I am taking a break from writing this blog.  I’m about to begin a four-month renewal leave from my congregation.  During this time, I hope to redirect my energy towards things that are renewing and important to me.  I’m grateful for this platform.  It has provided me space to imagine the applications of Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self.  I’m glad others have found it useful.  There is more than enough material here for ongoing thinking and reflection: thirty-four months’ worth of 117 blogs!
 
It is fitting to conclude this initial stretch of writing with a reflection on the ideal congregation.  I’m not suggesting that there is an ideal utopia of congregational life.  There is not.  Congregations like families are imperfect.  But they can thrive by being adaptive.  A recent visitor to my congregation, who had visited several other churches, stated, “I’ve decided to stay here at this church because I think this is about as good as it is going to get.”  Imagine this as a congregation’s tag line:  NAME OF CONGREGATION: As Good as It’s Going to Get!
 
There is a lot of talk about congregational decline and what to do about it.  Congregational development and redevelopment programs highlight small group ministries as a key to congregational vitality.  Seeing the congregation through the lens of Bowen Family Systems Theory has helped me understand how, far from group activities, it is the individual effort, expressed through differentiation of self, that can lead to a better functioning community. 
 
Here are some examples, although very brief, that reflect my thinking: 
 

• Individuals work to clarify their beliefs. 
• Individuals relate to others based on what is important to self (core principles, values and beliefs).
• Conversations with others are focused on self-discovery and what is important to self while at the same time being curious and interested in what others are discovering and working on. 
• Individuals work to clarify when and how they will volunteer and serve in the congregation and in the community while also being clear about when and how they will not. 

 
Congregational decline is reflective in the waning number of members, worship attendees and the inability of leaders to recruit motivated volunteers.  Regardless of the style of leadership, the challenges tend to be the same.  In declining congregations it is difficult to find motivated individuals who prioritize their effort to clarify core beliefs, values and principles.  Most people are simply not motivated to work on it.  Beliefs are understood as a private matter with little or no interaction with the thinking of others.  If beliefs are discussed with others, each may posture as if they are certain about their beliefs.  However, it is rare to find individuals who talk about their uncertainty or discuss what they are learning about their beliefs.  It is often the “feel-good” nature of the relationship system in the congregation that motivates people to attend even when the congregation is in decline.
 
 
So, what are some key ingredients of a thriving congregation?  These ideas represent some of my thinking about it. 
 

• Faith leaders meet annually with each person in the congregation to discuss the individual’s plan for formation and development.  What are individuals motivated to work on and what steps do they plan to take?

 

• Small groups become places for individuals to work on clarifying beliefs, core principles and values without being pressured to conform to one way of thinking.  It is not a place to debate if someone’s beliefs, core principles or values are right or wrong.  The focus of the small group is on developing individual clarification based on one’s best thinking.

 
The faith community may be the only institution that encourages individuals to be clear about beliefs.  Educational institutions come close with a focus on critical thinking and learning facts.  However, like religious or any other institution, they can become stuck in their institutional challenges.  There is a difference, however, between education and religious institutions.  The ability to articulate a belief includes the inherent challenge of holding a belief while being in relationship to other important people.  Anyone can be a critical thinker and remain cutoff from important others.  Within the norms of many faith communities are beliefs about maintaining relationships with important others even when we disagree.  How does one identify and make good use of beliefs (whatever they may be) when the going gets tough in the family or any relationship system?  Faith communities can do a better job of helping individuals answer this important question.

At a recent gathering of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church a majority of delegates voted to uphold the denominations stance against homosexuality and establish additional penalties for bishops and clergy who violate its Book of Discipline.  In response, congregations on both sides of the issue are having conversations about whether to remain in or exit the denomination.  I invited Richard Blackburn, the Executive Director of the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center, to talk with me about how leaders in the church might navigate this current reality.
 
John Bell: There is a lot of reactivity going on right now in response to the decision of the General Conference.  I wanted to have this conversation with you because I think there are ways of thinking about this challenge that can be useful to congregational leaders.  The first question I have is more of a general question.  What makes it difficult for individuals to maintain a relationship when they disagree about issues that are important to them?
 
Richard Blackburn:  I'm sure there are a number of things that contribute to that.  In general, many people get their identity from the perspective they take on particular issues and they can get into a defensive mode that creates polarization.  It’s that polarization, accompanied by reactive ways of stating one's perspective, that further divides.  The relationship itself seems to be put on the back burner.  That’s more of a general kind of response to the question.
 
