Memories, Hopes, and Conversations : Appreciative Inquiry, Missional Engagement, and Congregational Change [2 ed.] 9781566997843, 9781566997829

Citation preview

Praise for Memories, Hopes, and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry, Missional Engagement, and Congregational Change, Second Edition “Wise, hopeful, practical, spiritually fueled, and abounding in grace, Memories, Hopes, and Conversations brings together theology, scripture, Appreciative Inquiry, and the realities of lived experience to create space for a gracious and effective process of discernment and action that any community of faith can engage. I wish every congregation in the synod I serve could have a copy of this book and use its wise and hopeful guidance to initiate, inquire, imagine, and innovate new ways of being God’s people in the world.” — Bishop William O. Gafkjen, Indiana-Kentucky Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America “Memories, Hopes, and Conversations renewed my leadership vision as a local church pastor during a challenging time of leadership transition. Now as a professor teaching young church leaders, I find that the book continues to offer positive, lifegiving processes for mission to arise from the people of God in local communities. The added stories and strategies of varied congregations in this wonderful revised edition further spark a holy imagination for the future of the changing church.” — Rebecca Laird, Point Loma Nazarene University “I have long had the hunch that there is more missional activity going on in congregations than meets the eye, and that reinvigorating a church’s mission might have more to do with fanning the flame of what is already happening than bemoaning what’s not happening. Now, Mark Lau Branson has proved me right. And not only does he reveal the impact that Appreciative Inquiry can have on church revitalization but he also shows it can help you fall in love with your church all over again.” — Michael Frost, Morling College; author of The Shaping of Things to Come “In this invigorating book, Mark Lau Branson and his colleagues prove Kurt Lewin’s famous aphorism, ‘There’s nothing so practical as a good theory.’ Drawing on the theory of Appreciative Inquiry in relation to congregational mission and leadership, Branson deftly guides the reader in applied research for the sake of participating in God’s mission of mercy and justice for all creation. Branson’s decades straddling the academic-ecclesial divide make his writing constantly provocative and useful for local churches seeking ventures both faithful and imaginative. This second edition includes not only revisions based on Branson’s congregational consulting but also additional wise case studies from diverse leaders and congregations, aiding readers in taking up the process for themselves. Highly recommended!” — Christian Scharen, Auburn Theological Seminary

Memories, Hopes, and Conversations Appreciative Inquiry, Missional Engagement, and Congregational Change Second Edition MARK LAU BRANSON

An Alban Institute Book ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Rowman & Littlefield A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB, United Kingdom Copyright © 2016 by Rowman & Littlefield Scripture quotations from The New Jerusalem Bible are copyright © 1966 by Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd., and Doubleday & Company, Inc. Used by permission of the publisher. Excerpt from Karl Barth reprinted from Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Vol. IV, Part 1, pp. 41–42. Used by permission of T&T Clark International, an imprint of the Continuum International Publishing Group. Excerpts from Jane Magruder Watkins, Bernard Mohr, and Ralph Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination, 2nd edition are copyright © 2011 by John Wiley and Sons, and used by permission. Unless otherwise indicated, scripture quotations in this volume are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America, and are used by permission. All rights reserved. Cover graphic: Code I (1993) by Sandra Bowden. Gold leafing and layered text hint of medieval manuscripts and illuminations. Suggestions of a Hebrew Psalm text are barely visible buried beneath the layers of gold. Thick impasto, metallic acrylic paint, oil crayons, and pencil all were used to create the richly surfaced painting. Branson notes that this book is working with the layers of meaning in a congregation and its community. Like Bowden’s collage, we nurture the capacity of churches and neighbors to discern and participate in God’s grace as we enter into various layers of conversations. Used by permission of the artist. See more at: http://www.sandrabowden.com/. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Branson, Mark Lau, author. Title: Memories, hopes, and conversations : appreciative inquiry, missional engagement, and congregational change / Mark Lau Branson. Description: Second Edition. | Lanham : Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. | “An Alban Institute book.” | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016005007 (print) | LCCN 2016008455 (ebook) | ISBN 9781566997829 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781566997836 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781566997843 (electronic) Subjects: LCSH: Canvassing (Church work) | Church renewal. | Appreciative inquiry. | Canvassing (Church work)—Case studies. | First Presbyterian Church (Altadena, Calif.)—Case studies. Classification: LCC BV652.3 .B73 2016 (print) | LCC BV652.3 (ebook) | DDC 253/.7—dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016005007

™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American

National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America

With gratitude for the congregations whose stories are told here and for other churches who also risk and hope with new listening, imagination, and experiments

Contents

List of Tables and Figures Preface PART I: 

xv xvii

Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change

1

1 

Beginning Change: Weariness to Anticipation

2 

Design and Theory: Frameworks for Appreciative Inquiry

21

3 

 ngaging Scripture: Memory, Thanksgiving, and E Conversational Reflections

51

S haping a People through Appreciative Questions: Initiate, Inquire

73

Provoking Creative Change: Imagine, Innovate

85

4 

5 

PART II: 

3

Five Church Narratives: How Did Appreciative Inquiry

Change Your Relationship with Your Neighbors?

125

6 

 ew Covenant United Methodist Church—Cumberland, Maryland N Christopher Gobrecht

129

7 

Akron Mennonite Church—Akron, Pennsylvania Jim S. Amstutz

145

vii

viii

C o nt e nt s

 8 

Community Bible Church—Pasadena, California Jean Burch

161

 9 

Camberwell Baptist Church—Melbourne, Australia Andrew Menzies

179

10 

Chestnut Level Presbyterian Church—Quarryville, Pennsylvania Michael R. Wilson

197

PART III: 

Scripts and Schedules (with Nina Lau-Branson)

219

11 

Scripts

221

12 

Schedules 231

Notes

241

Resources

259

About the Author and Contributors

263

Detailed Contents

List of Tables and Figures Preface

xv xvii

Orientation xviii Notes on the Second Edition xviii Acknowledgments xviii Copyright and Reproduction Notice xix PART I: 

1 

Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change

Beginning Change: Weariness to Anticipation First Impressions The Mission Assessment Committee Discovering a Heritage Current Challenges and Congregational Conversations Changing the Conversations Crafting Questions: Congregational Values and Futures Engaging Congregational Leaders Creating the Interviewee List

1 3 4 4 6 8 9 13 15 19 ix

x

2 

D e tail e d C o nt e nt s

Design and Theory: Frameworks for Appreciative Inquiry

21

Solving Problems or Appreciating Strengths 23 Basic Processes and Steps 25 Leading the Process 26 A Leadership Triad 29 Adaptive Situations 32 Appreciative Inquiry Assumptions and Guidelines 33 Assumptions 33 Guiding Principles 36 Organizations, Language, and Images 38 Metaphors and Organizations 38 New Science as Metaphor 41 Language, Knowing, and Making 45 The Power of Images 46 Assumptions, Theories, and Change 47 3  Engaging

4 

Scripture: Memory, Thanksgiving, and Conversational Reflections

51

Biblical Resources Paul’s Pastoral Appreciation Memory and Thanks in Israel’s Scriptures Jesus: Redefining Blessedness Jesus and John: The Apocalypse Lament and Confession More Than a Strategy Bible References for Leading the Process Choose the Positive Inquire into Life-Giving Stories Locate Themes Create Shared Images for a Preferred Future Find Innovative Ways Engaging Scripture During AI

52 53 55 58 59 60 62 63 64 65 67 68 69 71

Shaping a People through Appreciative Questions: Initiate, Inquire

73

Initiate 75 Inquire 79

D e tail e d C o nt e nt s



Initial Interviews Committee Reflections 5 

Provoking Creative Change: Imagine, Innovate

xi

82 83 85

Imagine 85 Managing the Data 88 Finding Themes 89 Clarifying the Themes 93 Provocative Proposals 95 Historical Description: Founding, Development,   and Challenges 99 Event and Activity Orientation 101 Japaneseness and Diversity 102 Spiritual Life and Resources 104 The Nisei Generation 107 Families and Youth 107 A Poly-Centered Congregation 108 The Committee’s Final Report 109 Prompting Thoughtful Theological Reflection 110 Innovate 113 The Nisei 115 Events and Meanings 120 Spiritual Life and Resources 121 Evaluation, Discourse, and New Inquiries 122 PART II: 

Five Church Narratives: How Did Appreciative Inquiry

Change Your Relationship with Your Neighbors? 6 

New Covenant United Methodist Church—Cumberland, Maryland

125 129

Christopher Gobrecht

Church and Context Appreciative Inquiry in Appalachia The First Round of Inquiry The Second Round of Inquiry The Third Round of Inquiry Participation, Patience, and Practices

129 130 131 133 140 142

xii

7 

D e tail e d C o nt e nt s

Akron Mennonite Church—Akron, Pennsylvania

145

Jim S. Amstutz

Context 146 Appreciative Inquiry, New Conversations, and New Structures 146 Cycle One: AI with Charter Members 147 Cycle Two: AI with the Council and Small Groups 150 Experiments, Commitments, and Our Community 151 Cycle Three: AI and Community Engagement 154 What Did We Learn? 157 Missional Leadership 159 8 

Community Bible Church—Pasadena, California

161

Jean Burch

9 

Historical Background Beginning the Appreciative Inquiry Process The First Inquiry Series Discovering Seven Themes What Flowed Out of the AI Process Learning about Leadership

162 166 167 169 170 172

Camberwell Baptist Church—Melbourne, Australia

179

Andrew Menzies

Church and Context Adaptive Challenges and Appreciative Inquiry The AI Process at CBC The Initial Inquiry Sequence AI Embedded in Regular Meetings Missional Initiatives and Innovation Immigrant Students Worship, Membership, and Baptism Kindergarten, Youth, and Young Families A New Apartment Tower AI as a Way of Life

179 181 184 185 187 190 190 191 192 193 194

D e tail e d C o nt e nt s

10 



Chestnut Level Presbyterian Church—Quarryville, Pennsylvania

xiii

197

Michael R. Wilson

Context 198 Inquiries, Conversations, and Experiments 200 Round One: A Congregational Query 201 Round Two: Reimagining the Family Life Center 207 Round Three: Children’s Ministry 210 Learnings for the Church 213 Learning as a Leader 215 PART III: 

11 

Scripts and Schedules (with Nina Lau-Branson)

219

Scripts 221 Introduction: Opening Exercises, Agenda, Desired Outcomes 222 Introducing AI 222 Introductory Exercise 223 Orientation: Assumptions, Steps, and Guiding Principles 224 Comparing AI to Problem Solving 224 Core Processes 225 Four Steps 225 Inquiry, Interpretation, and Experiments 226 Imagine 226 Reminders from Assumptions and Guidelines 227 Imagination: Interpreting the Data 228 Imagination: Provocative Proposals 229 Innovation: Experiments 230

