I am in the process of reading Reggie McNeal's new book
Missional Renaissance. Reggie McNeal is probably one of my most favorite authors. He has an uncanny ability to articulate things about the Kingdom of God many of us are thinking but just can't quite put into words. But more than that, he has the ability to see where things are going before most are able to and will write a book that is always quite timely and relevant to current circumstances.
In the introduction of the book, McNeal states,
"In the early stages of movements, proponents have to distinguish the new from the status quo. What it is not is as important as what it is. However, as the movement matures, what it is becomes more fully defined and capable of supporting its own existence without having to live off siphoned energy or allergic reactions to the prior thing-it-is-not. Actually, movements that cannot get to this stage don't survive; they last only as long as the reactionary core can generate enthusiasm among the initial adherents and the disgruntled they recruit. In early stages of movements, the new thing and thing-it-is-not often alternately seek mutual ground and work to make the other go away."There are HUGE leadership lessons in these words. Pastors attempting to cast a vision that will require major paradigm shifts and will change the culture of the church have to not only understand this "movement process," they have to be experts in navigating it. When I read McNeal's words I just kept thinking,
"I wish I had completely understood this seven years ago."
Seven Years AgoSeven years ago, I had been selected to be a part of a new group our church was forming called the vision council. Our task was to study, reflect, pray and discuss in hopes of discovering, defining and articulating God's vision for our church. It was a daunting task that none of us took lightly. We spent hundreds of hours between the six of us, humbly seeking direction. Even after we felt we had clear direction it took quite some time to be able to articulate it to each other, much less the congregation. We were struggling to find the vocabulary and common ground to describe what was in our heads. What we heard God tell us wasn't anything we could find others doing and would require major paradigm shifts. We were on the bleeding edge of a movement, a movement many now describe as "missional." But seven years ago this term hadn't even reached mainstream and very few churches were even talking about making the paradigm shifts we were considering. While there were aspects of the vision being vocalized by some, nothing was organized or coherent. The movement was still in the birthing stages.
Just as McNeal describes, we found ourselves explaining what it was not. It was the only common ground we had to work from and making contrasts helped to define the new ideas. The problem was, as we described what it was not, we upset those who liked the "nots" and had no desire to change them. In addition, a movement as powerful as the missional movement draws a very clear dividing line, one that completely changes your understanding of "church" and how we express and live out our spiritual self. As the dividing line became more defined it also grew deeper in the sand, until it was more like a canyon than a line.
Those that found themselves on the "what-it-is-not" side responded in different ways. Some became extremely vocal and combative. They manifested their anger in different ways, from attacking the pastor and lobbying for his removal to passive-aggressive approaches of rumors and gossip. Others became painfully wounded. They took it personally and felt we were devaluing them. Many of the wounded left the church, unable to reconcile differences and too pained by the experience to be functioning congregation members any longer. Still others, were non-responsive all together. They appeared to be supportive but in the face of extreme conflict stayed silent and only observed. And so, things very quickly degraded to a very few that were outwardly supportive of the new changes.
With no momentum or tipping point pushing us towards being missional, the movement never matured. Just as McNeal described, the movement did not survive and in the end either did the vision council. Three years into the process, three of the original members had left the church and by five years another three, including the senior pastor. Right now, there is just one member of the vision council that is still a part of the congregation. And if you're wondering, it's not me.
Haunted with my ThoughtsI am often left wondering, could we have avoided the vision miscarriage? If we had just known a little more about the "movement process" or done things differently, would that have made the difference and insured a successful birth? What makes the difference for those who are able to birth a new vision? What do they have that we didn't? Could the vision have been saved? Finally, if I had a second opportunity and found myself at a church that was just beginning the visioning process, what would I advise them to do differently?
Vision miscarriages are painful for everyone involved. As a vision council member, closely attached to the vision, in many ways I personally feel like a mother who miscarried a baby. I've gone through many, if not all of the same stages. There is a pain that goes along with a vision miscarriage that you carry with you everywhere you go. You're always thinking about what could have been and mourning what was lost. At some point in every day, I find my thoughts wandering to that beautiful vision; longing to see it become a reality, dreaming of a time when I could be a part of it, desiring to try again, fearful of another vision miscarriage but with longings that seem to outweigh those fears.
In retrospect and reflection, I don't think it would have mattered what we did. The vision would have miscarried. The church wasn't ready to make the hard paradigm shifts needed. They had strong desires to stay who they were and resisted any attempts, however small, to make changes toward being missional. Their desire to stay attached to their building and be church centric (making sure the majority of the ministry took place on their property and benefited them, having a staff that serviced only their needs, the need to have big, nice buildings, filling their time with lots of committee meetings and church based programs, etc.) was just too much to overcome. Every attempt to do things off campus, with no benefit to the church itself, struggled to survive and often failed.
The reality is, there was no fertile ground. They were all about come and see vs. go and live, programs vs. people and church-based vs. kingdom-based leadership. And even though they were dissatisfied and unhappy, the change they embraced and dreamed of was to become another mega-church, with everything that comes along with that. Going missional was as far away from their aspirations as you could get.
And so, longing to be a part of the "missional" birth occurring in the Kingdom of God, I continue to search for fertile ground...
Spent last week is sunny Orlando, Florida at the National New Church Conference. First time I've ever attended a conference specifically for church planters.
