Connecting Personal Spiritual Practices to the Larger Mission of the Church (eCrozier #131)

On April 13, 2012, in Community, Laity, leadership, mission, by bishopbenhase

One of the recurring laments I hear from clergy is their perception that many laity in their congregations don’t have a serious investment in the Church’s mission. For the most part, clergy aren’t saying laity lack a love for God or that they don’t desire for the Church to flourish, but the clergy’s experience is that the laity are not committed enough to the transformation of their church into a vital center of mission for Jesus Christ. While there may be a few laity out there who truly fit that definition, my experience tells me that the problem isn’t a lack of commitment from the laity, rather it’s a lack of emotionally intelligent leadership by the clergy and lay leaders of congregations.

In their new book, The Progress Principle, Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer describe a widespread problem they found in many of the businesses and organizations they studied. Leaders, they contend, regularly and unconsciously inhibit the commitment and creativity of the people with whom they work. The authors make the corresponding point that this ultimately hurts the emotional inner lives of employees because as they experience this inhibiting, they lose their personal engagement and connectivity with their work. The authors conclude that all this is very avoidable.

Amabile and Kramer argue that employees both want and need to make real progress toward meaningful work. They write of the “inner work life” of employees. When this “inner work life” is attended to, even in small ways, employees become “more creative, productive, committed, and collegial in their jobs.” So, before setting production metrics, work goals, or strategic objectives, leaders would do well to focus on creating the conditions for their employees to develop “positive inner work lives.” And for this to be positive for the long haul, employees must actually experience in tangible ways some personal meaning in the work they’re doing. When that happens, the commitment and investment in the goals of the organization deepen and become widely shared.

What might we learn from this research in the Church? My hunch is our leaders often wrongly assess laity as being complacent or apathetic and lacking sufficient motivation to accomplish the goals of the Church’s mission. What really might be going on is this: Clergy and lay leaders have failed to engage the laity in their “inner spiritual lives” in such a way that helps them connect their personal spiritual practices with the larger mission of the Church. Without attending seriously to the inner spiritual lives of the laity, clergy and lay leaders unconsciously inhibit the commitment, and consequently, the creativity and passion of the laity for the Church’s mission.

Church leaders, I believe, need to spend less time on grand strategies and audacious goals. Those are important, to be sure, in the long run. But they are the cart before the horse, so to speak. When a critical mass of laity have, through personal spiritual practices, attended to their inner spiritual lives, and thus developed from the inside out a commitment to the Gospel, then church leaders will not lament a lack of commitment from the laity. They will actually find themselves leading a congregation alive with missionary zeal.  Or, they will discover that they better just get out of the way.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

More Leaders for the Church, Less Chaplains for Ecclesiastical Hospice Care (eCrozier #110)

On October 28, 2011, in leadership, by bishopbenhase

When I was first ordained in 1983, we were still living in Christendom. What I mean by that is Christianity was still, but just barely, the dominant cultural ethos. That means we could build a new church, hire a reasonably gifted priest, unlock the doors, and the people would come. Our evangelization strategy was akin to putting an empty fish tank on the beach and then waiting for the fish to jump into it. It worked then, but it won’t any more. The fish are not jumping into the fish tank. And that’s the case in nearly every Christian denomination.

In previous generations our de facto, but unstated, theology of ordained ministry has been that of the chaplain who would take good care of the people who showed up. Our clergy have been quite good at chaplaining individuals on their spiritual journeys and providing pastoral care to individual parishioners during times of joy, like baptism and marriage, and times of hardship, like sickness and death. As a parish priest, I very much enjoyed that part of my ministry over the years. It was personally rewarding. But in my judgment it’s not what the church needs now. We need more leaders, and fewer chaplains. Or maybe more accurately, we need a skilled combination of both.