12  Schedules 231

Notes

241

Resources

259

About the Author and Contributors

263

Tables and Figures

Table 2.1

Problem Solving vs. Appreciative Inquiry

24

Table 2.2

Five Core Processes of Appreciative Inquiry

25

Table 2.3

The 4-I Model

27

Figure 2.1

Church Formation

28

Figure 2.2 Leadership

Triad

Figure 2.3 Action-Reflection

30

32

Table 2.4

Assumptions of AI

34

Table 2.5

Guiding Principles for AI

36

Table 2.6

Science Old and New

44

Table 2.7

Theoretical Foundations

48

Table 4.1

Initiate

75

Table 4.2

Initial Questions

76

Table 4.3

Value Questions about Relationships

77

Table 4.4

Value Questions about Ministry Areas

78

Table 4.5

Inquire

80 xv

xvi

T abl e s and F i g u r e s

Table 4.6

Interview Instructions

80

Table 5.1

Imagine

86

Table 5.2

Research Data

87

Table 5.3

Qualities of Provocative Proposals

96

Table 5.4

Steps toward Provocative Proposals

98

Table 5.5

Theological Affirmations

112

Table 5.6

Experiments

115

Table 12.1 Timetable

Format A

232

Table 12.2 Timetable

Format B

235

Table 12.3

Timetable Format C

237

Table 12.4

Timetable Format D

239

Preface

Qoheleth was correct: Of the making of books on church research and church renewal there is no end, and much planning and visioning is a weariness of the flesh (Eccl. 12:12, my paraphrase). Elsewhere, he notes that a blunt instrument, if it is not sharpened, might be useful but only if significantly more energy is used. I believe that is true concerning how much work is done in congregations—lots of time, lots of energy, with blunt instruments. But Qoheleth also claims that wisdom might even help those who have dull instruments—and maybe that means someone gains enough wisdom to sharpen the tools (10:10). One of the most remarkable instruments that congregations possess is conversation. And if conversations are to foster a life-giving organization, they must include good questions. Those questions, well honed, are at the core of this book on Appreciative Inquiry. The thesis of Appreciative Inquiry is that an organization, such as a church, can be recreated by its conversations. And if that new creation is to feature the most life-giving forces and forms possible, then the conversations must be shaped by appreciative questions. A church’s leaders make decisions about what to talk about, what questions to ask, what metaphors to use—and every such initiative shapes the present and the future. I believe Appreciative Inquiry offers a remarkable way to hone those conversations and questions. xvii

xviii

P r e fac e

ORIENTATION

The three parts of the revised volume include, in part I, a focus on First Presbyterian Church, Altadena (California). Chapter 1 provides a narrative of how a committee made the decision to use Appreciative Inquiry and I include some background on the church’s history and context. In chapter 2, I focus on theory—the processes, assumptions, conceptual foundations, and leadership of Appreciative Inquiry (frequently abbreviated as AI). In chapter 3, I explore biblical and theological resources, including how groups can engage scripture in their interpretive work. The church narrative is picked up again in chapters 4 and 5, with more information on managing the process and moving toward outcomes. Part II features other voices and churches. Five pastors narrate their churches’ experiences with Appreciative Inquiry, with unique attention to how AI changed their relationships with their contexts and neighbors. In each story, there are details about their processes, questions, resulting data, and the fruit of their imaginations and innovations. Part III features suggested schedules and scripts, and a brief list of books and websites follows. NOTES ON THE SECOND EDITION

In addition to the five new narratives in part II and the expanded resources in part III, this revision clarifies elements of the Appreciative Inquiry process and augments the original case study. New subsections on leadership, using scripture, and prompting theological reflection during interpretive sessions have been added. Part III provides additional options for implementing an AI process. Also, endnotes now refer to more recent editions of books plus additional resources. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply indebted to David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva, both of Case Western Reserve University, who are credited as the innovators of Appreciative Inquiry.1 Over the last three decades, numerous others who have created an abundance of resources on AI have joined them. More specifically, I am grateful for Jane Magruder Watkins, Bernard J. Mohr, and Ralph Kelly who have written a comprehensive and accessible textbook for AI practitioners. Throughout my book, I make constant use of their Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination.2 Friends, students, and colleagues have contributed immeasurably to this revision, through experiences, conversa-

P r e fac e



xix

tions, workshops, and comments. Craig Van Gelder, Dwight Zscheile, and Karen Parchman were especially generous in providing suggestions. I have also benefitted from numerous opportunities to work with Alan Roxburgh as we introduced churches and judicatories to Appreciative Inquiry. This book would not exist, there would be no story to tell, without the courage and hard work of the Mission Assessment Committee at First Presbyterian Church, Altadena. While some names appear in the narrative, here I wish to thank each member: Bob Hiyashi, Stan Inouye, Betty Mikuni, Jim Sakamoto, Mike Veerman, and Alice Young. Our interim pastor, Rev. Judy Rarick, served as liaison with the Presbytery, and our Pastoral Associate Carolyn Iga provided logistical and administrative assistance. Later, in the rollout of the process, many others became involved, most notably Ted Tajima and Bob Uchida. Fuller Theological Seminary provided a sabbatical during which the book was envisioned and the writing was begun. Each chapter received insightful copyediting by Susan Wood. David Lott at Alban (for the first edition) and Sarah Stanton at Rowman & Littlefield (for this revision) provided guidance and encouragement. During the often intense work with Appreciative Inquiry at the church, and then during the writing of this book, my wife, Nina Lau-Branson, has constantly encouraged me. Her own work as a coach with churches and Appreciative Inquiry led to her participation in writing part III. Our sons Noah and Nathan keep me aware of how important it is to nourish faithful, life-giving congregations. COPYRIGHT AND REPRODUCTION NOTICE

The resources in Memories, Hopes, and Conversations are intended for use in congregations in a variety of settings. Because many of these resources are used most effectively within the context in which they are presented in this book, I recommend that congregations purchase copies of the book for each individual on boards, staff, and guiding teams. Due to copyright protection issues, with only the specific exceptions noted here, materials may not be reproduced in any form without written permission from Rowman & Littlefield. The appreciative questions throughout the text and the instructions for interviews (table 4.6) may be used with the following notice on each sheet or digital copy: These materials are from Mark Lau Branson, Memories, Hopes, and Conversations (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield) © 2016, and used with permission.

I

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND CONGREGATIONAL CHANGE

Part I is mainly a story about one congregation. First Presbyterian Church, Altadena (California) was nearing its ninetieth year. Midyear 2001, following the departure of a pastor, a committee began learning about and experimenting with Appreciative Inquiry. In chapter 1, I begin the narrative, make observations about the congregation’s situation and history, and describe a kind of hopefulness that we began to experience as we experimented with questions rooted in Appreciative Inquiry. As that narrative continues in chapters 4 and 5, I include instructions about implementing Appreciative Inquiry. In chapter 2, I focus on theory and processes of Appreciative Inquiry (frequently abbreviated as AI). In chapter 3, I explore biblical and theological resources that can be helpful in a church’s approach to AI. This revised edition features some shifts and additional materials. In chapter 2, I have reframed some assumptions and guidelines and offered new materials on leadership. Specifically, I encourage implementing a guiding team for the overall process and action teams for the move from imagination to innovation, and I describe what I believe to be important matters for pastoral leaders and church boards. I also encourage churches to move more quickly to experiments, which lessens the focus on highly crafted, somewhat long

1

2

PART I

provocative proposals in favor of image clusters that new action teams can embrace and begin to embody. Also, focused in a new section in chapter 3 but woven throughout, is more attention to theological reflection, with the hope that churches gain capacities to discern God’s presence, voice, and initiatives in ways that shape interpretive, imaginative, and innovative steps.

1

Beginning Change Weariness to Anticipation

“We’ve done these mission studies before. They’re in the church office, gathering dust.” Jim, a gentleman in his eighties, tended to speak in ways that avoided confusion. He had agreed to be on the Mission Assessment Committee. His pragmatism, developed during years as an engineer, would not let him be a silent partner to wasted efforts. “I don’t think these studies ever changed anything. After we hire a new pastor we never hear about the reports again, until we have to hire another pastor. And I don’t know if they helped much in our decisions about new pastors, either.”1 My family had been visiting First Presbyterian Church, Altadena (California), for a few months. We had moved to nearby Pasadena about the time that the church’s previous pastor had resigned. When some church leaders learned that I taught ministry courses at a nearby seminary, they asked if I would serve as a consultant to the committee. I was neither an outside consultant nor an inside player. I cared about God’s call on this congregation and its responsiveness, but I did not know much about how this congregation’s future might be shaped. I was very cautious about any role that might be projected on me because I am a professor—I am too well acquainted with the problems of misplaced authority and experts who know neither the history nor the voice of the Holy Spirit in a particular context. My family had not yet 3

4

C hapt e r 1

become members, so the congregation was still “them” to me. But because the committee members quickly helped me see and accept a place of service, I soon assumed the pronoun “we” in reference to this specific group. FIRST IMPRESSIONS

Our initial perceptions concerned ethnic makeup and Sunday mornings. We knew that this was historically an ethnically Japanese church. The congregation also included some biracial families and a few non-Japanese younger families. During worship the mood was subdued, perhaps even wounded. There was significantly more energy in sidewalk conversations than in either worship or in education classes. My wife and I discovered that if we took some initiative, we could surface some fairly enlightening narratives. We listened to stories about families. We began to hear the stories of the church’s history—from its founding as a church of twenty-three Japanese immigrants in 1913 through its closure during the forced relocation and internment of West Coast Japanese people during World War II to its heyday in the late 1960s with a membership over six hundred. And we heard vastly differing accounts of the previous pastor, and some members talked of the difficulties that leaders were having in being united in vision and management. Now, thirty years after those memorable years of growth in the 1950s and 1960s, we could see that the children and grandchildren of the members were largely absent. We heard stories about how the church had lost members (including leaders) through death, disagreements, job relocations, and the lure of other churches. Some said that these other churches offered worship and activities more suitable to younger families. Others claimed that many Sansei and Yonsei (the third and fourth generations) were not active in churches. There were stories of theological differences, of stress among leaders, and confusion regarding the neighborhood’s demographic changes. With all of the Issei (first generation) gone, and the number of Nisei (second generation) funerals increasing, we could understand the sense of discouragement. Even with a few newcomers, there was little shared vision and therefore not much hope of an enlivened future. THE MISSION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

In the fall of 2000, just prior to my family’s first visit, the church had begun the required sequence of forming committees and completing paperwork that

B e g innin g C han g e



5

always follows the departure of a pastor. After about seven months of these slowly paced presbytery and congregational steps, the Mission Assessment Committee was formed to assess the church’s life and ministry and to write its report. According to denominational procedures, that document needed to be approved by the session (the “ruling elders”) and by the presbytery (a regional judicatory). Then the church could proceed with other steps toward finding and hiring a new senior pastor. This process is filled with judicatoryspeak—Mission Assessment Committee (MAC), Pastor Nominating Committee (PNC), Church Information Form (CIF). Like other Presbyterians, most members of this church take all of the procedural steps and unending acronyms in stride. When I accepted the invitation to participate as a consultant, I expected to learn about the efficiencies of the Presbyterian Church systems and to see the congregation—its history and context—through the eyes of this diverse committee. One participant of the assessment committee focused on the presbytery requirements, “Let’s just find out what they need.” After we had been meeting for about a month, trying to understand our task, the presbytery provided a brief paper concerning what they wanted in our report. There were twelve major questions, such as, Who are we? Who is our community? How has Christ called us to ministry? There were numerous related questions: What is your worship like? What effective ministries have you developed? We were asked about our uniqueness, our neighborhood, our ministries. We were instructed to develop congregational goals, specify desired programs, and create a timeline. One section of questions specifically inquired about our stewardship programs and their effectiveness. Initially, some of the committee members simply wanted to implement the process according to the judicatory paper. We could divide up the questions, find responses in whatever way possible, and then submit those notes for our report. These committee members were working on the assumptions that the process was required, that each step would make sense as we began the work, and that the judicatory knew what we should do to find a new pastor. In this view, the committee needed to have confidence in the structures and processes of the denomination. But some participants expressed discouragement as they considered their task. Were these questions, some requiring considerable work, going to be helpful? We were confused by some overlapping questions. Some committee members asked why we were asked to develop a congregational strategic