But, one has to also look at what people are bringing from their own family of origin that prompts them to move so quickly into that defensive, reactive mode.  That’s going to be different for every individual.  I would also wonder what people are bringing from the chronic anxiety within the congregational system that gets projected onto the way people debate these issues.  Certainly, societal anxiety is having an impact as well.  As we’re living in a time of societal regression–and that's just one of the signs of the regression—it makes it difficult for people to talk about differences in a way that helps them to maintain connection.  We get into a rigid way of defending our perspectives that just further fosters the polarization.
 
JB: What are congregations going through that you think gets projected onto this struggle?
 
RB: I think the broader societal anxiety is impacting congregations.  The people in United Methodist churches have seen membership decline over the last number of decades.  There's an increasing fear for some churches about whether they’re going to survive.  That certainly jacks up anxiety.  So, if you’ve got an issue around which you have polarization, fear can lead toward further defending the differing perspectives.  The fear is that, if we go with your perspective, more people are going to leave the church.  If they leave, it's all your fault.  The blaming gets in there.
 
Along with the blaming are ad hominem attacks to the personhood of others.  Then the anxiety spreads through all the triangles.  This is going to be different in different churches given the level of chronic anxiety within the church and given the different histories they have.  Some churches have high levels of chronic anxiety because they have a backlog of unresolved things from the past that have never been addressed in a healing way.  Other churches may have less chronic anxiety but are still vulnerable to picking up the anxiety from society and projecting it onto the church.
 
JB: How would you define the problem facing United Methodist clergy and congregations who don't support the denomination's position, who find themselves on the outs and are trying to figure out what to do?  How would you define that problem?
 
RB: I think the most immediate problem, if you can put that word with it, would be to not go into an immediate reactive mode but to step back from the anxiety as much as possible.  To really think about, how can we approach this in an objective kind of way that is not being fueled by the anxiety?  What is our collective self-definition?  How do we pursue this in a non-reactive way?  It is recognizing that there are others who have differing perspectives.  How do we work at this in a way that is trying to stay emotionally connected with those who have differing perspectives?   No doubt, in many of these churches, there are going to be people who are on all sides of the issue.  It’s got to be approached in a way that doesn't further divide the congregation.  So, I guess the basic question is, how do we work at this in a way that tries to identify the legitimate interests that all parties have and then work at coming to some kind of understanding whereby we can each believe what we believe without it creating further division?  How do we work at staying connected given the diversity that's within the church?  How do we relate to others who have different perspectives than our own in a way that still values that common ground that we have in Christ?  How do we work at this in a way that approaches others with a different perspective out of a posture of genuine curiosity?  Not to bait.  Not to get into a polarization.  To really try to understand the differing perspectives and see if we can come up with a win-win whereby we are honoring the legitimate interests of all parties to the point that we can still stay in ministry together.
 
JB:  Two years ago, the bishops set up a process where various people from around the denomination worked to come up with a plan.  It was clear, though, when they had concluded, they were not in agreement.  So, the bishops put forward one of the plans and then tried to persuade everyone to get on board with it.  You mentioned how important it is to identify the interests each is bringing to the table.  I’m not asking you to be critical of the process but I'm just wondering if what happened reflects the process that was used or is it a sign of the regression being fueled by the anxiety in the church?  My observation is that evangelicals and progressives don't really know how to talk to each other in constructive ways.  I wonder what you think about that.
 
RB: I really don't know enough about the process to be able to comment intelligently on it. They didn't ask me to come in and mediate [laughter].  If I had been asked to come in and consult with them, I would have begun by getting an agreement on procedures so that the process was very clear from the beginning and that all parties were committed to following the process.  I would start with information gathering to document the full range of interests.  Then there would be education to help people understand what healthy conflict transformation looks like and help them understand how churches function as an emotional system.  It would include steps that work at healing unresolved hurts from the past.  Then we would work at creative win-win problem solving.  I don't know to what degrees any of this was done but this would have been the kind of process I would have recommended.
 
However, given people's proclivity for polarization and reactivity, there is no guarantee that they could have come up with a win-win because people do tend to get rigid, inflexible and locked into their positions.  I would hope that working at some degree of real deep listening to one another, and the hurts that people have experienced, would clear away some of the chronic anxiety from the past—which is part of what's behind some of the reactivity—to the point where they would have been more open to coming to some genuine win-win proposals.
 