This is not easy news for many clergy to hear. Clergy like myself have had rewarding ministries in the chaplain paradigm. But when congregations decline, we don’t need clergy who will chaplain these congregations to their death. That’s simply “ecclesiastical hospice care.” But some people in declining congregations are clear that’s exactly what they want. They’re tired of the struggle to thrive as a church and they’ve simply resigned themselves to death, even if takes awhile and at great cost to the Church’s mission. If the unspoken congregational ethos is that of the hospice, who would want to join a community of disciples with that sort of resignation to death? “Come and join us at St. Swithen’s. We’re slowly dying and we’re pretty much satisfied with it!”

So, what can we do? To be honest, I think it’s probably unrealistic for us to expect that some people in our congregations will get enthusiastic about mission. We can hope they will and celebrate it if they do, but they’ve already resigned themselves to death, if not consciously, certainly subconsciously. They, however, will still want the church to be all that it has been for them and they probably will resist giving anything up in their church for anything new to happen. They will want to maintain what they have.

This is where leadership comes in. We need leaders who can with loving care chaplain those folks in their resignation while also engaging others who have the spiritual energy and excitement for mission to make new disciples. In congregational development terms, this is called “parallel development,” where leaders continue to provide chaplaincy care to one group while working with others on the mission of making disciples and making a difference for Jesus’ sake in their communities. For this to work, each congregation needs consensus and cooperation from enough people. We also need clergy who are skilled enough to serve both of these roles (chaplain & leader) at the same time. That’s a huge challenge, but we can do it if we have the leadership.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #79

On March 4, 2011, in leadership, by bishopbenhase

Watching what is happening in Wisconsin right now is instructive on many levels, but for me it is a good case study in leadership. Governor Scott Walker has precipitated a showdown with his proposal to reduce the state deficit. He wants state teachers and some other state employees to take salary cuts, health care benefit reductions, as well as end their collective bargaining rights (some state employees, such as police and firefighters get to keep their collective bargaining rights under this proposal).

Governor Walker says he is taking a principled stand and will not compromise on his proposal. The state employees responded by agreeing to the salary and benefit cuts proposed by the Governor, but so far they have refused to give up their collective bargaining rights. They claim those rights are fundamental to all workers. They will accept salary and benefit reductions to help cut the budget deficit, but they will not give up their collective bargaining rights. They, too, are taking a principled stand.

So, there are two parties in Wisconsin standing on principle with neither side, it seems, willing to budge from their position. I’m not interested here in the merits or demerits of the particular positions, although I do find it odd that the Governor isn’t asking the police and firefighters to give up their collective bargaining rights. Those groups endorsed him in his election while others, like the teacher’s union, did not. It seems to me that a principled stand would have to consistently include all state employees and not just those who did not endorse him.

I’m interested rather in how we exercise leadership when opposing sides both claim they are standing on principle. This often happens in our church life, both parochially and beyond. So what might be the qualities of good leadership in such situations?

  1. Empathy. This is the ability to place ourselves in another’s context and to try to see and feel things from his/her perspective. If we’re standing on principle then the stakes are raised. Empathy alone doesn’t solve anything, but it does humanize everyone involved and that may create space for a way forward.
  2. Humility. It’s the virtue that reminds us that even when we’re standing on principle we’re never completely pure in our motives or actions because as sinful human beings we’re inherently incapable of such purity. Humility will keep us honest about ourselves as we make choices in a conflict.
  3. Perspective. This is about understanding the larger context, history, and possibilities. It helps us avoid rushing too quickly into problem solving or seeking a quick fix to a conflict. It helps us lower our own anxiety and it invites others into sharing the same stance, even though they’re on an opposing side.

None of the three above qualities offers solutions, techniques, or strategies to getting one’s way or prevailing in a conflict. In truth, trying to prevail is counter-productive to this type of leadership stance. Still, I believe the above qualities help us maintain the greatest Christian integrity.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #76

On February 4, 2011, in discipleship, leadership, by bishopbenhase

Holiness is the brightness of divine love, and love is never idle;
it must accomplish great things. Love must act as light must shine and fire must burn.
– James O. S. Huntington, OHC

Jesus tells us we disciples are salt and light to the world. Those are powerful metaphors. Salt brings out flavor and zest in food, but we do not eat salt by itself. It’s used to enhance the food we eat. Likewise, it would be hard for us to imagine pure, unfiltered light. No one in their right mind simply stares into a bright light. Light, however, like salt, enhances and reveals other things. Light reveals beauty and color, but also reveals those things we may not care to see, such as poverty and decay.