6

C hapt e r 1

plan right at the time we were looking for pastoral leadership. Others noted that there was no guidance concerning research methods or how we were to be interpreting the information we gathered. They were aware that the questions would receive very different answers depending on whom we asked. This confusion was also apparent in the hesitancy of committee members to accept the role of chairing. The denominational process and the presbytery guidelines implied that the requested data about the congregation, its context and its ministries, would give the church the kind of information they needed as they searched for a new pastor. The members of the church, already eight months into this pastoral transition, were depending on the committee to faithfully shape the future. But the church’s previous experiences with this process did not give the committee confidence. As they reflected with basic kindness and respect concerning previous leaders, they were very aware of the church’s decline. Their current size and financial reserves were reasonable, but Jim again gave voice to their reality: “In ten years, most of us will be gone. We can’t just keep doing things the same way.” The committee’s conversations during our first meetings indicated that they did not feel prepared for their assignment. These were men and women of faith who cared about their church and were ready to work. They possessed notable individual skills in leadership and thoughtfulness. But operational cohesion was not a given, confidence in the process was not strong, and the judicatory materials did not appreciably change that reality. Jim’s comments reminded me of a proverb I hear around church consultants: “If you keep doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep getting the results you’ve been getting.”2 Like many other U.S. churches, First Presbyterian Church, Altadena, had a story that included struggles, successes, challenges, confusion, celebrations, lament, gains, and losses. The current challenges need to be placed in that thicker story of the congregation’s nearly ninety years of life. DISCOVERING A HERITAGE

Behind this case study is a narrative about Japanese immigrants and their Japanese American decedents. Such a narrative has much in common with other stories about immigrant churches—such as New England Congregationalists and Baptists, mid-Atlantic Episcopalians, and midwestern Methodists. North American churches can often tell founding stories that specify ethnicity,

B e g innin g C han g e



7

immigration/migration patterns, and the social and economic variables of a place. The founding story of First Presbyterian Church, Altadena, begins in adjacent Pasadena. When I asked about historical resources, a committee member gave me a copy of the church’s history.3 In 1905, when several Pasadena churches began a ministry to Japanese immigrants (Issei), the outreach included spiritual nurture as well as a night school and a dormitory. There were 100 to 150 Japanese men and perhaps ten Japanese women in the area who worked as domestics or in the nearby fruit orchards. Although the transience of the immigrants made it difficult to establish a church, the Pasadena Union Church was formed with twenty-three members in 1913. After the initial slow growth, the church gained many new members during the 1920s as families immigrated to join husbands/fathers and as other immigrants became members. By the early 1930s the church had a Sunday school membership of over two hundred adults and children. Ministries included evangelism and Christian nurture plus temporary housing and classes in English, cooking, and sewing.4 The church’s growth was abruptly stopped with the beginning of World War II and the forced evacuation of all people of Japanese descent from the West Coast. The sponsoring Pasadena churches helped the Union Church members and their families and friends store property in the church facilities. During the internment years, those churches kept the possessions secure, visited the internment camps, and tried to stay in touch with the church’s members and other Issei and Nisei from the area. The initial returnees in 1944 and 1945 connected with those nearby European American churches that had been supportive. Pasadena Union Church began providing a place of worship, supportive relationships, and resources for jobs and housing. Because the church nurtured relationships and provided resources for nonmembers as well as members, the church became the social and cultural center of the Japanese American community. As they reestablished their relationships and ministries, there was growth in the number of second-generation adults (Nisei). Even though local supporting churches wanted those who spoke English to attend other Englishspeaking churches, the leaders of Pasadena Union Church preferred creating a bilingual church so they could provide ministries for the Nisei families alongside their parents, the Issei. In 1948, the church decided to call Donald Toriumi as pastor. As a condition of accepting the call, Rev. Toriumi asked

8

C hapt e r 1

that the church become Presbyterian. Paralleling the growth of many mainline churches, the congregation grew to over six hundred members by 1970. During these decades, the church would relocate and change its name to First Presbyterian Church, Altadena. CURRENT CHALLENGES AND CONGREGATIONAL CONVERSATIONS

By the late fall of 2000, disoriented by the unexpected departure of their pastor and somewhat tired of discord, members of the congregation expressed an awareness of the challenges they faced. With worship attendance sometimes below one hundred and a large majority over age seventy, congregants often expressed weariness. In numerous conversations over several months, I began hearing different accounts about trends, causes, strengths, and wounds. Several Nisei spoke of the years when hundreds of adults and children filled the facilities every Sunday morning. Sometimes they quietly voiced regrets about youth or whole families who had left. I listened to many opinions about the church’s past, present, and future. Several members encouraged me to come to their annual events, especially the spring barbecue and the fall festival, which continued to welcome large crowds. But even in these more animated conversations about programs that were more successful, I would hear, “But I don’t know how long we old folks can keep doing this.” An elder told me that other nearby Japanese American churches were growing, and that First Presbyterian had supplied a significant number of leaders and members to these other churches. He and several other members noted that this church’s declining membership seemed to follow the downward trends in other Presbyterian churches.5 I also learned that the overall Japanese American population of the Pasadena-Altadena area had remained stable for decades, but the immediate neighborhood had become largely African American and Latino.6 There were a few new biracial families attending—some with Japanese ethnicity but others of different heritages. Just as important as these numerous casual conversations and inquiries were longer conversations in homes. When appropriate, my wife and I would ask our new friends for their spiritual autobiographies, which were usually woven into the church’s narrative. We became very aware of personal and spiritual resources and leadership skills. We would also hear frustrations and fatigue. All of these conversations provided insights into the church’s liminal

B e g innin g C han g e



9

state.7 This liminal state set the tone for the Mission Assessment Committee, which began meeting about eight months after the pastor’s departure. CHANGING THE CONVERSATIONS

As the assessment committee began discussing presbytery requirements, I was asked if there were other resources to assist them. I brought several books and articles on congregational research, and noted the church’s access to denominational demographic data. I also asked for permission to try some questions with them that might be useful in their work with the congregation. I gave a very brief framework for Appreciative Inquiry (AI) questions: “I’ve been hearing many stories about this church’s life. There seems to be a certain amount of discouragement, some apprehension about changes, even serious doubts about whether the church will last much longer. But I also hear stories about strength, faithfulness, and spiritual vitality. I want you to pair off and ask each other three questions. There are other times to analyze our problems. These questions give you the opportunity to remember and discuss the greatest strengths of the church. You know of God’s blessings here. You have told me about faithfulness, about challenges that were met, and ministries that were fruitful. Your own lives have been nourished. Those are the stories we want. You will have forty minutes, and I will tell you when the time is half over so you can be sure to complete both interviews. Take notes on the answers because I will ask you what your partner said.” Then I gave them the three questions. 1. Remembering your entire experience at our church, when were you most alive, most motivated and excited about your involvement? What made it exciting? Who else was involved? What happened? What was your part? Describe what you felt. 2. What do you value most about the church? What activities or ingredients or ways of life are most important? What are the best features of this church? 3. Make three wishes for the future of the church.

Our committee had some senior members who had been at the church for decades, others who had joined since the heydays, and a younger nonJapanese member. For this first round, I interviewed Jim, one of the long-

10

C hapt e r 1

term members. His answers made important connections for me. “My favorite time was when the highway department took away our property. We had several buildings down on Kensington, near Pasadena Old Town. They were going to build a freeway so we had to move.” I hadn’t heard this story. “The government doesn’t seem to be very friendly to Japanese Americans,” I said. “This must have brought back bad memories of the internment, of losing property because of government decisions. Did they give you any payment?” “Not much. We had to raise over $200,000 to buy a piece of property in Altadena. That was a lot of money in the ’60s! We began talking with all our friends. Since our church was not only a place for Christians but also a center for other Japanese Americans, lots of folks cared. In less than a month we raised over $100,000. It was exciting. Within two and a half months we had pledges for the whole amount.” If I had been interviewing anyone else I would have doubted these memories. But Jim was the engineer—plainspoken and sharp. “You raised $200,000 in ten weeks?” Then Jim confirmed the accomplishment, “Let’s see. It was actually $220,000. We even had pledges from friends in other parts of the country. You know, after the internment, not everyone returned to where they had lived before the war. But many sent money anyway.” Now I was making connections. I had heard about the church’s annual events that drew hundreds of neighbors and friends. At the recent Easter egg hunt and the spring chicken barbecue, my family had noticed that many who managed and served at the events were persons we seldom or never saw on Sundays. We had wondered who they were, and Jim’s story indicated some historical roots. “Jim, is there a connection between your story and the church’s big events?” “Yes, and that’s especially true for the fall festival. Our church was important for the whole Japanese American community. Everyone helped us buy the property and build these buildings. They want us to take care of them. The fall festival raises money for maintenance. You know, since Japanese people have often lost property, we often work very hard to own something and to take care of it. And even if nonmembers don’t want to come to worship, they still believe the property kind of belongs to them, too.”