JB:  I was thinking about how in the family one doesn't have to go back in history to relive the patterns because they're always present in the system today.  In congregations it can be different because it's not really a family per say.  Experiences can generate chronic anxiety which we bring forward with us into the present.  In terms of conflict resolution, you are saying that there needs to be a redress of those things.  How do you think about that in terms of not getting focused on feelings but using feelings to identify how to move forward with thinking?  How do you separate these things out?
 
RB: Well, I'm not entirely sure.  Obviously, it's pretty complex.  When I'm working with a congregation, the hurts from the past that have never been addressed in a healing way have a way of leaving residue so that, when there is some moment of acute anxiety in the current situation, the reactivity is blown out of proportion because it's being fueled by that chronic anxiety from the past.  When I'm working with a congregation, I'm trying to surface those unresolved things from the past in a neutralizing history context that helps people who have experienced these hurts to express them in non-blaming ways.  It's preceded by the education phase.  They've learned about how hurts from the past can be expressed in ways that are not coming out of the reptilian brain, how to put things in terms of "I" statements and how we are impacted by situation.  Instead of reacting in a blaming way, we’re taking the raw emotions of hurt, whatever that might be, and putting it into words that are describing rather than acting out the feelings.  It’s putting those emotions through the neocortex and putting them out there in a non-reactive way to help the other person really listen.  It’s about understanding the impact that that past situation has had on the person sharing the hurt.  I think it is a way of putting the feelings out so that people really connect with each other, listen to one another, and ultimately let go of those hurts from the past.  Then they can focus on the question of how we're going to address the current concerns in a more genuine problem-solving way that is respecting and honoring of the diversity of perspectives that are there.
 
JB:  There are a lot of clergy and congregations on both sides of the issue who are discerning whether to stay in the denomination or exit.  It’s more than just a question of do you stay or do you go.  It’s a complex discernment process.  Are there ways of thinking about it from a systems perspective that's helpful?
 
RB:  Again, I would say step back from the immediate reactivity so that one is doing this out of principles, values and beliefs.  Think about what it would look like—if the decision is to go towards separating—and how that can be done in a differentiated manner.  How can it be done in a way that is grounded in principles, values and beliefs and in a way that is not stirring up reactivity?  How can it be done in a way that is still staying connected to those who may have a different perspective?  The last question you asked goes in the same direction.  If the decision is to leave, how can it be done in a thoughtful way?  It would be interesting to think about ways of staying connected even though one decides to leave.  Are there ways of affirming what we still share in common?  Are there ways that we can still cooperate on certain aspects of our broader mission so that it's not just a complete cutoff but still has a commitment to ongoing relationship.
 
For instance, if a church should actually split over the issue, how can that be done in a way that is blessing each other on our separate journeys and not done in a blaming, rancorous way.  Keep in mind that to bless in Latin is benedicere which literally means “to say good things.”  So, how can we say good things about one another even though we've chosen to go our separate paths?  Are there, again, aspects of our common mission that we can still cooperate on?  Maybe there is a community ministry that the church had been involved in.  Can we commit to both continuing to be involved in that particular community ministry?  Or maybe we can work together to have a joint youth program.  Or something like that.  What are ways of staying connected even though we've decided to separate?
 
The Lombard Mennonite Peace Center provides resources on a diverse range of peace and justice concerns, from biblical foundations for peacemaking, to conflict transformation skills for the family, the church, the workplace, and the community.  They also have become a nationally recognized ministry for training church leaders in understandings grounded in family systems thinking via the Clergy Clinic and the Advanced Clergy Clinic in Family Emotional Process.  Additionally, LMPC is called upon to help those caught in difficult conflict to find reconciliation and healing by offering mediation services for individuals, churches, and other organizations.  For more information, go to lmpeacecenter.org.

When people are anxious, they become overly focused.  Sometimes people overly focus on themselves.  But more often people project their anxiety onto others.  Spouses do this with each other.  Parents become overly focused on the well being of a child.  Congregations become overly focused on a problem.  One problem for congregations is declining membership.    
 