Both salt and light exist for other realities. They direct us to other things, just as our discipleship in Jesus does. Discipleship directs us to others so the good news of Jesus can lighten their burdens and reveal God’s goodness in a weary world. As disciples, it’s our task to make God’s grace and mercy visible in a world where violence and hatred are the norms. As salt and light, it’s our ministry to enhance and reveal the grace of God to the ungrateful and the mercy of God to the broken-hearted.

Such discipleship is exhausting. It may at times seem we are like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. When we are out there in the world as disciples being salt and light, we must be grounded in something deeper and more eternal than simply the desire to be of greater service to humanity. The exhaustion of discipleship is real and experienced by all of us. We keep the proper order in our lives as disciples. That’s why the Church has always insisted that our service to the world proceeds out of our worship of God. It is not that in our service to the world we come to the awareness that we need to worship God. It is actually the other way around. Through our worship of God we are constrained to do no other than humbly serve all those created in the image of that God.

Evelyn Underhill wrote: “One’s first duty is adoration, and one’s second duty is awe and only one’s third duty is service… We observe then that two of the three things for which our souls were made are matters of attitude, of relation: adoration and awe. Unless these two are right, the last of the triad, service, won’t be right. Unless your life is a movement of praise and adoration, unless it is instinct with awe, the work which the life produces won’t be much good.”

We are lasting salt and consistent light to the world only as we avoid becoming disordered. Underhill is correct: adoration and awe must precede service. But the above quote from Fr. Huntington is also true. Such adoration and awe, such holiness, cannot remain idle; “it must accomplish great things.”

Church leaders have the principal responsibility to shape their parish culture where this proper order is taught, kept, and nurtured.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #75

On January 28, 2011, in discipleship, leadership, by bishopbenhase

A few years ago researchers at Stanford investigated how college students multitasked. They assumed they did it much more effectively than older adults. The researchers expected to find highly toned cognitive abilities that allowed effective multitasking. What they actually found was that the more people multitasked, the worse at it they were. They were worse at identifying relevant information, more distractible, and more disorganized. They even became worse at what multitasking is supposed to help with: switching tasks seamlessly. Multitasking, they concluded, impairs one’s ability to think reflectively. Such reflection is about thinking long enough on a topic to weigh a number of ideas. That can’t be done in 30-second bytes while also updating a Facebook page, changing the playlist on an iPod, or watching the latest cute cat video on YouTube.

I think leadership in our churches suffers, if not from multitasking itself, certainly from the spirit of multitasking. Like Martha in Luke 10:41-42a (“Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part.”), we become so distracted by the busyness of leadership that we do not make the time to think reflectively and prayerfully on our life and actions. It is not that we do not have the time. Of course we do. It is that we often lack the courage to live into such a direct, prayerful, and reflective relationship with God.

In her new book (In Your Holy Spirit: Traditional Spiritual Practices in Today’s Christian Life, Ascension Press, 2011), Michelle Heyne addresses the five traditional spiritual practices (Weekly Eucharist, Daily Prayer, Reflection, Community and Service). Her chapter on Reflection is the one I found most valuable because it is the one practice we often neglect in our multitasked, blackberried, and instant-messaged culture. Michelle challenges us to have the courage to live, act, and pray differently.

As leaders of the church, we need to step back, gain perspective, listen to others, and spend time in solitude so we can think reflectively and prayerfully. Such reflective time is a necessary precursor to right actions. We must be able to think and see clearly before we can lead and act faithfully. In Mark 8:23-25, we read: Jesus laid hands on the blind man and asked: “Can you see anything?” And the man looked up and said, “I can see people, but they look like trees walking.” Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.

