not specific “actions” committed by various parties or individuals. Around three months later, on March 11, 2020, the HRM voted unanimously on a new revised departed clergy protocol (See Addendum C), after following guidelines from consultant, Fe Avis of Crows Feet Consulting (See Addendum B).
This revised policy had the unintended effect of “pouring gasoline onto the flames” of the intense emotional climate. In the listening sessions, many who were concerned about the protocol were focusing on the phrase: “departing pastors are not allowed to attend or rejoin FCUCC at any time.” They felt that was an unnecessarily harsh and permanent sentence to place on Rev. Weidler, and perhaps also to all future departing pastors of FCC.
To me, from an emotional systems standpoint, the interesting parts of the new revised protocol are the three phrases before that sentence since they articulate not a policy but reasons and intentions behind the policy. I’m reading between the lines; these are my conjectures, so take them with a heaping of salt:
The first is: “Because it can be difficult for former pastors and church members to navigate healthy boundaries in a new kind of relationship,”
In any church, a pastoral change can make relationships difficult for everyone – the departed pastor, the new pastor, for church leaders, and for church members.
Allow me to tell a personal story: Beth and I have two children. When our oldest, Thea, was nearly 4 and our youngest, Wesley, was nearly 2, a church member asked Beth, “Are you ready to have another baby?” Beth turned to Thea and said, “What do you think?” Without missing a beat, Thea replied, “No, we have one too many already!”
Navigating a new kind of relationship, whether it is a new sibling or a new pastor, can be emotionally difficult for members of a biological family as well as for a church family. To me, this sentence telegraphs that this particular departed pastor situation (without naming names) has been particularly difficult.
The second phrase is: “and in order to create clarity from the beginning,” FCC’s pastoral change was made more difficult by the lack of a clear written protocol prescribing clear boundaries of how a recently departed pastor should interact with the church. In this case, my opinion is that a policy was created/triangled in to avoid potentially hard conversations with Rev. Weidler and his supporters. Instead of avoiding a conflict, the policy fostered a situation in which Rev. Weidler and Rev. Miller were set up to be seen as either a transgressor or a victim.
Another true story. When my kids were young, Wesley would continually barge into the Thea’s room without knocking or warning. No amount of reasoning or entreaties would deter him. So finally Thea slammed and locked the door in his face. Later a “Do Not Enter!” sign with a clearly drawn angry face was taped to the door. That led Wesley to cry because he loved his sister and couldn’t understand why she didn’t want to spend time with him. He couldn’t know or understand that his sister was a strong introvert who once told her dad, “Goodbye Daddy!” when I tried to enter Thea’s room to kiss her good night.
The slamming of the door and posting a sign created clarity. Could Thea have managed her emotions better and not slammed the door in Wesley’s face? Could Wesley have managed his emotions and behavior better by not continuing to barge into Thea’s room? Who’s the transgressor? Who’s the victim?
Ultimately, how helpful are those binary judgments? How can each child stop blaming the other and acknowledge how they contributed to this situation? How can the parents understand that both children at that moment or at that stage of development didn’t have the capacity to name or communicate the “underlying” reason for needing to “barge in” and needing to “slam the door”?
The third phrase from the protocol is: “the most loving thing to do,”
I imagine the revised protocol was seen by the HRM as the most loving thing to do for any settled pastor, so that they won’t be placed in that difficult situation again.
I imagine the revised protocol was seen as the most loving thing to do for the congregation, if – and that’s a big if – that resolves the difficulty of navigating a new pastoral relationship by triangling in a protocol to metaphorically “close the door” on the former pastoral relationship.
I can also imagine the revised protocol as the most loving thing to do for the departed Pastor. Alternatively, FCC could have followed the CoM’s policy, which would have stipulated that the departed clergy is required to abstain from social contact with FCC members for up to three years, only to face the possibility of a permanently shut door. While permanently “shutting the church door,” the HRM’s revised protocol opens the door for Rev. Weidler to renew social contacts immediately with FCC members outside the church. My assumption is that future departed clergy will have to wait a year after the arrival of the settled pastor before renewing social contacts outside the church.
I imagine that revised protocol might be like Thea telling Wesley, “You can’t come into my room; but I’ll play with you outside.” I could then imagine Wesley not accepting that offer but instead running to me in anger to insist that he needs to play with Thea in her room.
