I'm thinking about having been called a self-righteous, egotistical malcontent because of my involvement in a committee (Veritas) given the mandate to consider how vital a church we are. (Just for the record, this is not new feedback and is something about myself I'm committed to noticing and stopping).
An interesting point to consider here is that for anyone to even be willing to air an opinion, (even if it's wrong) they must have some strength of ego and the committee would De facto be a waste of time if the mandate included being happy with what was going on now.
The tension here is that even if I am all of the above, I still sincerely believe that something more is possible for our church and that to have that "new something" it's entirely possible that the old has to be interrupted.
The irony is that a major concern of mine with our church is our inability to communicate well. To illustrate the point, I indirectly found out that someone had the above candid opinion of me and others in the committee.
In having a lot of communication with others, two people have had a fair amount of energy in those conversations with me about "triangulation" (using a third party to communicate something to another) such that I'm making up that possibly those two people have been talking about my supposed inclination to "triangulate" which I find amusing. And frankly I'm aware that writing this blog may actually be a indirect way of communicating because in some settings here it feels like moving through very thick molasses to communicate clearly directly tho I am doing better at that.
I think the first rule to remember in anything we do is to not "take ourselves to damn seriously". Usually that posture of heart shows an insecurity that we probably don't want to own up to.
I just came out of a church meeting that really was momentous and really tragic. After over 200 years of being in the meeting house on the common, (pictured above) we, the congregation, voted to do what we said we would do and leave when our lease is up in April.
In essence we were forced to leave because of a group in town using the power of another national group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, wanted the selectmen to dictate what our policies were.
What was good about the meeting was that there was more honest questions and considerations than I think in any previous meeting. This made it a unusually uncomfortable meeting for me because in my family of origin nothing was talked about openly and honestly and I'm still learning that direct, clear, challenging, investigative discussions are not "bad".
I attribute some of the new ability to state opinions and voice concerns being a result of the meetings of the Veritas committee and a new feeling of empowerment to speak honestly about what is really so. Thus probably the not surprising assessment that people are being self righteous and egotistical. I probably have been that way in this.
I don't think I was the only one uncomfortable with the strength of conversation because others voiced the opinion that what was going on was "discouraging and lacked a sense of hope". Others apparently felt like the Devil was involved and others may have thought God wasn't paying good attention to what was going on because they thought we needed to stop and pray. Or maybe that was their way of cautioning people to remember God was watching.
Any of the above may certainly have been true but personally I think we are a powerful group of followers of God and that we can have honest, forthright, even disagreeing conversations and that those might actually be a sign of a vital, growing church.
No comments:
Post a Comment