B e g innin g C han g e



11

One benefit of Appreciative Inquiry interviews is the information—these links between congregational history, values, current activities, and the surrounding community. But I had also hit a gold mine of resources for meanings and motivation. Jim had been involved for several decades and had participated as a faithful leader and member. But to remember “the church at its best,” he went back several decades to recall that difficult challenge and the energy of full participation and success. Alice, who had joined the church in the late 1970s after the move, provided a very different view into the church. As the church secretary she knows a lot about the organizational and relational qualities of the congregation. Although she is usually reticent to talk about her own personal life, the opening question gave her permission. “In this church I have learned how to be a Christian. I have learned so much from the Bible. And I now know there is a Holy Spirit—I feel him.” I asked, “Was this a change for you? When did it happen? Who has been helpful?” “We don’t usually talk personally at the church. We usually just let a pastor or teacher talk in worship or in Sunday school classes. But sometimes we’ve met in the evenings, at someone’s home. That’s when Christ became personal for me. We study the Bible and we pray. I learned a lot about prayer.” I had observed that Sundays seemed subdued. While it was obvious that there were long-lasting relationships and that conversations were plentiful, I seldom heard anyone talking about God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit or faith. Any conversations that had explicit Christian references were about the institution and its programs. But, like Alice, we had heard profound and personal stories when we were in some homes. Even on those occasions, however, several people told me that they did not talk about their faith in their own families. It seemed that faith was assumed but not articulated. Now, in this interview, Alice said that the “church at its best” was in those settings where personal faith was the center of the conversation, and members encouraged each other in study and prayer. This also appeared in one of her three wishes. “I wish more seniors came to the Bible studies. They shouldn’t be intimidated. We all need to study and to talk about our faith.” Stan told me that he was a “newer” member—his family had been at the church for about twenty-five years. He noted that there was a special bond

12

C hapt e r 1

among the church members who had made the move from Pasadena to the Altadena location. Those adults and their families were like founders, always serving in leadership and faithful in their commitments to the church’s activities and programs. When asked about the church at its best, Stan responded, “I think right now is the most exciting time I have experienced at our church. I believe God is sending us new people and new opportunities. I also see that some current members are willing to step into leadership even though they have been reticent in the past. I feel a new energy.” Stan was serving as an elder and was a thoughtful analyst of the congregation’s life and mission.8 He had invited my family to several informal gatherings where we shared spiritual autobiographies and discussed the church. He voiced his own encouragement: “The church has the strengths of long-term relationships, a sense of familiarity. We have a Japanese heritage that can help us reach out to other Japanese Americans. We also have biracial families that help us be a welcoming place for other mixed families. I’m excited because of our strengths and because of the new conversations, the new people.” Stan’s wishes built on this: “I want our worship, our Bible studies, and our outreach to build on the strengths we have.” Before we continued with reports on the other interviews, I asked for the group’s sense of what they heard: “I know we’ve just begun, but I want to know what you’re hearing and how you’re feeling about it.” Betty’s family had also joined in the 1970s: “This is exciting. I know I get worn out, and being an elder was hard. I still don’t want to do that again. But now, hearing this, I’m encouraged.” “I’m encouraged, too,” said Jim. “This is different than the reports we’ve done before.” Jim and Bob asked if more AI conversations would give us what we needed for the official report. And, as elders, they wondered if we needed the authority of the session (the church’s governing elder board) to conduct research. Stan was hearing validation for the hopes he had expressed earlier: “We don’t usually get to hear these stories. I think the other elders should be part of this. I’m intrigued because, in just a few reports, we’ve already raised important topics—our annual events, our Japanese heritage, spiritual nurture, changes in church leadership. And in every area we’re hearing positive stories.” Stan’s quick list was accurate—the AI demonstration had already surfaced important topics. But more important, the tone of our conversation had

B e g innin g C han g e



13

changed, and our expectations about our work were immensely more positive. Even though we decided that we had enough authority to proceed with research, we realized that we needed the session’s buy-in. First, if we were going to be talking with a significant number of members, everyone needed to be assured that this was authorized. But more important, we wanted the other elders to help with the interviews. We spent one more evening hearing about our own interviews, then we set three tasks for ourselves. First, we needed to formulate our questions. Second, we would create an interviewee list. This would require thoughtfulness concerning how representative the data was. Third, we asked the session for an hour at their next meeting to explain AI and then have them interview each other. (These steps will receive attention in chapter 4.) As we created our schedule for preparing for the session meeting, one of the elders said, “These are not the usual discussion topics at session meetings. If this works we might even understand better what elders should be talking about.” Crafting Questions: Congregational Values and Futures

Our committee secretary had been recording highlights as we reported on our interviews. When we finished hearing these reports, we listed all of the topics on a whiteboard. The committee members were asked to fill out the list—to provide any topic that they had included or heard during our two evenings. We began to cluster the topics into broader categories. These would form the basis of the interview questions we would test on the session. Our list of topics was not large at this point: spiritual life, ways that the congregation had met personal needs, the uniqueness of the church’s Japanese heritage. The committee decided that interviewees should be able to comment on anything they thought was important and valuable. For the overall topic, we chose “congregational life and ministry” and decided to use several fairly generic questions in our first round of interviews. (Later, in chapter 4, I will propose some other questions for a church’s initial interviews.) We noted in our reading that AI interviews usually have a fairly direct question about the interviewee’s own personal contributions. I asked if this was too threatening, perhaps inappropriate in a Japanese American setting, especially for those who are older. As committee members discussed my question, they acknowledged the cultural resistance to talking about

14

C hapt e r 1

oneself. I noted this was also true of many in my midwestern home. However, they wanted to try this approach. “I think the questions give us permission to say things that need to be said,” was Stan’s response. “I also believe that when the seniors are asked specifically about themselves, I think they’ll be very willing to talk.” The committee also sensed that church members might be prone to discuss organizational or programmatic values and that issues of spirituality or faith might be omitted unless a question specified this topic. So the committee decided to have a specific question on personal faith and spiritual vitality. Consistent with AI formats, we would try to discern the single, most important, overriding value of congregational life, and we would seek three wishes from everyone. Here are the questions we took to the session and then to the first forty interviews.9 1. Reflect on your entire time at First Presbyterian Church, Altadena. Remember a time when you felt most alive, most motivated, and excited about your involvement. Describe the circumstances and your involvement. Who was involved? How did you feel? What was happening? 2. Don’t be humble—this is important information: What are the most valuable ways you contribute to our church—your personality, your perspectives, your skills, your activities? 3. What are the most important things our church has contributed to your life? Who or what made a difference? How did it affect you? 4. What have been the most important spiritual experiences, lessons in belief, or steps of faith that have occurred for you at our church? Describe what and how they happened. What was most helpful? 5. What are the essential, central characteristics or ways of life that make our church unique? What is most important about our church? 6. Make three wishes for the future of our church.

The work of crafting questions was hard, and the interaction had moved the committee back into a sober business mode. So, before adjourning, I asked the committee to again use their imaginations to envision a positive future and to voice some of their wishes. Images of the future included more young families, including both Japanese Americans and others from our diverse city. Congregational education and worship would be engaging and

B e g innin g C han g e



15

effective in helping members be faithful disciples. And several envisioned leaders who would be well trained and nurtured. The meeting ended with prayers for what we hoped were faithful wishes. Engaging Congregational Leaders

During the few months that my family had been visiting the church, I had frequently been engaged in conversations concerning the church’s leadership style. I heard that the session focused on the implemental aspects of leadership; they formed committees to keep all of the activities working effectively. Most ministries (worship, annual events, service activities in the city) had been stable for years. While there were occasional changes in church life, they were framed programmatically—using the language of organizational development about goals and plans and responsibilities.10 In these conversations, several active and inactive elders voiced concern about conflicts among leaders. Some of the differences centered in unresolved disagreements concerning administrative and financial matters, but I also heard underlying tensions that were what I call interpretive issues. Conversations indicated that the church’s challenges and struggles were often viewed in terms of spirituality and theology, but leaders and members did not engage these interpretive matters in any kind of extended discourse. There were differences concerning core questions of what it means to be a church, what participation should look like, how power should be exercised, and how the church could improve its ministry of raising children of faith. When I asked how pastors or elders addressed these perspectives and disagreements, the answers simply noted that these concerns had been simmering for years. At times some disagreement created heat and wounds, and sometimes sermons provided a pastor’s priorities in such matters, but there had been no clarifying discourse or substantive progress. I do not want to overstate the underlying tensions of the session, and I would need to emphasize the basic courtesy that was maintained. These committed men and women, all people of deep faith, worked under the load of a cluster of issues that had accumulated over several years. I believe that some membership losses and ongoing conflicts can be attributed to the fact that the longer and deeper issues were not adequately addressed—and the session had not received the resources and guidance it needed to work with those concerns. So while they worked hard just to keep the church going, few

16

C hapt e r 1

enjoyed this work. The informal conversations around the church carried the tensions, and it had become increasingly difficult to recruit new elders.11 We asked the elders on the committee about how we should relate to the session. Bob voiced both enthusiasm and caution, “I want the other elders to see what we’re doing, but our session meetings are usually spent on business, properties, and finances. We always receive reports from the staff, but I don’t remember ever taking time for these kinds of conversations. It might even be awkward for some of us.” Jim agreed. “I think they need to see how this works. I want them to answer the questions and hear some answers from others.” Even though we were asking for something that was unusual, we had the advantage of having several committee members who were also church elders—the session clerk (Bob), another current elder (Stan), plus Jim and Betty, who were not currently on the session but who were longtime members and widely trusted. They wanted to plan our meeting with the session with some care. I had not been to a session meeting, but the committee believed this was to my advantage. They asked me to introduce AI and lead the process of interviewing. The committee had decided that my introduction should review what the session had asked the committee to do, then to explain how AI compared with other types of research. We needed to be clear concerning what we were proposing: this was not just a means for collecting information about the congregation; we were seeking to shape the congregation along the lines of its greatest strengths. I recalled Jim’s comments that the next ten years would hold major changes for the church. As a committee, we wanted the session’s endorsement. At the session meeting, after this introduction, we created groups that consisted of two elders and one committee member. We instructed the elders to interview each other, take notes, and be prepared to present highlights from the interview. The committee persons were to listen, emphasize that the comments were to be appreciative, and encourage the conversations. This would help us test the questions as the elders tasted the tone and substance of what we were proposing. We quickly learned that we had underestimated the time needed for interviews. When questions sparked memories and conversations gained momentum, time would disappear and the past became present. After close to an hour of interview time, I asked that the interview groups move to the “three

B e g innin g C han g e



17

wishes” question if they were not yet there. I was trying to preserve at least some time to bring some interview highlights to the whole group’s attention. When we interrupted them to get some reports, we first invited responses to the question of the most exciting and motivating time each could remember. The recommended approach is for interviewers to report on the answers they received—but the topics and energy brought interruptions, reports became conversations, and the stories were expanded. One Nisei began, “When our families began returning from the internment camps and from the East, there was still a lot of resistance among white people. They didn’t want us. They looked at us and saw their enemy. But something unusual was happening here in Pasadena. When we had left, several white churches had helped us store our property and preserve our businesses. When we returned, many of them helped us with housing and jobs. I remember one realtor whose professional life was threatened because other realtors didn’t want him selling houses to Japanese. He helped us anyway. And several churches—the Congregational church, the Presbyterian church, the Friends church—worked with us to reestablish Pasadena Japanese Union Church.” Another elder moved the narrative three decades later, “Several years later, in the ’70s, when Don Toriumi was our pastor, he was excited about caring for other refugee families who were displaced. Several of our church families worked with a Vietnamese refugee family when they arrived. We helped with housing, with food, with transportation. I believe they still live nearby—and go to a Catholic church. We also helped a Native American family that was facing some difficulties. I know this helped our church understand the gospel. And I think we knew something about the struggles these families faced because of our hard times.” Then an ongoing activity was commended: “I think the chicken barbecue we have every spring is exciting. Some of us are here at 5 a.m. getting the fires going. This started as an offshoot of our old Thursday night Bible study. Lots of our friends and neighbors come, and we make some money for youth scholarships. It’s the working together that I like. But I need to include something else too: Every year we have a 24-hour prayer watch here at the church. I take the late-night shift, so I usually have several hours here alone, praying. Those hours are very meaningful to me.” I skipped the other questions (an action which I do not recommend) and asked for some of the wishes. There was no hesitation.

