Part 2
Changing the Conversation:
Chapter 9, “Death and Resurrection”
By Lauren Lyon
Bethany UCC’s successful rebirth offers an interesting contrast with
the other two models Robinson introduces in this chapter because buildings
figure highly in all three. The University Ecumenical Parish proposal would
have taken advantage of high real estate values in its neighborhood to build a
resource pool for the single, merged congregation. One wonders if the fact that
the merger hasn’t taken place has at least something to do with reluctance in
its constituent parishes to give up their respective buildings. People get
attached to sacred spaces, sometimes because they’re familiar or beautiful, but
also because of what they have experienced in them. I met and married my husband,
was ordained to the diaconate and priesthood and saw all of my nieces and
nephews baptized in a particular church building. After having served for more
than 20 years in the diocese where it is located, I assumed that my funeral
would take place there. The knowledge that that might not now be true has been
one of the more profound realizations of my recent migration to a new diocese.
There are many congregations whose viability is impaired by the unsustainable
demands of their buildings but whose members seem willing to endure almost any
hardship or risk, including the closure of their churches altogether, in order
to continue to worship in those buildings.
Robinson’s vision of a church without walls is a further step beyond
the plan for the University Ecumenical Parish. It incorporates the rental of
space for administrative work and learning, but imagines a congregation
worshiping in different spaces on a schedule that Robinson does not define. It
seems hard for many people to get their minds around the idea of a church that
doesn’t have some kind of building. I’m
aware that there are people who connect with spiritual sources online and that
there are congregations that worship in school gyms, movie theatres or decommissioned
big box stores. But for a lot of people, context still matters in worship.
Maybe having to do without a specific context isn’t a deal breaker for everyone
like it seems to have been for the constituent parishes of the proposed
University Ecumenical Parish. But for many people sacred space requires more
than the command or collective decision to “make it so” in whatever space they
happen to gather. Could the “moveable feast” style church work for a
congregation intentionally built around that model? I think probably yes, but
not unlike Bethany UCC, it would require intention and planning and it would
attract a specific group of people.
Our attachment to church buildings and the costs they impose on us has
been around for a long time. Preparing the blog post on this chapter got me thinking
about the construction of the great medieval cathedrals. The advances in
materials, engineering and architecture during this era came about through
brutal hardship imposed on the builders of these masterpieces and through
tragic accidents. The road to greater height and more elaborate decoration was
paved with buckled walls, collapsed arches and crushed worshipers and workers.
Some of those tragedies were the result of hubris, some of human error and some
the unfortunate timing of a windstorm or an inherent weakness of locally
sourced mortar or timber.
In Chapter 9 Robinson refers frequently to Ronald Haifetz’s distinction
between technical problems and adaptive challenges. Technical problems are easy
to identify and can often be solved by expert knowledge. Solutions are
generally well accepted, their scope is defined and they can be implemented
quickly. Adaptive challenges are often difficult to identify, easy to deny and
they require the people with the problem to solve it by changing their values,
attitudes and behavior. These changes have to happen in a variety of places,
often across organizational boundaries. Many congregations are still looking
for rebirth via some organizational version of the flying buttress. The
examples given by Robinson in Chapter 9 indicate that what we’re looking for is
something more like the Council of Jerusalem and the centuries of slow
transition that followed it.
Bethany UCC is the success story of Chapter 9. I am all but certain its
leaders are still working as hard as they were in the first few months of its
lifetime to adapt to things like changes in their neighborhood and resource
constraints and to find productive ways to respond to new opportunities.
Whether or not the vision for the University Ecumenical Parish is still viable
or if anyone is trying to create and maintain a “movable feast” model church,
it’s hard to say. Maybe someday it will happen and it will be as lively,
creative and effective as Bethany UCC appears to be now.
The big lesson of Chapter 9 is that there is no universally applicable
quick fix for churches to avoid or halt declines in their membership, health
and effectiveness. Solutions are going to be local, specific, disciplined, very
well led and carefully planned. They will focus on the needs and well-being of
congregations as communities of service, not the individual demands of
perpetually lost sheep. The work will never stop. Realizing creative new
initiatives like the University Ecumenical Parish or the “moveable feast”
church will involve moments of opportunity in which a willing and adventurous
community comes together with visionary leadership. Some of those experiments
will succeed, some will fail. Like the builders of the Cathedrals, we will need
to learn to live with variable outcomes.
The Rev. Lauren Lyon serves as Rector at Trinity Episcopal Church, Iowa City, Iowa.
No comments:
Post a Comment