Six years ago, I was invited to lead a workshop on evangelism for a congregation that averages 500 in worship.  The congregation wanted to expand its outreach to the community.  I am not an expert on evangelism but accepted the invitation as an opportunity to be a good thinker and to connect the concept of evangelism with discipleship. 
 
 
THE TYPICAL EVANGELIST
 
I recently walked out of Union Station in Chicago surprised to see a twenty-something hipster preaching with a portable speaker. With his facial hair and tweed cap, he proclaimed God’s love for all of us.  His message was an if/then proposition.  If someone confesses their sins, they will have eternal life.  I’ve attended several church growth seminars.  At no time was street preaching suggested as a method for growing a congregation which is interesting given its historical success.
 
Take my tradition, The United Methodist Church.  Our founder, John Wesley preached in public on top of his father’s gravestone!  There certainly is a time and place for public preaching.  But unless you plan to launch a religious revival, it’s probably not going to be your cup of tea.  This is the image most of us have of evangelism.  Someone preaching in public to the masses (rest in peace, Billy Graham).  For most people, evangelism happens through interpersonal relationships.  The invitation to faith comes early in life and usually from a family member.
 
 
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
 
One of the fundamental questions the Bible attempts to answer is, “How can we all get along?”  In the book of Genesis, we quickly discover with the first family that it will not be easy for humans to get along.  Adam and Eve are examples of blame and shame while Cain and Able are examples of struggle and violence.  How will God and God’s people solve the human relationship condition?
 
In the Hebrew Bible, we see the development of laws and rules that attempt to answer this question.  The Bible identifies the problem as sin and sin has been historically interpreted through the lens of ethics and morality.  Laws and rules are handed down to motivate the people to do less bad stuff and more good stuff.  Laws and rules were designed to create healthy kin and non-kin relationships.
 
With laws and rules in place, the problem becomes the focus of discipleship.  Is discipleship a focus on how I observe the laws, or is it a focus on how others observe the laws?  Rabbi Ed Friedman addressed this paradox of living in community.  He described it as a paradox between a focus on self and a focus on others.  If one focuses only on others, then one becomes a no-self.  If one focuses only on self, then one becomes narcissistic.  While the narcissist obliterates others, the no-self has no core beliefs, no guiding principles, is mostly reactive to others, and is dangerous and out of control.  For Friedman, the answer to the paradox was in the middle: a self that is connected.  To know thyself is to have a relationship with God.  Knowing thyself shapes the way one behaves towards others.  But it is more than just being better connected and less selfish.   
 

 FROM PROHIBITION TO ISOLATION
  
Historically, the practice of evangelism has been caught up in heated debates over the prohibition of things and behaviors.  Abortion and Halloween are examples that come to mind.  The Deuteronomic code is another example.  For some people, evangelism involves communicating moral rules and laws designed to deter bad behavior within the context of a community or society.  There are problems inherent in this form of evangelism.
 
Some congregations and their leaders try to change the behavior of others.  In this way, they take responsibility for the behavior of others.  It becomes their mission to stop it.  It’s problematic because most people don’t want to be responsible for the behavior of others.  And most people don’t want someone telling them to be more responsible.  Just because you tell someone to be more accountable for their behavior doesn’t mean they will be more accountable.
 
The alternative (which is where most mainline congregations find themselves) is to give up and create distance from those who behave “badly."  Of course, there is the token effort to help the people who have made “bad” choices, but they are not invited to worship.  It gets even more interesting.  Some churches highlight specific laws in the Bible as “membership requirements.”  If you break one of these membership laws, you lose your membership.  Break a rule? You're banished.  In the worst cases, the banishment is announced publicly.  It's really religious isolationism.
 
When people isolate or distance from someone, they may be hoping to change the other person's behavior.  Parents discipline their toddler with a timeout.  In nature, some animals are shunned to elicit “right” behavior.  If you isolate the problematic person (or animal), the pain of isolation will create discomfort which can lead to a change in behavior.  We imprison and isolate individuals who are labeled a “risk” to the community hoping it will lead to a change in their behavior. 
 
The effort to prohibit and isolate bad behavior are at two ends of a continuum.  They are part of an emotional process.  Congregations can become stuck in an emotional process.  Congregational leaders may be aware of how evangelism is used by some people as an effort to tell other people what to do.   They're aware that this version of evangelism is unsuccessful and doesn’t work.  There will always be a few holdouts, though.  Like the man outside Union Station.  Equally problematic are people who justify isolating and distancing from someone while at the same time upholding the commandment by Jesus to love everyone.  Leaders feel stuck in this efforts to advance the evangelistic outreach of their congregation while at the same time avoiding these potholes of application.  They are under pressure to do something!  What can they do?
 
In response to the dramatic national decline in church membership, leaders feel the burden to grow their congregation and increase giving.  When the focus on evangelism is in response to a decline in membership and giving, it reveals the real problem.  Congregations are anxious about their future.  I’m reminded of the hymn: “What troubles have we seen, what mighty conflicts past, fightings without, and fears within, since we assembled last!”   When people are anxious, and there is tension in the relationship system, people typically respond in one of two ways: they either move towards others to control, or they distance themselves from others.  There is a third way, however.  Dr. Murray Bowen called it differentiation of self.
 