When we do not make the time for solitude so we can think reflectively and prayerfully, we often end up seeing “trees walking” and not the people, things, and circumstances of our lives that truly matter. Like with the blind man in the Gospel, we need more time for Jesus to work on us, for the needed time to listen to the Holy Spirit in our daily prayers and in the prayers of our community.  So, make the time for prayer and disciplined reflection on your life and leadership. It is not a luxury for when time allows. It is a necessity for which we must make time.

+Scott

p.s. order Michelle’s book at http://episcopalbookstore.com

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #74

On January 21, 2011, in leadership, mission, by bishopbenhase

Leaders in the church can get frustrated when trying to change a particular mission direction in a congregation. It may be a new direction for the church school, or maybe the needs of the community have indicated a new focus for outreach, or it could be that the music ministry might need a new direction. Whatever new direction we might wish to engage, it won’t succeed unless we pay attention to the human dynamics in the process.

What is often called Gleicher’s Formula for Change states it this way: Change will only happen when there is enough dissatisfaction with the status quo as well as a compelling new vision for how things might be. But that’s still not sufficient. People also have to see some concrete first steps toward the new vision. And then all that (Dissatisfaction, Vision, and First Steps) needs to be greater than the resistance expected by the change. The formula looks like this: C = D x V x Fs > R.

Church leaders sometimes fail in leading in a new direction because they don’t give attention to all parts of the process. For example, they have a compelling vision for how things might be for a new church school ministry. So, they focus on stating the vision consistently, but then get discouraged because children and parents do not embrace this new ministry. The vision for the new ministry may be solid and holy, but the leader did not first gauge the level of dissatisfaction with the current church school ministry. If people are content with the status quo, then a new vision alone may not be enough.

Sometimes leaders have to help people learn to be dissatisfied with how things are. An alternative vision for how things could be is a good start toward that, but until a critical mass of people are dissatisfied with the status quo leaders waste a lot of energy. That’s where discouragement sets in and leaders can begin to blame people for being “stuck” or “rigid” or “not open-minded.” That then can create a sense of resentment that can give way to spiritual withdrawal. “Why can’t these people just follow my lead on this?” is what’s often said in frustration. Likewise, when leaders fail to gauge the level of resistance they might face in introducing a new direction, they imperil the success of the change. Resistance can be lessened by raising people’s level of dissatisfaction and by offering a compelling vision for how things might be. So, leaders need to give focused attention to all parts of the change process (D, V, Fs, R).

This is how St Paul led. One could argue that the entire Letter to the Romans did just that. Chapters 1-4 lays out “all have sinned and fallen short,” which addresses the dissatisfaction for the way things are. Chapters 5-11 present and new vision for how we are to live by grace through faith in Jesus. Chapters 12-15 outline the first steps to that vision of new life in Christ (Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God).

We should not be discouraged as we try to bring change to our congregations. We won’t be if we do the hard work and pay attention to all the needed parts of the process.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #65

On November 12, 2010, in discipleship, leadership, by bishopbenhase

I have the impression that God knows the importance of humility for man. He knows our weakness, our pride, and He purposely sets in our path each day four or five humiliations, and in the course of our life, four or five great humiliations. If we do not comprehend them, if we do not accept them, it is a serious matter. But if we accept them, then we learn the generosity of God.        Dom Helder Camara

Ministry is humbling, parish ministry even more so. Done right, as St. Paul implies, we will exercise such ministry as “fools for Christ’s sake.” In an increasingly post-Christian context, what we do in the name of Christ as ministers of his Gospel will look more and more like foolishness to others. St Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians of just that. Given the current wisdom of the world, what could be more foolish than proclaiming: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”

And such foolishness leads us, by intention or not, to the occasional humiliation, at least by human standards. We, of course, should not seek out such humiliation. We should not be gluttons for punishment. As Archbishop Tutu is fond of saying: “the meek are called to inherit the earth, not eat the dirt!” Nor, when we do experience humiliation in the course of our ministries, should we wear it as a badge of honor in a sense showing others what a dedicated martyr we are to the cause of Christ. That comes at this from the wrong angle.