If you aren’t aware of this problem then let me tell you that membership decline is a really big problem for most congregations.  No one really seems to know what to do about it.  Back in the day, when it was becoming clear that denominations were in decline, a popular strategy was to redevelop and retool congregations to be more intentionally welcoming of visitors.  This strategy worked for a small percentage of congregations.  But it turned out not to work for most congregations.  As decline continued, congregations became more anxious. 
 
A recently read an article about the new strategy which has become very popular.  It goes something like this: if you want to grow your congregation, get out of your building and go into the community.  So instead of having a Bible study in the church, have it at a bar.  Instead of having worship in the sanctuary, have it at a local restaurant.  Don’t do “church” stuff in your building.  Go out and find public spaces to use.  While it's true that some congregations have had success with this approach, the assumption that it is applicable to all congregations comes from a deep anxiety about the future.  Congregations would do better to engage this problem at a local level.
 
As attendance began to decline in mainline churches, denominational bodies at every level became anxious.  There were concerns first at the local church level.  In some cases, local congregations worked on the problem and developed appropriate and successful solutions.  These congregations either maintained or grew their membership.  Other congregations didn’t do so well.  They took a more hopeless position and turned to others for help.  Some congregations hired consultants while others sought solutions from their denomination.  And help did come.  But when is helping not really helping?
 
At higher levels of the denomination, the focus was on solving the problem of membership decline.  As decline continued, so too, did their anxiety.  Before long, anxiety was being passed back and forth from one level to another.  Congregations and clergy passed their anxiety onto supervisors and judicatory officials who in turn passed the anxiety back to clergy and local congregations.  This became the context for visitors who responded to those well-crafted invitations.  How much of the anxiety of this process was visible to the people who visited these anxious congregations?  Is it possible that visitors picked up on the anxiety of a congregation that was in decline?  Could they “sense” the anxiety of a congregation who wanted to welcome them but wasn’t confident in how to do it?  Did the fear of decline become a self-fulling prophecy in which congregations became the very thing they were worried about?
 
To be fair, it didn’t happen just to congregations.  Most volunteer organizations went through a similar process as they struggled to win over volunteers and raise capital.  It is really a societal emotional process that is fueled by anxiety and reactivity.  So, what can organizations like congregations do to address the problem of decline without letting anxiety get the best of them?  That’s an excellent question!
 
Congregations that are growing have leaders who are doing a couple of things right.  First, leaders work at toning down the anxiety whenever they communicate with others in the congregation.  Second, leaders help the congregation articulate principles, values, beliefs and goals.  Third, leaders get overly curious and inquisitive about what it takes for a congregation to act in ways that are consistent with their principles, values, beliefs and goals.  When a congregation says one thing but does another, leaders want to understand what’s going on.  Fourth, leaders ask a lot of questions.  You can never ask too many questions.  Finally, leaders work on defining a self both in their families and in their congregations.  That last one may not seem like it fits with the others, but it's essential.  
 
The result of these activities is vision.  If you want to close the doors of a church, then fill the congregation with people who worry about everything.  If you want a congregation to thrive, engage a congregation to create a vision.  As leaders walk through this process, a vision appears that is big enough to propel a congregation forward.

This is the final blog in the series #koinonia.  I hope it’s been useful.  I’m concluding the series with a focus on leadership.  Bowen’s definition of the family leader was made in the context of family therapy.  The quote below applies to leadership of any kind.
 
“Operationally, ideal family treatment begins when one can find a family leader with the courage to define self, who is as invested in the welfare of the family as in self, who is neither angry nor dogmatic, whose energy goes to changing self rather than telling others what they should do, who can know and respect the multiple opinions of others, who can modify self in response to the strengths of the group, and who is not influenced by the irresponsible opinions of others . . . A family leader is beyond the popular notion of power.  A responsible family leader automatically generates mature leadership qualities in other family members who are to follow.” (Kerr and Bowen 1988, 342-43)
 
 
Leaders have a vision.
 
The apostles Paul and Peter were visionary leaders at the beginning of the Jesus movement.  The decision to include gentiles is attributed to Paul based on Paul’s confrontation with Peter.  But Peter, for his part, has a vision recorded in Acts 11:1-8.  Peter’s vision is a departure from the purity laws of Leviticus that were used to define the community.  Like Paul’s assertion of inclusivity, Peter’s vision includes all people in the Jesus movement. 
 
As Peter takes steps to welcome the Gentiles, he receives a swift pushback from the community.  Peter is accused of breaking the law.  In response, he articulates his thinking.  The community eventually accepts his new belief.  This predictable response is described in Dr. Bowen’s family research as the “change back” process.
 