18

C hapt e r 1

“I wish we could always have strong Christian education and better care for our Nisei, especially those who aren’t coming to church.” “I would like for the elders (members of session) to receive better care and training. I also hope we can be predominately Japanese even as others come, too.” “I hope we can be more open to change, to let go of control. I’d like to see us grow spiritually and in numbers.” “I would like us to welcome and gain appreciation for persons of other cultures even while we are enriched by our Japaneseness. I want us to be more Christ-centered—to have Bible studies and worship and outreach that expresses our Lord’s presence.” In this atmosphere, the differences were not received as disagreements. Each reporting of wishes received vocal support around the room. It felt a bit more like African American worship than a Japanese American business meeting. Our allotted hour had become almost two. The support and enthusiasm for our committee was voiced by several elders. This was our chance—we asked if each elder would do two interviews with other church participants.12 We would provide instructions, a form with the questions, and assign interviewees. If possible, these were to be completed within a month. There was no hesitation in taking on this work. In order to keep the elders fully informed, we quickly explained our sociological categories and our plans for the church newsletter. We also advised them that we would spend three evenings in September gathering and interpreting the data, and that they were welcome to join us. When the committee met to finalize the list and arrange for data collection, our confidence and hopefulness had increased. We realized that there had been apprehension about the session’s response. Now we found ourselves with new partners, a growing body of helpful data, and some fun work to do. Since the AI interviews would not provide some of the information needed for the church’s report, we distributed those additional sections among committee members. We were beginning to see that these other areas of information—neighborhood demographics, church history and statistics, financial data—would be interpreted in light of what we were learning in the AI process. We were learning that our gratefulness and our appreciation—for God, for each other, for those who preceded us—would give the church members the capacity to know themselves well and to see encouraging images of the congregation’s future.

B e g innin g C han g e



19

Creating the Interviewee List

The committee decided to draw interviewees from the universe of active members and frequent participants (about 260 who came to worship at least a few times each year), with an emphasis on those who were most likely to attend worship with some regularity (about 120). We decided it was important to insure some level of representativeness by subdividing the universe into definable sociological groups. At the meeting that followed our questioncrafting session, Stan proposed a way to understand the congregation sociologically using categories that were based on length of time in the church, family relationships, age, and other traits. We adopted his seven groups: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Japanese speaking “Source” (Nisei who were involved in the move to Altadena in 1968) Children of the “Source” generation (Sansei) “Extended” (those who joined after the move) “Recent” (those who joined after 1985; more ethnically diverse) “Youth” (high schoolers and collegians) “Special” (tend to be voiceless, disabled, single, on the margin)

After checking the rolls to determine the relative size of the groups, we created an initial list of interviewees. Several priorities guided our work. Even though there were few Japanese speakers in the congregation, we wanted to seek all of them. Further, we agreed to set up group interviews with the youth, hoping to include all of them in one of several interviews. Also, because it was important that no one feel that they were unduly omitted, we would use the church newsletter and congregational announcements to keep everyone informed and to welcome anyone to be interviewed if they so wished. This commitment to openness and broad participation helped create trust and anticipation in the congregation.

2

Design and Theory Frameworks for Appreciative Inquiry

Appreciative Inquiry cannot be well understood or practiced if it is seen just as a strategy for change or a method of research. It is both of those, but it is more. AI is a different way for the people of an organization to know, to communicate, to discern, to imagine, and to experiment. Most methods of research and planning are positivist (emphasizing logical sequences, cause and effect, command and control) and functionalist (oriented just to pragmatism and measurements). If AI is plugged into those frameworks, it is likely that participants will be confused and disappointed. Rather, AI provides an organization-wide mode for initiating and discerning narratives and practices that are generative (creative and life giving). And, for churches, it provides a process to bring our own narratives into conversation with the biblical and historical narratives of our faith. AI can guide and nourish (reconstruct) the organization along the lines of its best stories as discerned alongside God’s initiatives. Here, from Jane Magruder Watkins, Bernard Mohr, and Ralph Kelly, is one of my favorite descriptions: Appreciative Inquiry is . . . a collaborative and highly participative, systemwide approach to seeking, identifying and enhancing the “life-giving forces” that are present when a system is performing optimally in human, economic 21

22

C hapt e r 2

and organizational terms. It is a journey during which profound knowledge of a human system at its moments of wonder is uncovered and used to coconstruct the best and highest future of that system.1

Several years ago I was in Bangkok at a Pacific Rim gathering of International Urban Associates. Corrie DeBoer, a participant from Manila, provided my first contact with Appreciative Inquiry. Mission history shows that Christian churches of the North Atlantic, in our fervor for spreading the gospel, exported our ideological “liberal” versus “evangelical” categories throughout the world. In the Philippines, this cultural and theological dichotomy was brought into the context of the well-established Roman Catholic Church. DeBoer was completing two doctorates—one from a Roman Catholic university and another from an American Baptist seminary. She was using Appreciative Inquiry processes in the seminaries of Manila (from all three traditions) toward the goal of increasing mutual understanding and cooperation. She had named her context: the churches of all kinds in the Philippines, with a focus on the seminaries. She had named an overall subject matter: the generative and creative ways the seminaries were serving the congregations of the Philippines. She had already built relationships by inviting seminary deans for supper and letting them begin to know each other. In that context, using Appreciative Inquiry, she was fostering new imagination and experiments among the seminaries and their respective leaders. In reading her extensive report, I was not only intrigued—I was inspired. Later visits to Manila allowed me to witness how Appreciative Inquiry had fostered genuine mutual appreciation and created new generative networks that strengthened churches. I learned that other Christian organizations were working with Appreciative Inquiry, including American Baptist missionaries and World Vision International. It seemed to me that AI was uniquely suited to congregations. We, as churches, are founded as people of stories, and gratefulness is essential to our faith and social well-being. This chapter begins with the contrast between problem solving and Appreciative Inquiry, then, I will provide an overview of the steps, comments on leadership, and an outline of theoretical resources for AI. Chapter 3 will engage relevant biblical and theological resources, in regard to why gratitude is a major element of Christian faith and how biblical texts can guide a church process. Here, I begin with four brief sections that I believe to be sufficient for

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



23

most groups; many readers can then skip to the last section for a summary (“Assumptions, Theories, and Change”) before proceeding to chapter 3. For readers who desire a more thorough discussion of theory, I offer materials in the four subsections under “Organizations, Language, and Images.” In addition to what I offer, I recommend Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination by Jane Magruder Watkins, Bernard J. Mohr, and Ralph Kelly;2 my exposition follows their work. SOLVING PROBLEMS OR APPRECIATING STRENGTHS

In my earliest presentation to the Mission Assessment Committee at First Presbyterian Church, Altadena, I compared Appreciative Inquiry to the more common approach to organizational change: problem solving. We all knew the church was facing major changes. We knew there was little agreement of what should change or how those changes were to be made. The committee was given the job of assessing all of the church’s ministries, developing goals and a timeline, and specifying what kind of qualities we needed in a new senior pastor to lead the church in those changes. As I noted in chapter 1, that approach made little sense to us. Many forms of organizational development assume that the job of leaders is to find the problems and fix them. Perhaps members observe that their church has a declining membership, a changing neighborhood, and a dearth of young families. Church leaders, by fixing these problems, should create a new, reenergized way into the future. Textbooks and seminars offer numerous options: move the church to a new suburb, evangelize those new neighbors (or market church services to them), and prepare the nursery. Or, change the worship music, hire a new youth director, lower the requirements for membership, and recruit anyone with a pulse to the board (this will increase their commitment and give us a rest). When this problem-solving approach dominates, most discussions are about problems and inadequacies. This is what is called a deficit model. We all have our own perspectives, our own historical accounts and analyses that help us articulate the problems. I believe that can lead to valuable learning, but the approach itself creates the wrong interpretive grid. This is not dissimilar to Western medicine and its focus on illness, targetable causes, and invasive procedures. Only in recent years have physicians begun to pay attention to nutrition, the complex interrelationship of body systems, and other life-giving

24

C hapt e r 2

forces. In contrast, acupuncture is based on the study of the forces in the body that move and give life. By enhancing these forces, health is restored. Other traditional approaches to health, developed prior to the positivist medical model, look at a person’s situation with different eyes and envision different futures. We all benefit from the scientific (positivist) medical advances, but as a framework for health, they tend to be myopic, and thereby discount many available resources. Appreciative Inquiry assumes that all organizations have significant life forces, and these forces are available in stories and imaginations. Further, by bringing these resources into the organization’s conversations and planning, major changes can be implemented. In other words, by discovering the best and most valuable narratives and qualities of an organization, participants can construct a new way that has the most important links to the past and the most hopeful images of the future. To compare problem solving with Appreciative Inquiry, I adapted a diagram from AI textbooks.3 Table 2.1.  Problem Solving vs. Appreciative Inquiry Problem Solving

Appreciative Inquiry

“Felt Need” Identification of Problem ⬇ Analysis of Causes ⬇ Analysis of Possible Solutions ⬇ Action Plan/Treatment

Inquire into stories of life-giving forces ⬇ Locate themes that appear in the stories and select topics for further inquiry ⬇ Create shared images for a preferred future ⬇ Find innovative ways to create that future

Source: Based on David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva, “Appreciative Inquiry into Organizational Life,” in Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 1, ed. W. A. Pasmore, R. W. Woodman (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987), and core processes in Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 83.

This comparison helped our church leaders begin to shift into a new way of working. The more common approaches to strategies and problem solving have not served churches well. Appreciative Inquiry is more than a planning method—it is a way of seeing and creating. AI is not something that is done once or every few years as part of strategic planning—it is a way of continually forming an interpretive community that can thereby perceive, think, converse, and create with the most life-giving resources.

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



25

BASIC PROCESSES AND STEPS

Appreciative Inquiry is a form of action research. This term combines two aspects of leadership and group life—intervention (action) and learning (research). At its best, it is a collaborative process that shapes a participatory community that engages an iterative spiral of experience, awareness, query, reflection, new knowledge, imagination, innovation, and evaluation. Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury emphasize five key characteristics: it is engaged in light of practical issues; it is collaborative; shared inquiry and meaning making are formed by diverse ways of knowing; there is a priority on the flourishing of humans and creation; the process and changes are emergent rather than predetermined.4 Action research engages an actionreflection cycle as a group participates in reflection and learning rooted in action and experiments. Reason and Bradbury write, “Action without reflection and understanding is blind, just as theory without action is meaningless.”5 Because of these elements and biases of action research, it is both appropriate for academic research and valuable for the ongoing work of organizations—and churches. Appreciative Inquiry brings particular biases and frameworks to action research, as introduced in the chart that compared AI to problem solving.6 In the overall Appreciative Inquiry process, there is one important element that precedes what I listed in the comparison chart (table 2.1)—it concerns the choice to focus on the positive experiences of the people and the gifts of God. So in table 2.2 are the essential five basic processes for Appreciative Inquiry. Even though there are several ways to delineate the actual steps, these five processes must be included.7 Table 2.2.  Five Core Processes of Appreciative Inquiry 1.  Choose the positive as the focus of inquiry. 2.  Inquire into stories of life-giving forces. 3.  Locate themes that appear in the stories and select topics for further inquiry. 4.  Create shared images for a preferred future. 5.  Find innovative ways to create that future. Source: Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 83.

These are called the “generic processes” because they clarify the required movements while allowing flexibility.

