Explorations XI: a framework for continuing discussion

Dear friends,

I have been addressing issues related to exploration for nearly a year now.  As much as possible I have tried to limit myself to interpreting the feedback I received rather than giving my own opinion. As I am about to meet with reflection group facilitators on April 6, I wish to share the feedback I received from one of the group facilitators, Titus Toyama. He is very experienced in helping organizations think about  their functioning. I believe his comments might represent a useful framework for discussion during the crucial second reflection meeting of each of the five groups. This is what he shared with me:

“Our first exploration group on ‘conditions’ really brought out the kind of relationships that people have with the Church.   It comes down to why we choose to get involved with Parkview when there are so many other things we could be doing.  For me Parkview offers a way to stay engaged through a relationship with the church” (as following):  “ I choose to belong to Parkview because I am enriched by a relationship with the church community that’s personal, spiritual, and foundational. Personal, because we are welcomed, accepted, and cared for; spiritual, because our faith gives meaning to our lives, and it’s expressed in how we treat each other;  foundational, because we freely contribute our time and money and to a larger community. I think the next set of exploration groups can provide some discussion on whether these three dimensions are useful to look at our church.”

Titus offers three important areas of reflection.  The first is personal.  As religious as we might be, it is true that there are always personal reasons to be a part of a congregation.  If it helps us flourish as human beings we are more likely to stay. If it makes us feel badly about ourselves, the relationship is not likely to last.  So this is a good question to explore: “how can we nurture the personal connection people feel with Parkview?”   The second area is spiritual.  There is the element of hunger for spiritual learning that brings us back to church.  If this was not there, people might just attend the social events or go straight for coffee hour.  Yet people’s spirituality is a fickle thing, especially in our day and age.   Everyone’s spirituality is distinct. We all bring our own experience-joys and wounds- to the pews and they are colored by our personality traits.  To find a common denominator is not necessarily possible and boiling spiritual teaching down to something everybody likes is too minimalistic and superficial.  Nevertheless we must find a way for the faith to grow in all of us. Otherwise our congregational life will be hollow. How do we do that?  Finally, there is the practical foundational question.  It has to with our existence as an organization and its role in our community.  You all contribute to this church with your time, your hands, your heart and your money.  With the challenges we face, how can we make our church and its role sustainable?   Another question is imbedded in these three: how are these three areas related?  What comes first: the chicken or the egg, the cart or the horse? I will be eagerly awaiting your answers! Thank you for contributing to our exploration. May God bless our ministry.  Aart