 
Leaders are clear, calm and connected.
 
If one takes an action step based on a new belief, rooted in observable facts and good thinking, then the relationship system (family, work, congregational, etc.) will react predictably to the change.  Bowen described it as a fear-based response to a perceived threat.  Leaders can navigate this process in three steps.  First, a leader does their best to articulate a new belief, being as clear as they can.  Second, as other’s react negatively to the new belief, the leader does not react back.  Third, the leader stays in good emotional connect with important others without telling them what to do and without walking away.  Bowen’s research showed how others in the system eventually come around to accept and respect a new position.  It is recommended that leaders practice this process with their family and with the guidance of a coach. 
 
 
Leaders pay attention.
 
As one observes the emotional process in the relationship system, it’s possible to “see” how anxiety is transmitted, picked up and managed in self and in others.  The ability to watch the flow of anxiety and how it impacts one’s behavior, and the behavior of others, is a first step in defining a self.  Good questions can help one pay attention.  How does the system influence what one thinks, feels and does?  In what way does the system hamper one’s freedom to think, feel and act?  How does one influence the behavior of others?  More than being self-aware, paying attention is the ability to identify the emotional process and the role each person plays.
 
 
I continue to resonate with Bowen’s view that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have but that we can all do better.  Leaders work to be the best version of themselves they can be.  Leaders lead the way.

 
Committees function at different levels.  Higher functioning committees focus on goals, are open to ongoing evaluation, and continually strive to do better.  They are energized by the work they do and regularly celebrate their accomplishments. 
 
Lower functioning committees blame others when they face a challenge.  They waste multiple meetings talking about the same issues without making progress.  They have inadequate motivation and complain about the work they do.
 
For clergy, working with a lower functioning committee is challenging.  One way to change the functional level of a committee is to nominate individuals who function at a higher level.  Ideally, leaders are selected because of their skills, abilities, and experience in a particular area of ministry.  They are also selected for their motivation and a willingness to do the work.  However, in some congregations, the election of leaders is driven by the emotional process of the relationship system and not by the collective mission and vision of the congregation.
 
Good thinking is required to have a successful committee.  And good thinking emerges from good questions.  Good questions flow out of one’s effort to step back, reflect, observe, and discover new things.  The thinking that is generated from good questions disrupts the automatic, reactive responses of the emotional system.   
 
Questions for consideration:
 

1. How invested are you in the work of the committee?
2. Is the work of the committee important to you?
3. What interests you in the work of the committee?
4. How would you describe your commitment to the committee?
5. How aware are you of the reasons each person is on the committee?
6. What strength does each person bring to the committee?
7. What strength do you bring?
8. What do you think are the best ways for the committee to organize itself?
9. What does each person on the committee think are the best ways to organize the committee?
10. What do you think are the most important issues to focus on?
11. What does each person on the committee think are the most important issues to focus on?

 
My favorite example of a high functioning committee is from a movie.
 
“Of Gods and Men is a 2010 French drama film directed by Xavier Beauvois, starring Lambert Wilson and Michael Lonsdale. Its original French language title is Des hommes et des dieux, which means "Of Men and of Gods" and refers to a verse from the Bible shown at the beginning of the film. It centers on the monastery of Tibhirine, where nine Trappist monks lived in harmony with the largely Muslim population of Algeria, until seven of them were kidnapped and assassinated in 1996 during the Algerian Civil War.” (Wikipedia Movie Page)
 
The monks must discern whether to stay in Tibhirine.  Do they continue to care for the people living there and risk being killed, or flee for their own safety?  Their process for discernment is compelling.  The monks meet once a week at a table.  Each monk is given time to articulate their thoughts about staying or leaving.  At first, there is disagreement.  The meeting ends and the monks return to their daily and weekly routines (which are mostly done in silence).  This is their individual time to think, reflect, observe, and discover.  The following week they gather again at the table and again articulate their thoughts about staying or leaving.  And again, they return to their daily and weekly routines.  This process continues for several weeks.  There is time to discuss and time to think.  Ultimately, after several weeks, the decision is made to stay.  
 
This pattern of engagement and solitude provided a structure to reduce the automatic reactivity from fear and anxiety.  Too often, when it comes to making important decisions, some committee members are more vocal while others remain silent.  Inviting each person to articulate their thinking about an issue is essential.  So is spending time apart to reflect, think, observe, and discover. 
 