26

C hapt e r 2

1. Choose the positive as the focus of inquiry. Because our organizations tend to be habitually involved in discussing deficits, participants need to be intentional and specific about their commitment to positive narratives and images. This focus does not eliminate the work of critique, but it does frame the entire project. It is our gratefulness to God and to each other that provides the foundation for all we do. Those who are leading will need to be clear and intentional about this choice. 2. Inquire into the stories of life-giving forces. Based on our assumption that every church has generative stories, we engage our commitment to a positive focus by asking questions that surface those generative narratives. This sustained work of inquiry—asking questions in various ways, of diverse persons—brings life-giving resources into the church’s conversations. 3. Locate themes that appear in the stories and select topics for further inquiry. As participants read and discuss the interviews, participants note recurring themes. When themes arise, biblical and theological reflection contributes to an interpretive process, which may continue to encourage additional stories as new futures begin to take shape for the church. 4. Create shared images for a preferred future. The themes, with special attention to the wishes that were generated in the interviews and continuing to biblical and theological reflection, lead to what are called “provocative proposals.” These are focused, imaginative scenarios that encapsulate and then stretch the church’s greatest strengths, describing these images as potential futures. 5. Find innovative ways to create that future. Because old structures can easily malform the arising new images, a church needs to create an interplay between new imagination (provocative proposals) and experiments. This is a risky and energizing phase of forming new partnerships, testing directions, and engaging the Holy Spirit’s life-giving presence. Our committee followed the “4-I Model,”8 which specifies working through the five processes with these four phases: Initiate, Inquire, Imagine, Innovate. (See table 2.3.) This model is especially helpful when there is a need to prepare leaders and build structures for carrying out the research. LEADING THE PROCESS

The work of leadership for Appreciative Inquiry will be varied in the midst of different roles and steps. I believe a church is usually served best when a guid-

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



27

Table 2.3.  The 4-I Model Four “I” Model Initiate AI by introducing leaders to theory and practice, deciding focus, and developing initial steps to discover the organization’s “best” ⬇ Inquire concerning the best of the organization’s narratives, practices, and imaginations ⬇ Imagine what might be by interpreting the interviews, taking the risk of imagination, and building toward consensus concerning what should be ⬇ Innovate what will be through discourse, commitment, and equipping, with the largest possible level of participation Source: Based on Mohr/Jacobsgaard Four-I Model, in Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 91.

ing team, with participants from various relational networks, oversees the whole process. They need to be familiar with the frameworks, priories, steps, and options of AI. While they will not do all the steps themselves, they will shape and manage each phase in a way that increases participation. A church pastoral staff and board, in the midst of their ongoing work of governance and ministry, primarily sanction the guiding team and the rippling spread of conversations. This permission giving and encouragement is tailored to the church—including official votes and minutes, communication, space (both facilities and calendars), and their own presence and participation in the various steps. The church’s sermons and teachings, along with web and print media, provide the congregation with frameworks, updates, stories, and opportunities. Eventually, as new imagination and experiments begin, requiring new teams and leaders (what I call “action teams”), churches are frequently surprised that people step up for this work. In my experience, when AI is led by staff or the board, the outcomes are significantly limited. I believe this is because in these situations the congregation assumes AI is one more top-down program, and there is no reason to expect anything new.9 So when clergy lead a change process, change is less likely. As Alan Roxburgh writes, “Transformation and innovation come not from programs presented by leaders but from the myriad ways ordinary people come to gather in dialogue.”10 If the church wishes to see new imagination, new initiatives, and greater participation, then every aspect of the process should signal that something different is being engaged. Even though the pastor (or the pastoral staff) should not be a primary guide and manager, the pastoral role is still significant. When innovative, transfor-

28

C hapt e r 2

mative change is in view, initiatives need to be widespread, participatory, and bottom-up. These new initiatives can still come inside structures (committees and other established groups), but the organization needs to sense that something new is happening, that sanctions and experiments are diffused. Again, Roxburgh, “The role of leadership is to learn how to nurture these places of conversation and dialogue within and across churches, inviting people to believe again that their own stories contain clues about what God may be up to among them as a local church.”11 So pastoral leadership plays a major role in shaping a generative space—in numerous ways, they can cultivate a learning environment and sanction conversations and experiments that give priority to listening to each other, to neighbors, and to biblical and theological texts, all in service of gaining capacities to discern God’s ongoing initiatives in their midst and in their context (figure 2.1).

FI G U R E 2 . 1

Church Formation

As the guiding team leads the process, they need to attend to more than managing procedures. Their work includes what I call the “three overlapping areas of church formation”—congregational formation, spiritual formation, and missional formation. Congregational formation is about paying attention to each other—to relationships, social dynamics, congregational skills

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



29

and gifts, and synergism. Spiritual formation is about paying attention to God—how our practices like worship, prayer, Bible study, fasting, and praise shape us to discern what God is doing in our lives and among our neighbors. Missional formation concerns paying attention to our neighbors, both near and far—including how we listen to them, partner with them, eat with them, and seek justice and mercy for them, and as we enact and speak about the gospel in our contexts (and with partners beyond the local). As the guiding team works, they oversee the sequence of steps with an awareness of these three areas of church life.12 A Leadership Triad

The key elements of leadership align with the core activities of a church. Interpretive leadership is about meanings, symbols, language, narratives, and imagination. Interpretive leaders shape environments in which they create and provide resources for a community of interpreters who pay attention to God, texts, context, congregation, and the future.13 Interpretive work is done in conversations, thoughtful reflection, shaping documents, study, and research. Relational leadership creates and nourishes all of the human connections in various groups, families, partnerships, friendships, and coalitions. Matters of alterity, accountability, righteousness, forgiveness, mentoring, and teamwork are all matters of relational leadership. Implemental leadership develops strategies and structures so that a congregation embodies and promotes gospel reconciliation and justice in a local context and in the larger world. It is important that we organize, develop strategies, delegate tasks, obtain and disburse resources, provide oversight, evaluate processes and results, shape conversations, and coach numerous other leaders (figure 2.2).14 It is crucial that a congregation’s primary leaders nurture capacities and skills in all three spheres, and that they are attentive to cohesive and coherent practices in the context of constant change. Concerning interpretive work, in an Appreciative Inquiry process, the discovery of meanings, the forming of local meanings, activities of listening and voicing, and the shaping of a new imagination are the work of the congregation. As a congregation, we need to pay ongoing attention to scripture and traditions. Locally, we tell and retell our own church’s story and our personal stories, including our spiritual, ecclesial, and missional autobiographies. Additionally, we need the stories about our context—the local history of our city and the cultural and personal

30

C hapt e r 2

FI G U R E 2 . 2

Leadership Triad

stories of our neighbors. Further, with the gifts of perception provided by diverse people, our society’s story can be told. All of these texts (written and oral) enter a congregation’s discourse about identity (who we are) and agency (what we do). Appreciative Inquiry provides a means of forming congregational conversations that reshape the interpretive work so we pay attention to the most generative and hopeful texts, practices, and narratives. I will provide additional perspectives on interpretive work in the following chapter on biblical resources and in a later subsection, “Prompting Theological Reflection.” This interpretive work is always done in the context of relationships— across generations, among persons of differing background and perspectives, and with both congregants and neighbors. Our Christian heritage is loaded with commitments, practices, and characteristics that are specifically about relationships: hospitality, reconciliation, belonging, graciousness, fellowship, mutual encouragement, caring, empathy, collaboration, and love. Appreciative Inquiry requires careful attention to relationships in memories (queries), the conversational work of interpretation, and the subsequent imagination that projects shared life into the future. Leaders need to attend to two dynamics during all steps: a generative environment is shaped by both safety and challenge—so the processes of interviews, interpretation, and imagination

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



31

require both characteristics. This kind of atmosphere is called a holding environment;15 it requires the presence of persons and activities that make us feel safe (elements of familiarity, trust, and mutuality) while also challenging us (the presence of diverse perspectives, new conversation partners, significant challenges, and provocative opportunities). The third element, implemental leadership, focuses on the necessary structures, steps, and schedules. This is the important work of managing the processes—testing, evaluating, delegating, planning, and experimenting. Implemental leadership, which is always attentive to interpretive and relational factors, draws on the skills and resources of the organization to embody the church’s vocation to be a sign, foretaste, and witness of God’s kingdom. The initial engagement of Appreciative Inquiry, which will hopefully lead to AI being a way of life, needs to be knit into other activities of the church. So those who lead an AI process and others who lead throughout the church can bring the values, practices, and creativity of AI into the preaching, teaching, pastoral care, administration, and missional life of the church. As a guiding team is organized, and as church leaders continue their regular activities while participating in the AI process, all are well served if there are times to reflect on these three spheres of leadership. Appreciative Inquiry can shape how such reflection might take place: In what ways has our leadership enhanced relationships, both new and old? In our work with questions, conversations, scripture, our theological heritage, and what we are learning about our neighbors, what has been most important in how we are guiding the building of information, understanding, and imagination? What have been the most valuable aspects in how we have managed steps, meetings, experiments, resources, and reinforcement of appreciative conversations across the church’s life? Such questions and conversations can reinforce attention to important elements of leadership, and enhanced competencies make the church more capable in regard to learning, risk, and collaborative experiments (figure 2.3). Leadership attends to these three spheres of work in an action-reflection cycle. The work of the guiding team and the action teams benefits if there is an intentionality about naming their actions, then reflecting on those actions (and consequences) in light of scripture, theology, the AI processes, and the leadership triad. The sequence is continual—and as the Holy Spirit is invited into the reflective conversations, there can be a continual experience of learning and adapting.

32

C hapt e r 2

FI G U R E 2 . 3

Action-Reflection

Adaptive Situations

There are a number of times in a church’s work that leaders and participants may become especially disoriented. The Altadena church was already becoming aware of significant challenges before they chose this AI process. They were not able to name new directions or next steps (other than what was given to them in old habits that did not seem to be especially encouraging). I have also seen churches that were in other phases of AI (like the interpretive work or during efforts to write provocative proposals), and they sensed being overwhelmed by losses, confused by their differences, or unable to see together in their desire to imagine a new future. I believe the sources for moving forward are always in the reflective work of stories and theological reflection—but leaders in these circumstances may need some important competencies. The work of Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky on adaptive challenges can be helpful. They distinguish between technical and adaptive situations—and note that the work of leaders varies, depending on this distinction.16 Heifetz and Linsky note key traits of an adaptive situation: goals are murky, the road forward is not clear, those involved need to engage new learning, the outcomes of new steps are unpredictable, and participants themselves will be changed as the situation is engaged. This is in contrast to technical situations in which goals, pathways, and roles are clear and familiar, and a sequence of steps is manageable. In the midst of technical challenges, awareness, research, imagination, and planning are fairly straightforward.