What is the most loving thing to do? Command Thea to love and welcome Wesley into the room? Command Wesley to love Thea and respect the word “no”? How might parents understand that the constant “barging into rooms” might be a less-regulated need for connection and belonging? While at the same time, how might parents lovingly understand that the less-regulated need for belonging contributed to the “slamming of the door” or a “life-time ban,” which itself might be a complementary over-reaction for emotional space and safety? How might parents lovingly focus less on their children’s conflictual behavior to (over-)correct it, and instead become a “less anxious presence” and not contribute to the conflict?
So, that’s how I see this situation from an emotional system perspective. I’m sure I’ve got some facts wrong. And no doubt, many of my interpretations and guesses may be off base. However, in my use of stories and metaphors, I hope to encourage FCC to focus less on the content, and pay more attention to the emotional dynamic.
In listening to you, I’m struck by the realization that for the last year and a half, Rev. Richard Weidler has been the emotional center of this congregation even though he never set foot in the building!
In the listening sessions, we heard various versions of this question asked as the assumed source of this conflict: “Why can’t Rev. Weidler physically come back to FCC?”
In my opinion, another source of this conflict is highlighted by this question that has often not been asked: “Why can’t FCC emotionally let Rev. Weidler go?”
I believe exploring this second question is one path toward healing and wholeness for FCC. The good news is that FCC actually has the agency and control over how to answer that question!
And now, you’ve been given a gift. The new revised protocol has been indefinitely suspended. You all get a “mulligan,” not necessarily to answer this question, but to clarify current reality and future steps for FCC!
It’s now October 2020 and here’s the current reality.
For Rev. Richard Weidler:
In his statement, Rev. Weidler suggests a need for a healing process in the church. And then he states: “Even if invited back, I would not return to FCC without such a healing process.” (Read Addendum F for Rev. Weidler’s full statement.) (Note: Rev. Weidler may feel differently about his statement after my October 4, 3 pm conversation with him.)
For the CoM:
In his statement on behalf of the CoM, Rev. Jim Luck states: “On May 7, 2020, Rev. Weidler appeared before the entire committee (via zoom) along with the Rev. Dr. Mark Stanley of Trinity Presbyterian Church Hendersonville. While Rev. Weidler had not yet officially joined Trinity, they both shared that, with our blessing, Rev. Weidler would do so as soon as Covid-19 protocols allowed. While Trinity Presbyterian is not a UCC church, mutual agreements between the UCC and the PCUSA allow for such an arrangement. In addition, Rev. Weidler further stated on two separate occasions that he did not desire to return to First Congregational. Consequently, our committee continues to proceed believing that Rev. Weidler either is or will be a member of Trinity Presbyterian. However, if for some reason Rev. Weidler were to change his mind and request to return to FCC, we would return to square one and begin a multiyear period of discernment as to the health of such a request.” (Read Addendum E for Rev. Luck’s full statement.)
The FCC’s revised protocol regarding departing clergy:
The revised protocol was indefinitely suspended as of June 10. As a result, the protocol’s requirement that “departing pastors are not allowed to attend or rejoin FCUCC at any time” is lifted. On the other hand, the allowance that FCC members “are now welcome to renew your social contacts with departed clergy” is also taken away.
For Rev. Karla Miller
Rev, Karla Miller reiterates her covenantal promises to enter into a sacred relationship – with God, with individuals, and as a pastor, with the congregation she serves. She writes: “I love being a pastor. I also love being your pastor. I re-affirm my promises made on the day of my installation—to serve First Congregational UCC Hendersonville with energy, intelligence, imagination and love. My prayer in these troubled times is that we can heal and practice grace with one another so we can continue to be God’s love, justice and mercy in our corner of the world.” (Read Addendum G for Rev. Miller’s full statement.)
What remains:
What remains is the CoM’s expectation of Rev. Richard Weidler. Rev. Jim Luck writes: “at the current time Rev. Weidler is not to engage in any conversations in the community regarding the persons and community life at First Congregational Church Hendersonville whether in person, or by phone, email, letter or through any form of social media; nor is he to engage in person or through these mediums in such conversations with members, constituents and friends of First Congregational Church Hendersonville. Upon completion of the current consulting process, the committee, in discussion with Rev. Weidler, will discuss when and if our expectations will be altered or removed altogether.”