 
THE SOLUTION TO EVANGELISM: DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF
 
The modern family is not much different from the first family.  The challenge is the same:  how does one relate to challenging people (in a congregation or in a family) without telling the other what to do and without ignoring the other altogether?  One step is to discover that one cannot change the other, but one can change self.  This brings us back to the concept of the self.  To be a self is to be clear about what one believes without demanding others to agree or defending a belief in the face of dissent.  It is about maturity.  It is about, what is called in the Christian tradition, discipleship: working on one’s salvation (with or without fear and trembling, depending on your tradition).  Here we are on solid ground when it comes to evangelism. 
 
The effort to be the best possible version of self (to be all that God is calling you to be) is evangelistic.  It is attractive.  It is compelling to other people.  The irony for those who place a premium on evangelism is that at the very moment they reach out to make disciples of others, they do so at the expense of their discipleship.  The focus becomes on changing others and not on changing self.  The invitation to baptism in the Christian tradition is an invitation for one to profess their faith; to declare their desire to be a disciple.  When one works at discipleship, evangelism happens.  The greatest evangelists of all time where people who knew that working on being the best version of themselves (being all that God is calling them to be) is the way to reach other people.  It’s counter-intuitive, but it makes the most sense. 
 
So, instead of organizing an evangelism committee, consider starting a class geared towards the individual effort of developing core principles and beliefs; one or two beliefs one can be sure of more than anything else.  Invite participants to make daily decisions and relate to others in ways that are consistent with their core beliefs.  When is it easy to do?  When is it challenging?  What makes the difference?
 
If I’m right about the connection between discipleship and evangelism (that evangelism is the natural outcome of individual discipleship), then there would be a way to measure it.  In theory, as one works at defining a self while maintaining good contact with important others, the number of important contacts would grow.  One would be freer to relate to others out of a more mature self.  The individuals who put their focus on being the best version of themselves they can be are some of the most evangelical people I know.

 
Why do people join your congregation?  Is it because of the relationships they’ve developed?  Or is it because of the shared beliefs of the congregation?  You may have an easy answer to these questions, but the answer is anything but easy to understand. 
 
The shared beliefs of a congregation are a significant reason why people become members.  I’ve had people tell me the reasons they like or dislike a congregation is because of the shared beliefs of the congregation.  Shared beliefs can be about anything: creation, how God works in the world, the authority of scripture, human sexuality, or positions on social justice.  I was asked to pastor a congregation where there were significant differences between their shared beliefs and my own beliefs.  I questioned whether I would be a good fit.  Beliefs matter and play a role in the decision to join a congregation.  But here is where it gets complicated.
 
The relationships we form in a congregation determine our level of participation.  Consider the committed leaders in your congregation.  Without having knowledge of them, I can predict they are deeply connected to the people in your congregation.  In other words, the congregation IS their primary friendship network.  A commitment to membership is determined by one’s ability to create meaningful friendships.  Members become friends with members.  And here is where we move beyond complicated to confusing. 
 
When I ask someone the question, “Think about the last time you consider leaving a congregation.  Was it because of the way people were behaving or because of a belief the congregation adopted or failed to adopt?”  Typically, the answer is both!  Or, if I ask the question, “If your closest friends decide to leave the congregation, do you stay or go?”, it’s difficult for people to answer.  Most of the time the answer is, “It depends.”  That’s because beliefs and relationships influence our decisions.  So, while we’d like to think the reason people join a congregation is because of shared beliefs, the reality is much more complicated.  In my tradition, the United Methodist Church, belonging precedes believing.  You don’t have to agree to a specific set of doctrines or creeds to participate.
 
When I consider my life journey from a conservative theological position to one that is progressive, I remember specific people who shaped my thinking.  I'd like to believe that it was their thinking and ideas that influenced me, but I know my relationship with them played an important role.  To be sure, it was their stories and narratives that had the greatest impact on me.  Stories and narratives are relationship builders.  Language is symbolic and registers at an emotional level.  Our beliefs often spring forth from stories and encounters which are first and foremost about relationships.  So, do you still "believe" that membership is mostly about beliefs? 
 
Just one more example of how relationships play a significant role in determining membership.  Critical mass impacts attendance and membership.  Congregational leaders know this.  It is easier to draw people to a sanctuary that is 80% full than to a sanctuary that is 10% full.  The more people you have filling the worship space, the easier it is to attract new people.  Beliefs do matter, but at the end of the day, people make the difference.
 
And now the final point that moves this conversation from confusing to a conundrum.  There is a growing segment of the population that is willing to end a long-term relationship over differences in beliefs.  As the population becomes increasingly polarized, it’s a challenge for people to relate to each other while believing different things.  I would argue that this has less to do with specific belief and more to do with the challenges of relationships.  It’s not the specific beliefs that are polarizing.  People struggle to remain in the relationship despite the differences.  Indeed, if it were truly about beliefs, we would actually be in a much better place as a country.  For myself, when I’m solid in my understanding of a belief I have less of a need to defend the belief when challenged or to require agreement from others when there is disagreement.
 