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



33

AI significantly improves the process and outcomes in such situations and stresses tend to be minimal. However, an adaptive situation is one in which a group’s abilities to move forward are profoundly limited, the sense of disorientation is deep, and there is either a powerful hesitancy to have significant conversations or the group grabs for simple and familiar steps in an attempt to smooth over complexities. Appreciative Inquiry brings valuable approaches to adaptive situations. Key aspects of adaptive leadership—regulate stress levels, focus attention on important narratives and opportunities, give the work to the people—fit well with the priorities and steps of AI.17 The interpretive paths between memories, wishes, and biblical reflections deepen conversations and shape imagination toward experiments (rather than grand plans), which is appropriate in adaptive environments. An adaptive framework also serves to relieve a group of technical expectations: in many situations, when leaders are aware that they are without answers and that another cycle through strategic planning seems vacuous, there is great encouragement in knowing there are other suitable, generative, imaginative ways to co-construct a future. Appreciative Inquiry provides a hopeful alternative when the challenges are disorienting, stressful, and seemingly beyond current competencies. APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY ASSUMPTIONS AND GUIDELINES

Our committee, after the first experience of interviewing one another, was ready to hear some comments on research theory and organizational change. I began with the comparison between AI and traditional problem-solving approaches (table 2.1). While some (legitimately) continued to hold their concerns about problems, there was adequate trust and energy to gain a deeper understanding of assumptions and guidelines. Assumptions

I introduced a number of assumptions about AI that I had gathered from several resources.18 Based on my own continuing experiences, I find that the abbreviated list of assumptions in table 2.4 is adequate for introducing churches to AI; some explanations follow.

34

C hapt e r 2

Table 2.4.  Assumptions of AI 1.  What we focus on becomes our reality. 2.  Language and questions change reality. 3.  Organizations are heliotropic. 4. People have more confidence in the journey to the future when they carry forward parts of the past—and those facets should be what is best about the past.

1. What we focus on becomes our reality. When an organization gives its attention to some aspects of the corporate life, those aspects tend to define the whole. For example, if a church focuses on money (or decline or particular debates) then everything is seen through that lens. So, the reality of an organization is defined by whatever participants think about, talk about, work on, dream about, or plan. In our committee discussions, it was not uncommon for church meetings and informal conversations to focus on the church’s reasons for discouragement or some of the topics of disagreement. Therefore, the reality in which the church lived its life was often one of discouragement and conflict. AI taught us that, while we did not need to dismiss the serious challenges we faced or the lessons of previous wrong turns, we needed to center our attention in God’s grace and our positive stories. Focus has to do with imagination, conversation, efforts, and vision. Simply by refocusing attention, giving energy and priority to positive narratives, we could become a different organization. 2. Language and questions change reality. We create our social environment, our organizational reality, through language. We use words to bring to the present our moods, memories, perceptions, thoughts, and visions. A story, an idea, a motivation, or a behavior remains concealed, outside the organization’s reality, or hidden in unarticulated moods and behaviors, if it is not brought into the discourse. Our reality, the world in which we see, converse, dream, and act, is formed by the words that we and others utter.19 As our church committee began reading denominational materials and assembling statistics, our reality was limited. When we began asking about the church at its best, our reality shifted—we saw and felt and experienced and described a different church. No research is neutral or inconsequential; no consultant intervention stays outside the organization. The research itself—interviewing people, using surveys, seeking opinions, and weighing votes—changes a church by influencing the thinking and con-

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



35

versations and images of participants. Memories, perceptions, and hopes are shaped in the midst of research questions. Change, of one kind or another, begins with the very first questions. In our experience as a committee, everything about our mood, expectations, and motivation changed when we began the initial experiment in asking appreciative questions. 3. Organizations are heliotropic. This is a botanical term about a plant’s orientation—plants lean toward the sun. Similarly, organizations lean toward the source of energy, especially if there is a hopeful, imagined future. When memories, imaginations, and conversations are engaged to nourish participants with the best and most life-giving resources, the church will lean in the direction of those narratives and practices. As interviews continued in our committee and in the congregation, there was a palpable sense of the church orienting itself toward life-giving nourishment. 4. People have more confidence in the journey to the future when they carry forward parts of the past—and those facets should be what is best about the past. Organizations embed their purposes, goals, and narratives in their structures, and there is a strong tendency for the structures to continue even after they cease being effective means of embodying the organization-assumed priorities. Social groups of all kinds also tend to carry forward dysfunctional practices. Patterns of behaviors, embedded through habitual action and words, can end up undermining core purposes and values. Then when a conversation begins in an effort to shape changes, the unknown easily creates fears. Because such efforts often begin with critiques of activities and results, participants express their fears in resistance. These fears are often a reaction to perceived and anticipated loss. Confidence and trust can be built when questions create direct links with the organization’s history with a focus on the best and most appreciated narratives. The future will be a little less strange, and participants can envision their own roles in that future. Our church had a high percentage of seniors along with baby boomers, and, with great commitment, they kept doing what they had always been doing. Even when change might be affirmed in some generic way, any discussion about specific steps (stopping something, starting something) caused tension. As the AI interviews progressed, participants actually became animated in discussions about possible futures—even when significant change was discussed.

36

C hapt e r 2

Guiding Principles

In addition to these assumptions, which lie behind AI, I also recommend several guidelines. These help shape expectations and social norms. Every situation has its own unique characteristics and persons, so my purpose here is to suggest—and perhaps have a brief conversation about—some guiding principles (table 2.5). Table 2.5. Guiding Principles for AI 1.  It is important to value differences. 2.  All steps are collaborative. 3.  Outcomes are embodied in experiments and commitments. 4.  All steps are implemented through dispersed leadership.

1. It is important to value differences. Participants will not always agree on what they select as the most important or valuable or life-giving stories or which elements have indicated God’s grace. When an organization surfaces various narratives and works together interpreting the data, everyone gains if mutual respect and attentiveness is the norm. Change is too often seen as a zero-sum game: that your gain is my loss. AI assumes the synergism of the organization’s best practices—that there will be a cohesive and cumulative effect as diverse strengths are brought together in conversations and imaginations. We learned quickly that members of our committee valued different aspects of the church’s past and wanted to push for apparently contradictory plans for the future. The AI interviews provided new ways for us to hear each other’s values and imagine futures that included the differing visions or helped us deal with our differences by discerning what God was up to. Also, because the process moves toward diverse experiments rather than all-encompassing strategies, there was growing confidence in the appropriateness of outcomes. 2. All steps are collaborative. AI is not a process of giving stories and ideas to experts who then create a plan for everyone. Every phase requires wide participation—interviews, interpretation, visioning, experimenting, embedding changes. As explained in the earlier paragraphs about forming an “interpretive community,” AI provides numerous and ongoing means for a congregation-wide discourse. At its best, this contributes to the formation of a learning community in which all participants, clergy and laity, across generations and cultures, have access, voice, and responsibilities.

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



37

As our committee began planning the AI process, we immediately saw the importance of inclusion. If we were to have any long-range, significant impact, trust needed to grow, and participation needed to be broad. 3. Outcomes are embedded in experiments and commitments. Following the AI interviews, the data is brought to an interpretive process that should help participants envision and create their way toward a hopeful and fruitful future. While there may be affective (emotional) and understanding (cognitive) benefits from these conversations, AI assumes we are doing more—we are constructing interpretations that also construct embodied actions. This means the interpretive work and the parallel visioning must move the church toward implementation—doable steps, new experiments, structural changes, and generative practices. On occasion, a committee member would voice skepticism about significant change. I learned that if I explained a scenario or two that took our best stories into some future possibility, such dreaming became contagious. AI fosters “grounded dreaming”—that is, the interpretive work deals with the data, then constructs steps forward that are connected to both the past (“the church’s best”) and the future (as it motivates us to faithful imaginations). 4. All steps are implemented through dispersed leadership. In our situation, the pastor nominating committee was leading the AI process. As noted above, churches benefit from some similar arrangement in which a guiding team shapes and leads the process while clergy—whether regular or interim—and the board have other important work. Depending on the situation, clergy and boards have import roles in sanctioning, shaping an environment, participating in conversations, and encouraging the guiding team. As the inquiry and interpretive work move ahead, the guiding team hands off imagined futures to action teams, which can draw on other congregants who gather around particular themes or experiments. With careful consideration, an individual board member may be a helpful participant in the guiding team or on action teams, but they need to be focused on encouragement and participation rather than on governance (which is connected to their board work). I find that in discussing these assumptions and guidelines, the guiding team and boards more fully grasped AI. In our situation, there were frequent nods of affirmation and illustrative comments. There was a demystifying

38

C hapt e r 2

benefit—they could see the commonsense foundations of what we were proposing. Our church’s leaders found that these explanations were adequate for their participation, so they were ready to proceed. The following section provides a discussion of four theoretical frameworks; some readers will want to skip to the closing section of this chapter. After chapter 3 engages biblical and theological resources, chapter 4 will explain how we approached the first two steps, Initiate and Inquire, and chapter 5 will provide exposition of the next two steps, Imagine and Innovate. ORGANIZATIONS, LANGUAGE, AND IMAGES

For those who enjoy more thorough discussions of theory or who need more theoretical resources to compare with other approaches, the next four subsections of this chapter provide materials. If you want only a summary of this material, go to the last section, “Assumptions, Theories, and Change.” After an introductory discussion about organizations and metaphors, I will explore three other specific theoretical resources that Appreciative Inquiry theorists draw on: new science, social constructionism, and the power of images. Metaphors and Organizations

Much of what we conceptualize and do is based on metaphors. In the New Testament, a church is compared to a family, conversion to birth, ministry to farming. We take the familiar categories of one concept or activity and transfer or adapt them to something less familiar. By doing this, we hope to gain clarity and imagination concerning what had been less familiar or perhaps too myopic. I understand some things about how my physical body works— how each part has a function and why I must pay attention to the parts and the connections—so when Paul uses the body as a metaphor for a congregation I gain some new understanding and develop appropriate practices. In recent years, the church has been compared to a shopping center, evangelism to marketing, and conversion to buying. That conversion metaphor does have a reference in a New Testament parable about a pearl and some land (Matt. 13), but the emphasis there was to sell everything, which is not usually included in the way today’s churches frame their approaches. Metaphors can carry a visual or affective punch that requires little explanation—“Change at the Speed of Imagination” is the subtitle of the book I most often use concerning Appreciative Inquiry. But when we need to move

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



39

beyond the initial impact, we are required to practice some kind of interpretative work. We ask of a metaphor, How is it the same? How is it different? What are the essential points of comparison? This involves issues of sameness and issues of weight—in what ways does the metaphor apply, and how much influence should that comparison have in our own concepts and activities? For example, in what ways is a congregation like a body, and how much emphasis should I put on those traits? Church leaders draw on the models of a context. Any particular culture or society—Diaspora Judaism, Hellenistic Rome, Pax Britannia—has its own ways of life, its understandings of the world. In these settings, church leaders work with cultural features to articulate and form meanings, relationships, and structures. Church leadership, in the work of shaping and nurturing, develops both congruence and opposition to the leadership forms in other societal structures like government, commerce, military, and clans. U.S. churches have frequently adopted the forms and styles of business management as it has been developed under consumer capitalism. Business management of the last century has roots in Newtonian science. Modern (Newtonian) science, as it developed from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, was based on observation and experimentation. Eventually a primary metaphor for modern science was the machine—the predictable movements of parts (material) in space and time, as caused by forces (energy). Even though our understanding of physics has been changing radically since the 1920s, “scientific management” became well established. As Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly note, “It was assumed that human behavior was governed by the same principles as the material world: cause and effect, natural hierarchy, force exerted to cause movement, and individuals as separate and isolated ‘parts.’”20 In organizations, this leads to management by separating functions, applying certain forces, measuring resources and output, managing power structures, and making changes by altering a part or a force. Research focuses on fragments (pieces) and quantifiable results. For example, if a church manager has to meet a mortgage, he or she can measure the financial output of each section of a pew and determine the number of staff persons needed to attract an adequate number of persons to cover the mortgage. There are related measurements about the financial capacities of the pewsitters based on the demographics of the neighborhoods or the acceptable

