Part One: Analysis
Four months into my interim ministry at a large, multi-staff church on the north shore of suburban Boston, I began to experience push back. People were responding well to my preaching, worship leadership and pastoral care. I had established a “Transition Team,” representative of the congregation to help me navigate the waters and assist with the five developmental tasks of the interim process. We had a successful “History Night” where folks explored, noted patterns of behavior (both negative and positive) and celebrated key events in the church’s history that defined them as a people.
As we began to explore issues around identity and direction, the Transition Team experienced grumbling, second guessing the leadership, and sharp differences in the perceived state of the church and the direction it should take. As the Team scratched their collective heads about this, we arrived at the conclusion that a lot of the foment came from unresolved issues, unspoken assumptions, and differences that had been buried for decades. These were the “hot potatoes” that nobody wanted to touch.
The apostle Paul was way ahead of his time when he described the Church as the Body of Christ. While it is a helpful metaphor to describe the Church of Jesus Christ as a living organism with Christ as the head and members with a variety of gifts and callings as the body parts, more and more we are realizing that it is true scientifically.
The body is a system made up of many sub-systems which are so interrelated that if one system malfunctions or underfunctions it impacts all of the other systems. By observing the biological world biologists and social scientists have realized that the same principles of interaction for biological systems apply to human emotional systems. Edwin Friedman observed that churches more than any other human organization resemble the way a family functions. All emotional systems want stability. There are appropriate structures and boundaries that keep the system in equilibrium. In churches we have by-laws, committees, and unspoken folkways to find ballast. When this “comfort zone” is pushed, then usually there is feedback. Rumors fly, gossip goes around; people meet in the parking lot. This we know as anxiety in a system.
As human beings we have two poles or two sets of needs. We are social animals and so we need to be close to others and in relationship. But we are also unique individ-uals and need our own personal space. When we become too close to someone we become enmeshed and our own uniqueness is absorbed by another. On the other hand, we need our space to be differentiated individuals made in the image of God. If we move too far away from others we become isolated and cut-off all emotional contact. Thus, we are always engaged in this dance of moving in and moving out, or getting close and getting separate. When the familiar boundaries are violated we get anxious and try to pull someone else into the constellation to ease the anxiety. We all know this as triangulation. The way churches manage a foreign element being introduced into the system is too often through the anonymous email blast or issuing of a petition.
Resistance is not necessarily bad. A vaccine introduces a virus into our system and strengthens our immune system as it mobilizes forces to resist and overcome future viruses. Often, when people act out, it’s not because they’re bad people, but they may be putting the brakes on that something’s not right, something’s moving too fast. They may be the canary in the coalmine. But they need to learn new skills to manage the anxiety.
What we need to do instead is to define ourselves and stay connected with other people. This means maintaining our unique personhood when facing anxiety or conflict. Nor can we turn your back and walk away from uncomfortable situations. We must walk the tightrope between being to close or too distant.
In my situation, there was a lot of anxiety currently contained within the system. Because, for some, a beloved pastor had left, they blamed those they thought drove him out. Those that were happy to see the pastor go accused those who supported him of not respecting the wishes of the rest of the congregation. Some rallied around the Associate Pastor and other staff members. Others challenged the work of the interim search committee. Cliques and interest groups formed. Some felt abandoned by the pastor or by those they had trusted and tried to close the gap by attaching to others in inappropriate ways. This was all done unconsciously in an attempt to return to some sort of equilibrium. One of the tasks of the Transition Team was to prepare for new pastoral leader-ship by helping the congregation discern its history, core values, patterns of dealing with conflict, and congregational norms. The congregation would then have a clear sense of itself (identity) and be able to present an accurate picture of its DNA to pastoral candi-dates. We began to explore ways we could unearth the disputed issues and get people talking about them in a constructive and Christ-like manner. We knew it was risky, but if the church was to go forward it would have to deal with these matters.
We first brainstormed about the issues that kept popping up and came up with ten. These were:
1. Are you interested in learning more about Open and Affirming? (Our denomination’s program for welcoming gay and lesbian people). 2. Should we reconsider our affiliation with the denomination? 3. Who makes decisions in our church? 4. How do we spend our money? 5. Do the By-Laws of our church reflect the realities of our life together? 6. How does the Bible have authority in our congregation? 7. What is the church’s role in society and the community? 8. What is the church’s mission? 9. What theological direction should the church head in? 10. What should be the requirements to participate in the sacraments of communion and baptism? 11. What are other issues that should be discussed?
In the next issue I will look at the exercise we used to answer these questions. To view in PDF format