My hunch is that in today’s climate of polarization, congregations would do better to support their members to develop individual core beliefs and guiding principles.  Individuals are in a better position to relate to others when they are clearer about what they believe and how they think about the world and their relationship with God.  It's less about shared beliefs, and more about clarity of beliefs.  

The conundrum is that while most congregational leaders think people join because of the shared beliefs of the congregation, the truth is that it is more about the relationship system.  The challenge becomes supporting individual efforts to clarify and articulate core beliefs and guiding principles without losing members over disagreement.
 
Dr. Murray Bowen described the relationship process as part of the force for togetherness and the effort to have clear beliefs and guiding principles as part of the force for togetherness. He said it this way:
 
“A critical index of the functioning of an emotional system is the balance of the togetherness-individuality forces. The two forces exactly balance each other.  In a period of calm, the two forces operate as a friendly team, largely out of sight. . . . Any emotional system has an amount of togetherness, and a reciprocal amount of individuality, which constitute a life style or “norm” for that group.  Optimum functioning would be somewhere near a fifty-fifty balance, with neither force overriding the other and the system sufficiently flexible to adapt to change.”  Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, page 277.
 
As you make plans to grow your congregation, consider that membership is a 50/50 balance between a relationship process and beliefs (togetherness and individuality).  How can a congregation welcome new people with a balanced approach to cultivating both relationships and beliefs?  What beliefs are current members using as a resource to their functioning?  For current members, specifically those who articulate a positive congregational experience, how many connections (relationships) do they have in the congregation?  Do member who report a positive experience with the congregation place a larger emphasis on the relationships they have or the work they are doing on clarifying their beliefs?  What opportunities are available for individuals to develop relationships with other members?  What opportunities are available for individuals to clarify their core beliefs and guiding principles?
 
What questions come to mind as you consider membership in your congregation?

What frustrates you the most about your congregation or organization?  Is the answer, meetings?  Yes!  Can I get an, “Amen!”  And yet, meetings are an essential part of a successful organization.  High functioning leaders contribute to organizational resiliency but so do committees and teams that are flexible and adaptable. 
 
When pressed, clergy will boil down the problem with a committee to one or two problematic people.  Clergy falsely assume they can either change the problematic behavior or force individuals off the committee.  I do not recommend either approach.  The reason is simple.  The problem is not in a person but in the relationship system.
 
Human behavior is predictable.  Over time, you can learn to predict how individuals will behave during a meeting.  Think for a moment about a committee.  Perhaps one that troubles your soul.  Imagine sitting at a table with the committee.  How does each person behave during the meeting?  What do they typically do or say?  How do they respond to problems?  How do they relate to each other?  Who are the people that get along or don’t get along?  Now include yourself in the mix.  How do you typically respond to each person on the committee?  There is a level of predictability regarding behavior. 
 
The emotional process, described above, can hijack the purpose of a committee.  Committees are challenging when they fail to do the very thing they are mandated to do: problem solve and take action.  While it may seem easier for a leader to make a decision without going through a committee process, current research indicates that the best solutions come not from one person but from groups of people.  So, if committees are essential to the life of a congregation, what do you with meetings that are tense and unproductive?
 
The tension generated in a relationship system (committee, team, task force) is equal to the inflexibility or inability of the system to adapt to a new challenge.  If the committee were functioning at a high level and solving problems with ease, the relative tension and anxiety would be low.  As tension and anxiety go up in the committee so do the predictable, reactive and automatic responses.  Automatic responses are like our “go to” response during a stressful situation.  We inherit these responses from the previous generations in our family.  They are like multigenerational behavioral patterns.  These automatic behavioral patterns become less reliable or useful when tension and anxiety are high.  To halt the automatic response, one must engage their thinking brain.  Thinking is required if a committee is to become more flexible and adaptable to new challenges. 
 
When a committee seems stuck, it doesn’t mean things are hopeless.  Leaders can engage in and promote a way of thinking that fosters flexibility and adaptation.  Higher functioning leaders can make a difference.  Notice I said, “higher.”  One does not need to have a high functional level to be an effective leader.  One only needs to function at a level higher than the group.  And by “leader,” I mean anyone, not just the chairperson of a committee.  Anyone can be a thinking leader when they work on differentiation of self. 
 
Leaders who function at a higher level are good thinkers!

• Leaders pay attention to their level of anxiety.
• Leaders pay attention to the tension in the committee.
• Leaders pay attention to the relationship triangles.
• Leaders work to develop a one to one relationship with each member of the committee.
• Leaders work to separate their feelings from their thinking.
• Leaders work to separate their thinking and feeling from the thinking and feeling of others.
• Leaders disrupt their automatic responses in favor of a more thoughtful response.
• Leaders challenge other people's automatic responses to a problem to either avoid or to panic. 
• Leaders make use of the resources available to a committee. 
• Leaders focus on facts.
• Leaders articulate to the committee their observations, curiosity and questions.

 
What questions and observations do you have about the way a committee functions and the part you play in it?