Rather, we minister seeking excellence, effectiveness, and faithfulness. And when we fail, and sometimes fail extraordinarily, we hopefully learn from our experience so we do not repeat similar failures in the future. So, our failures should never be ignored or unexamined. We should not forget them. By remembering them we experience God’s forgiveness and we even may learn to forgive ourselves. In these times of humiliation, as Helder Camara suggests, “we learn the generosity of God.”

I recently had such an experience where I was humiliated by my actions. No one else realized it, I am sure, but I did. After I finished mentally and spiritually kicking myself over an extended period of time for what I had done, I asked God’s forgiveness. I learned something about myself in that humiliation. Whenever I find myself in a similar context again I am confident I will remind myself of what went before. Our memory is also part of God’s generosity. It can help us grow into the full stature of Christ.

So, for those of us engaged in the spiritual leadership of the Body of Christ, the issue is not how we can insulate ourselves from potential humiliation. Ministerial leadership requires us to be vulnerable to such potentiality. Otherwise, we would never risk anything for the sake of the Gospel. No, the issue is this: Do we have a spiritual inbox? Are we open to learning more about ourselves and our ministry? Are we willing to do the hard work of self-examination and growth that can come to us when are brought low and, yes, humiliated by our actions? The Church desperately needs leaders who are so inclined.

+Scott 

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #60

On October 8, 2010, in discipleship, leadership, by bishopbenhase

As leaders in our congregations, we’re often called upon to help people struggle to discern faithful moral choices. So, I offer this reflection. It may help you as you seek to help yourself and others make moral choices.

Bonhoeffer reminded us that moral choices are never a struggle for certainty. They are a struggle for faithfulness. Faith, by its very nature, is about uncertainty otherwise it would not be called faith it would be called certainty. So, moral discernment thus begins with humility recognizing that I’m not God and can never this side of heaven see completely from God’s perspective. So, in humility I ask: What would God have me do in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? His life, death and resurrection define God’s Good News to the world. My moral choices then should conform to his life, death and resurrection. They should exhibit the grace, mercy, and love of God incarnated in Jesus. Once I discern a course of action the Gospel again is my plumb line. My action should reflect what I know about God in the person of Jesus. Put another way, if asked, would other people see Jesus in the action I took?

As a disciple of Jesus, making moral choices is never about what feels good to me or what a particular political or social philosophy would tell me is the right choice. I strive to avoid baptizing what I choose or what some political or social commentator tells me I should choose. That simply confirms what I already want rather than have my action shaped and judged by the Gospel. Moral discernment for me must then contain a strong element of self-examination. I find it helpful to ask: What sort of preconceived notions do I hold about what God must want and how do those notions appear under the light of the Gospel? I can’t see Jesus clearly as long as I demand that God work only in the ways I’ve prescribed. St Paul reminds me that my life and identity has been changed into a new life and identity in Jesus (Romans 12).

The Gospel of Jesus continues to unzip my spiritual straightjacket. I seek to remind myself that Jesus lays down only one criterion for discipleship: The capacity to deny myself, take up my cross, and follow him – even to lay down my life, if need be, for the sake of the Gospel. So, in making moral choices, I find it helpful to imagine what Jesus might say to me following my moral choice. As Jesus is revealed in the Gospel, would he approve both of how I arrived at the choice and the choice itself?

Even with all the above in mind and practice, we will at times fail to act in a way that commends the faith that is in us. That is why the community of disciples known as the Church is such a great and important gift to us. Our struggle to live and act faithfully should not be done in isolation. We need friends for that journey. As Fr Alan Jones has said: I don’t want my friends to just accept me as I am; God Lord I hope they love me more than that.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #52

On August 27, 2010, in leadership, by bishopbenhase

We live in some pretty raw times. Maybe it’s the lightening speed of the Internet Age that can distort and magnify issues, but some people seem so quick to take offense, go out of their way to find fault, and then do their best to score points from both the offense-taking and the fault-finding. As Rod Serling might have said: presented for your consideration, the proposed Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan.