The committees in your congregation are probably not working on life and death decisions, although, at times, it may feel like it.  Doing important work, what Dr. Murray Bowen called differentiation of self, is one way to overcome fear and do what’s in the best interest of the mission and vision of the congregation.

In the animal kingdom, what makes the human unique is our brains.  There are many species that use collaborative behavior.  But the human has developed the capacity to collaborate through shared attention.  It is the ability of two or more people to not only pay attention to the same object but also be aware that they are paying attention to the same object.  For this blog I'll be referring to shared attention as focus.
 
In general, there are two processes that direct our collective focus.  The first, an anxious focus, is an automatic reaction to a perceived threat or worry.  For example, we might become concerned about the health of another person and focus more of our attention on them.  On the other end of the spectrum, we might draw the attention of others to our self and be concerned about our own well-being.  Murray Bowen’s concept of the triangle is relevant here.  As anxiety increases in a relationship system, person A becomes concerned about person C.  Person A draws in person B to focus on person C.  In this way person A and B have a shared attention on person C who has been identified as a problem.  It turns out that this type of focus (on a third person as a problem to be solved) has a way of calming down the relationship system.  Especially when everyone can agree on the problem, including the person being identified.  
 
A second, more productive focus is curiosity.  When a person can be curious about their situation, without judging or blaming others, there is a genuine effort to discover new possibilities.  The result is a more thoughtful process of observing what is true instead of what one wishes to be true.  While this type of focus does not immediately address the anxious worry of a congregation, over time, as solutions emerge, anxiety will decrease overall.  It is the sacrifice of short term gain for long term stability.  This is true of any effort to learn, problem-solve, or vision. 

When it comes to creating a vision for the congregation, it’s important to know the difference between these two ways of focusing.  If the effort to discern the future of the congregation is like the first type of shared attention (anxious and worried), then the vision process will be a disaster.  If, however, the process is consistent with the second type of focus (curiosity and discovery) then the chances are good that the vision process will bear fruit.

When a congregation participates in a vision process, it should include opportunities to learn and think.  When done well, a large circle of participant are engaged in a process of thinking about the current reality of the congregation, where the congregation needs to go, and the best way to get there.  In this way, multiple brains are receiving new information to determine the best course of action.  Each person may see things differently but collectively, congregations (when given a chance) are usually able to determine how to move forward.
 
 
Shared attention and the vision process
 
A good leader is one who pays attention to how the congregation is focused and navigates the process to provide opportunities for thoughtful, shared attention.  Here are some ways of thinking about a thoughtful process:
 
INFORMATION - A good leader encourages the congregation to discover facts about the congregation and the community.  This can include historical information, current information about the community, an assessment of strengths of the congregation, and other facts that become available.
 
TIMELINE – A good leader develops a process that allows for a sequence of opportunities for 1) learning, 2) integrating, 3) articulating, and 4) communicating.  This process is repeated several times.  It is essential that that congregation be given opportunities to give feedback to the visioning team which becomes part of the learning process (see step 1).
 
DISRUPT– Worry, fear, stress, and anxiety are detrimental to the visioning process if left unchecked.  While anxiety can be a useful motivator for change, if a congregation’s attention is focused on worry, individuals will have limited capacity to think.  If worry becomes the central focus of the process, it will be impossible to develop a vision for the future.
 
THINKING – A good process includes opportunities for good thinking.  Sharing feelings, emotions, heartfelt views of the congregation may make for a good newsletter article but they are not helpful in developing a vision.  We, humans, know God because of our prefrontal cortex, the heavenly lobes that make us unique in the animal kingdom.  This section of the brain that allows us to relate to God is also what gives us the capacity for shared attention and other executive functions.  Why would we turn it off and operate out of a feeling state when it comes to leading God’s church? 
  
Bringing together a congregation to participated in an activity of shared attention to develop a robust vision is hard work.  It's vital work, but it is challenging.  If you want to create a vision for the future of the congregation, always error on the side of thinking.  One way to engage thinking is to ask good questions, be curious about the process, observe patterns of behavior, look at historical frameworks, and draw a wide circle of participation to make the most out of the resources that are available.  We can learn a lot when we take advantage of a process like this.  Discerning a congregation's direction is possible when leaders engage their own thinking and the thinking of others.