A SYSTEMIC VIEW – AREAS NEEDING CLARIFICATION:
In the listening sessions, it seems clear to me that all participants would agree that FCC (at least “preconflict”)
is:
1) A welcoming family
2) A loving family
3) A congregational family
However, there is a lack of clarity and consensus within the congregation regarding what those three statements mean. The following analysis is an invitation for FCC to engage as a congregation in a process of clarification to cultivate a greater unity of purpose and vision.
Clarify this theme: “We are a welcoming family.”
FCC seeks to be inclusive and affirming of all people. This theme is epitomized by FCC’s Open and Affirming Policy, which have been cited often in the listening sessions as a core value of FCC.
“As Christians and members of First Congregational United Church of Christ, we are a diverse group of people. We are persons of various ages, races, gender identities, accomplishments and goals, abilities, sexual orientations, theological and political beliefs, socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds.”
This policy clearly values the welcome and inclusion of all people regardless of their identities.
However, churches usually have boundaries (either explicitly stated or assumed) regarding acceptable behaviors of members regardless of their identity.
A church may not exclude based on who people are (their identity). However, what boundaries (if any) regulating the limits of that welcome based on what people do (their behavior) in church?
In other words, while FCC welcomes all identities based on its O&A policy, does this policy also welcome all behaviors at FCC?
Clarifying Question:
Under which category (identity or behavior) does a personnel protocol of departed clergy most appropriately fall under?
Clarify this theme: “We are a loving family.”
This theme came up repeatedly in the listening sessions. However, upon closer inspection, three major “loves” rose to the surface:
1) I “love” my church’s mission (and its commitment to justice, compassion, and inclusion)
2) I “love” my sense of “ease” (the accepting and non-conflictual atmosphere of this church)
3) I “love” my pastor
Conflicts arise in churches, in part, because of the different ordering or prioritization of these loves among its members. Clarity and honesty about the ordering of these “loves” (or allegiances) within each member AND within the congregation as a whole will help in promoting greater mutual understanding and unity.
Please note: the prioritization of one of these loves will necessarily require some sacrifice of the other loves. For example, prioritizing love for the church’s mission may take me out of my comfort zone (a sacrifice of my love for “ease” and “peace”). And since pastors come and go, I welcome new pastors and say goodbye to former pastors because they serve the mission of the church and not vice versa.
In the listening sessions, the “I love my pastor” theme was split into “I love my current pastor” and “I love my former pastor.” A lack of clarity regarding how this congregation prioritizes all four “loves” is a contributor to the current conflict.
Also note: it is extremely rare for a person or a congregation to prioritize all four “loves” the same.
Clarifying Questions:
• What is the order/priority of 4 “loves” of the members of the FCC?
• What is the order/priority of 4 “loves” for the congregation as a whole?
• What does true love look like?
o Does it welcome all behaviors, in the name of love?
o Does it avoid hard conversations or set clear behavioral boundaries because that might cause “dis-ease” and “hurt someone else’s feelings?”
Clarify this theme: “We are a congregational family.”
It is evident that FCC has grown significantly in the last ten years (see the chart showing that nearly 70% of the listening group participants have been involved in the church for 9 years or less). As a church grows in numerical size, its system of congregational governance must change, even in “congregational” churches.
A “Family-sized” (0-50 in worship) church operates mostly from assumed, unwritten rules agreed by members. While most decisions involve the whole congregation, it is often the matriarch or patriarch’s voice that carries the most weight. Church communication is mostly through the informal grapevine. The pastor functions as a chaplain to the families of the church.
In a “Pastoral-sized” (51-150 in worship) church, the daily operation has risen to a level of complexity that all members can no longer decide on everything. They trust the pastor to “run the church,” and the pastor is a “policy” to themselves because there few written policies or procedures. Pastors are often the emotional center of pastoral sized churches and enjoy mutually deep personal relationships with the majority of members. Communication is mostly through the pastor.