I remain agnostic as to whether the center should or should not be built. I think the people of New York City should make that determination through their elected representatives. They have laws and procedures established and they should be followed. And the Bill of Rights ought to be respected. But this decision and the ensuing debate have taken on a whole other level. This debate simply highlights a larger, seemingly pervasive trend in our culture of offense-taking and fault-finding. How might we as Christians address this trend? They seem to have become the currency du jour. As Christians we need to be clear about whom we serve, follow, and obey, and what is the requisite behavior for such obedience.

First of all, there is the virtue of forbearance. We would all benefit from exercising our forbearance muscles, which have become less toned, and even atrophied, of late. Forbearance is not acquiescing to someone with whom we disagree. It is not being wishy-washy or lacking backbone. Rather it is hanging in there with those with whom we disagree because of our a priori commitment to respect and honor them as children of God for whom Christ died. Forbearance is having enough strength of character that we are not threatened or demeaned just because others happen to disagree with us.

Secondly, there is the gift of koinonia, that wonderful New Testament Greek word that is often translated as “fellowship.” That translation does not do it justice. Koinonia means more than mere fellowship. It means, as St Paul amplified: “to bear one another’s burdens; to rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep.” So, koinonia insists that we not just tolerate the others in our community with whom we disagree. Toleration has a respectful, but rather arms-length connotation. We rather are called to wade deep into the waters with them, whether those waters be clean and pristine or murky and potentially dangerous. “I have no need of you” is not something koinonia could ever countenance.

We can’t control what other people do or how they choose to behave. But we do have control over our behavior. As church leaders we need to model forbearance and koinonia because those are the attributes of the One we call Lord.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #33

On April 30, 2010, in leadership, Sabbath, work, by bishopbenhase

Tomorrow is May Day and for many it is a day to celebrate workers and the work they do. I want to celebrate that with you and to say how honored I am to work along side you in this diocese. This also gives me an opportunity to reflect a bit on the nature of work, both our work in the church and work in general.

If cultural observers are right, we are going through a massive cultural shift not seen since the Enlightenment and the Reformation. Such a shift puts great stress on all people and raises everyone’s anxiety. When that happens many people hunker down and try to resist the change, sometimes for very good reasons. But regardless of the reasons, stress goes up and anxiety deepens. And our people bring that with them to church and sometimes dump it on us. Verna Dozier was fond of saying: “I can remember that when I was most unhappy on my job, I was most active in the church.” So, I am aware as church leaders that we often are on the receiving end of people’s unhappiness in their professional or personal lives. That is why, in my semi-humble opinion, we have one of the hardest jobs imaginable. Once again, my miter is off to all of you who work as leaders of the church.

Another Verna Dozier quote also seems apt here. She wrote: “The layperson’s primary function is out there in the world. There is a problem when the church becomes the primary focus of their lives.” She is right. And we church leaders are at least partly responsible for this distortion in function. I know as rector I learned to play the guilt game with laity. Maybe I wanted them to serve on a committee or head up a project, so I would tell them the church needed them and they needed a ministry in the church and thus they should do what I asked. The not so subtle message was that they really weren’t much of a Christian if they did not volunteer for the job I proposed. I do not think we do that consciously with laity, but the message does come across that ministry is what happens inside the church walls or with the church’s name attached to it.

Maybe this is a result of not having a fuller theology of work? St. Benedict understood even menial work as one of the primary ways we can glorify God. What if we spent a good amount of our leadership energy helping people theologize about their work and the ministry they have in and through their work? Work should not only be a way to make money and provide for one’s family. It should be an opportunity to glorify God in how we relate to our co-workers, in the moral climate that we help create and to which we contribute, and in the integrity of the product we produce or the service we render. It is not just the end product we produce or the final service we render. It is how we get to that end product or service that matters just as much, maybe more. Thus, work ought to become our primary place of ministry outside of our families. The church should do just fine being third, especially if it is equipping people to minister in their families and on their jobs.

Our leadership should model this theology of work while also inculcating the virtues of Sabbath rest, honoring the body, and practicing hospitality (even to ourselves). That means taking and keeping days off and vacation, getting enough rest each night, eating well, and exercising. If we are workaholics who discern our “value” by the long hours we keep, then what are modeling for our laity?

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Go To Top »