In a “Program-sized” (151-400 in worship) church, the complexity of programming, administration, and communication for this number of members require processes and policies to standardize behavior and functioning, to depersonalize job descriptions, and to facilitate accountability. “Big” decisions regarding congregational mission and direction require direct congregational vote. Otherwise, the congregation votes to authorize staff and committees to act on their behalf on many of the operational, personnel, and programmatic needs. Constant communication is necessary to keep the congregation informed. To a\ person with a family-sized or pastoral-sized church mentality, this standardization feels “corporate.” To a person with a program-sized church mentality, the more “organic” governance of family-sized churches feel haphazard and inefficient. Pastors are less emotionally available to meet the needs of individual\ members.
(For more information church size dynamics, see separate addendum “How to Minister Effectively in Family, Pastoral, Program and Corporate-Sized Churches” by Roy M. Oswald.)
Note: A congregational governance structure based on a family-sized church or pastoral size mentality will hit its growth limit around 150. Any sustained growth above that without changing governance structure will lead to burnout on the part of pastors and staff. Also, a lack of clarity and explicit consensus regarding the type of congregational governance the church should follow is the soil in which the seeds of distrust, suspicion, and conflict will rapidly take root and grow. Interpretation:
Under the “old personnel protocol,” the settled pastor (after a year of their arrival) is authorized to decide whether and when to invite recently departed clergy back to FCC, without explicit congregational approval. That is a “Pastoral-sized” church approach to congregational governance.
However, the assumed unwritten rule and expectation is that the settled pastor will invite the departed clergy back. That is a “Family-sized” church approach to congregational governance.
The HRM, (whose members are voted on and authorized by the congregation to address personnel matters), in approving a written protocol for departed clergy (regardless of its content), is operating from a “Program-sized” church approach to congregational governance.
The conflict regarding congregational governance is, in part, due to the members assuming three different approaches to governance in regards to the departed clergy protocol.
Clarifying Questions:
• What “church size” level is the most appropriate level for “congregational” governance in the present life of FCC? In approving a personnel protocol for departing clergy?
• On what “church size” level is FCC operating on regarding its communication?
• What “church size” level is most appropriate for FCC to operate on regarding its communication, and how to get to that level?
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS AFTER THE OCTOBER 4 PRESENTATION
(Note: the following was written on October 5, 2020)
In any gathering or group of human beings, there will be differences of experiences, beliefs, perspectives, and identities. The group can decide whether to embrace this diversity as a source of strength or to allow this diversity to divide the group into “us” vs. “them.” Indeed, a church that is explicitly Open and Affirming has decided to embrace the diverse identities of individuals as they see themselves.
(As an aside: Now, there are often unnamed assumptions regarding which identities are fully welcomed and affirmed. For example, whether an open and affirming church can be fully open and affirming to people who identify as white supremacists will require hard and emotionally intense conversations and an openness from church members to shift their own assumptions and beliefs about “those people.” Clear boundaries regarding behavior will also need to be in place.)
I sense the open and affirming instinct of FCC operating in regards to the “negative” response to the revised protocol for departed clergy. The disagreement was not whether or not to have a policy to regulate the behavior of departed clergy. The strong disagreement may be based on a congregational intuition that the revised policy preemptively and permanently assigns a “difficult” identity on Rev. Weidler and all future departed clergy at FCC. It allows no room for growth, either on the part of the departed clergy nor in the congregation. There seems to be an emotional “stuckness” to that protocol.
In any group of human beings, conflicts are to be expected because of the diversity and differences I mentioned. However, there is such a thing as healthy, generative conflict when individuals within the group decide to be open to different perspectives and experiences, without necessarily agreeing or affirming that perspective. However, the main factor is a willingness to hold one’s assumptions, beliefs, assumptions, and interpretations lightly, which allows for an openness to change and grow in one’s assumptions, beliefs, and interpretations.
Conflict becomes destructive when individuals are so invested and attached to their assumptions, beliefs, and interpretations that no amount of facts or observations can change their closed minds and hearts. That’s the emotional “stuckness” I was referring to in my presentation and in my encouragement for FCC members to pay less attention to the content.
For example, it makes a difference whether a person performs an action (or abides by a protocol) with emotional magnanimity or emotional acrimony. When Paul writes: “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7), he is reminding his readers that while human beings look upon the outward appearance (visible action, the “content”), God looks on the heart (the spirit/emotion beneath the action) (cf. 1 Samuel 16:7).
So while everyone may be “abiding by the protocol” (the action, the content), how they abide (in their spirit and emotion) determines whether they are pouring gasoline, providing oxygen, or dousing water onto the flames of conflict in this congregation. Since my report is to the congregation, any clarifying questions and recommendations are also directed to the congregation, not to Rev. Weidler or Rev. Miller.
The two reverends are responsible for their own thinking, feelings, assumptions, and actions. They are adults and do not need others to contribute to the emotional “stuckness” by holding on to past grievances for them or to advocate for justice on their behalf. The congregation is invited to become more open in considering their own thinking, feelings, assumptions, and actions. In my opinion, that’s the most promising way to get unstuck and move forward in the next step of an open and affirming church.
FCCH RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following are practices to assist your congregation in living into a healthier dynamic of congregational life. If we were in a time where gathering in person is possible, we would encourage face-to-face gatherings for structured conversations, as well as opportunities for the congregation to gather in more relaxed ways, such as around tables with food and drink; and to engage in practices of ministry that engage the congregation’s values and mission
During this covid time, congregations are limited in the ways they can connect and build trust and doing this work will take intentionality. Each member will have to make a commitment to being connected as a congregation and to work to build trust and a healthy sense of community. At this time, it will be best for your congregation to engage in small group discussion via a web-based platform (i.e. Zoom). These conversations need to be facilitated and structured, so that the whole congregation is engaged around the same topics and with the same desired outcomes for each conversation. The desired outcomes for those conversations, first and foremost, are for individuals to share their perspectives and to share their stories of engagement in congregational life. These conversations must be structured without a need to have one answer or to take a vote, rather to allow members of the congregation to share and hear personal thoughts and stories and build a healthier sense of community within the congregation. These conversations will allow the space for trust to build and develop in strength.
With the growth experienced by FCC, it is important to begin to shift the identity from “family” to “congregation.” The following are some of the themes for conversation:
Clarify this theme: “We are a welcoming congregation.”
• What does it mean to be an ONA church in the UCC? In the SOC? In Hendersonville?
• How did your congregation become an ONA congregation? What is the time-line of that journey?
• What is inclusivity at FCCH? How does inclusivity impact your ONA identity?
Clarify this theme: “We are a loving congregation.”
• What are characteristics of a loving family? How do we embody those as a congregation?
• What does honesty and transparency look like in a loving family?
• How do loving families communicate? How do we want to communicate as a congregation?
• What are we doing that is working well? What can we do to better communicate?
Clarify this theme: “We are congregational.”
• Discuss the various church size descriptions.
• How has FCC functioned in the different size descriptions?
• How is FCC currently practicing/functioning? Are there carry-over practices from other size descriptions that do not really fit anymore?
• If FCC is functioning at its best, what might that look like?
OTHER RECOMMENDED CONGREGATIONAL EXERCISES
Members of FCC are also invited to reflect individually and corporately to assess how actualized they are in these descriptions and characteristics of healthy congregations.
• Healthy congregations consist of leaders and members who are able to self-define their beliefs, convictions and course of action while at the same time stay connected in an emotionally less anxious ways with others in the congregation who differ from and disagree with them in those areas.
• Healthy congregations seek to follow Jesus’ guideline in Matthew 18:15 to communicate directly with others about disagreements and grievances and work them out first, before triangulating others into their disagreements.
• Healthy congregations with strengths in justice are careful not to use the triangulation of justice work outside the congregation as a way to avoid the “internal justice work” of addressing differences and disagreements within the congregation.
• Healthy congregations with strengths in compassion are careful not to take responsibility for and “rescue” others from their emotional discomfort and pain.
• Healthy congregations consist of leaders and members who take responsibility for their own actions without demanding others to do what they want and/or blame others if those others refuse their demands.
WAYS TO CREATE THE PROCESS
There are a variety of ways to create the process and conversation structure for the congregation.
• Lay-led: A committee of trusted people in the congregation can form as a leadership team and work with the ministry staff and leaders to develop a process and provide oversight for that process.
• Consultant and leadership team: Work with a consultant to facilitate the process of selecting a leadership team. The consultant will facilitate the leadership team to design a process for FCC and to train the team as facilitators for the conversations. The team, with the consultant, will design the structure for facilitated conversation.
• Consultant led: Hire a consultant to create the process and provide the method for facilitation. If you would like to pursue a consultant facilitated process, the Center for Congregational Health will provide a proposal for that work at the request of FCCH.