40

C hapt e r 2

commuting distances. In this interpretive approach, the goal of church ministry is to find the staff and develop the programs that can fill the required pews. Business language fits this framework: products and services, marketing and sales, managers and marketers. The same management thinking skews youth ministry. Since the 1970s, suburban churches often worked on the assumption that a church’s future viability required attracting a significant number of teenagers—or at least providing attractive activities for youth so their parents would be supportive. In some evangelical churches, there was constant testing to decide what mix of Bible and entertainment produced a maximum head count. In mainline churches, the combination was often that of activism and recreation. Churches were often comparing themselves to the parachurch groups, like Young Life, which had the luxury of specialization (another facet of modern management). Such organizations did not choose to measure success according to the strength of churches—that was the concern of others. And the churches themselves, working on short-term goals, seldom asked the longer, generational question. For example, instead of an annual report on the number of youths in programs, a congregation might be asking, “What kind of relationships, worship, and catechesis do we need for our kids to become practicing, articulate Christians, faithfully engaged in congregations, with lives that embody God’s mission?” These questions challenge the adequacy of the cultural models that churches have often adopted. There are appropriate and helpful contexts for many management tools. I have seen the benefits in churches as they gain clarity about a task and apply appropriate resources and measurements.21 The critical and prior task of church leaders, however, is to be clear about the primary theological frameworks of missio Dei, ecclesiology, and soteriology (that is, our beliefs and practices concerning God’s mission, the church’s participation in that mission, and how salvation engages people and the redemption of the world).22 This foundational work is especially dependent on the narratives and metaphors that a church adopts as central to its identity (who we are) and agency (what we do). That is to say, metaphors matter—they are powerful images, creating options and limits. During the last century, some organizational theorists adapted metaphorically to what came to be called the “new science”—which is the topic of the following section. These adaptations, I believe, can benefit church leaders.

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



41

New Science as Metaphor

The field of physics began a giant shift during the early decades of the twentieth century with the development of quantum theory. Modern science could not explain what was being observed—and now we have a whole new set of scientific ideas and metaphors. The debates between the key scientists Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr are the stuff of legend,23 and the relevance of their work in science is having an impact on organizational theory. The mechanistic metaphor, with its attention to parts, forces, cause and effect, specialization, and predictability, has given way to a more fluid and less predictable set of relationships. Church leaders will probably appreciate any resources that deal with chaos and unpredictable relationships! In the new science, the primary shift is from a focus on parts to a focus on wholeness and an emphasis on connectivity. The previously discrete parts are now understood as connected, and the parts change when aspects of the whole change. This understanding of connectedness is far more substantial than earlier theories of cause and effect. For readers of science fiction, or speculative science, this new science is played out in ansibles (instant communication across light years of space), travel through wormholes, and multiple simultaneous universes. In organizational theory, the concepts that get picked up for metaphorical use are quantum theory, chaos theory, simultaneity, complexity theory, and self-organizing systems. Briefly, quantum theory emphasizes connectedness through a large, invisible whole. Parts do not exist in isolation but in relationship to everything else, even when there is no mechanical connection. These relationships increase possibilities beyond that mechanical chain of events. Chaos theory challenges predictability; linear cause and effect cannot be assumed. Simultaneity is rooted in Bohr’s discovery that two particles behaved as if they had instant communication even when distanced from each other. Complexity theory counters the priority on predictability and order, noting that unpredictable and discontinuous change can generate creativity in perceptions and in organizational initiatives. Self-organizing systems develop patterns out of chaos. In nature, this can refer to weather systems; in organizations, we learn to observe and participate in new ways other than command and control.24 All of these characteristics of the new science are finding their way into the literature on organizational behavior. Again, we are working with a metaphor. The assumption is that human organizational behavior can be profit-

42

C hapt e r 2

ably compared to new science and that particular characteristics can inform and guide us. I will highlight some concepts from the new science frequently utilized by AI literature. Quantum theory emphasizes interconnectedness.25 In an organization, just dealing with individual persons, actions, or products can be misleading. The web of relationships—among people, things, and actions—is usually complex. Earlier management theory attempted to create change by focusing on singular pieces or isolated segments. A task or a problem could be isolated and given attention, with the expectation that any effects would be predictable and without significant impact on the rest of the organization. Newer theories emphasize relationships, the stuff in between the parts. Church leaders know that an apparently small change (the time of a meeting, the name of a group, the color of a carpet) can quickly affect the whole organization. Also, church leaders usually learn that nurturing congregation relationships (toward traits such as love, hospitality, and generosity) directly affects various corporate activities (such as worship and mission). Some churches try to lessen the importance of congregational relationships by depending more on staff—assuming “more” can be accomplished if there is less dependence on ordinary members. This is a layering of “command and control” on top of fluid and covenantal relationships. This leads to a weakening of many characteristics that are key to Christian living—ownership (longterm commitment), mutual accountability, and shared discernment and vision. Some might believe that a focus on the whole lessens the importance of the parts—but that is not the case. Quantum theory emphasizes that each part, including that part’s characteristics and movements, influences all other parts. This is also true of any observer or researcher—there is no such thing as a disconnected, discrete element. The researcher changes what is being researched; the questioner makes an immediate impact on the organization. Chaos theory is probably easy for church leaders to understand. In scientific studies, the theory deals with ways that simple patterns and motions become increasingly complex and unpredictable. In churches, we often attempt to set up some order and purpose, only to be repeatedly surprised. A sermon has unintended consequences, one program unexpectedly undercuts another program, or new energy arises when we sense only dissipation. As churches began using long-range planning, based on some kind of predictability, they often spent more time adjusting that plan than they did

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



43

creating it originally. Every person who arrives in a congregation brings, in their memories and behaviors, all their previous primary relationships, their entire spiritual pilgrimage, even their previous churches. A missional engagement with a neighborhood is in the context of countless lives, stories, forces, and potential futures. Our work of forming and nourishing missional congregations is highly unpredictable. Eddie Gibbs,26 a colleague and author who was part of the pastoral leadership at an Episcopal church, noted that their continuous experiences of chaos led to a new leadership motto: “Go figure!” AI theorists hold that by embracing the chaos—gaining new perceptions, imagining new futures—we have a better chance at nurturing the life-giving forces that are available to us. Simultaneity, as noted above, is a result of connectedness. This is also often discussed under the topic of “non-local causes.” In other words, the former Newtonian theory sought sequences, connected in space and time, as one part exhibited force on another part. In the new science, two or more things happen at the same time and observably with mutual influence, but without any apparent links and without the needed time lapses. Bohr’s theory dealt with experiments with electrons. In proximity, the electrons could be “paired,” then when they were distanced from each other, the movements of one remained instantaneously linked to the other. Einstein was troubled because this required that some force be moving faster than light; Bohr countered this objection by proposing an invisible field. In churches, we indicate our theology by talking either about coincidences or about the Holy Spirit—but in either case we observe apparently related generative forces that appear with no apparent connections. In AI assumptions, research (inquiry) is simultaneous with corporate change. And several forces (positive or not) can appear simultaneously. This framework can assist leaders in corporate discernment as the congregation, as a community of interpreters, gains the capacity to observe and interpret what is going on in their own lives, in the congregation, and in the world around them.27 Systems are observed as self-organizing, a characteristic that may be counterintuitive to chaos theory but is actually dependent on it. Patterns and meanings are generated out of random and unpredictable complexity. In science, the apparent chaos of temperatures and moisture moves toward discernible weather patterns. The wonders of cell life, often undifferentiated, lead to living organisms. In churches, leaders may tend to force an unhelpful order or a poorly

44

C hapt e r 2

timed solution onto chaos. Instead, discernment and wisdom can allow for the innovative and generative impulses that are present in the chaos. Then the congregation can give attention, nurture, and space to such life-giving forces. Appreciative Inquiry brings attentiveness and discernment to the church’s life in order to increase awareness and opportunities. Complexity theory affirms that the whole cannot be reduced to the parts. In AI, this is called “order at the edge of chaos.” It calls us to work in the context of “unpredictability, nonlinear and discontinuous change” that leads to generative forces and forms.28 Churches do not have the luxury of providing simple products through dependable cause-and-effect actions. We, as congregations, are composed of storied people, receiving or resisting grace, in multiple and layered practices of learning and worshiping, commissioned to engage our complicated neighborhoods and the larger world. Complexity is a given—leaders work in this environment to form personal and corporate faithfulness, seeking to align a congregation with the movements of the Holy Spirit. Our tradition already teaches us that death is required for life, that in giving we receive, and that God brings good out of evil. From the first chapters of Genesis, our metanarrative—that is, the larger story, spanning centuries, that weaves together numerous smaller stories—has given witness to order out of chaos (table 2.6). The purpose of this section has been to describe some aspects of the new science and indicate how theorists and practitioners in organizational behavior are revisioning their own work. These developments have helped shape Table 2.6. Science Old and New Older Scientific Paradigm

Emerging New Science Paradigm

Newtonian mechanics—discover the parts, their differences, and their interactions Accurate descriptions and predictability as we understand enough of the parts Parts are connected through sequences of cause and effect

Quantum theory—discover the connectedness in the invisible whole

Change through hierarchy Seek order and continuity through control

Chaos theory—discontinuity, randomness, unpredictability Simultaneity—the invisible whole features interdependence and instantaneous multiple effects Self-organizing systems—order arises out of intricate patterns Complexity theory—discerns and affirms “order at the edge of chaos” where new images and forces are discovered

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



45

Appreciative Inquiry. Further, it is not difficult for church leaders to see some appropriate and helpful concepts for our work in and with congregations. Language, Knowing, and Making

Social constructionism is the name of the theory that connects our world, our use of language, and our creation of our world. Basically, the theory holds that we construct our world, our reality, through our language. The world enters into us as experiences that must be sorted. The sorting, which is the work we do to make sense of the data, is dependent to a very large extent on language. An AI website explains: “Social constructionist dialogues . . . concern the processes by which humans generate meaning together. Our focus is on how social groups create and sustain beliefs in the real, the rational, and the good. We recognize that as people create meaning together, so do they sow the seeds of action. Meaning and action are entwined. As we generate meaning together we create the future.”29 To have theory adequate to the practice of AI, we do not need to enter the larger debate about the “really real” and “reality that is available to us.” Our focus here is epistemology (how do we know), not ontology (the nature of reality as studied in metaphysics). We live our lives within a construct—a world created among our lives and in our minds largely through language. This is most relevant to us regarding social organizations (congregations), which we perceive and recreate with words in reference to images. Vivian Burr summarizes four essentials of social constructionism. First, in what is called “a critical stance toward assumed knowledge,” social constructionism rejects the belief in objective observation and pure empirical knowledge. What we know is not necessarily what is really there. Second, the “historical and cultural specificity” of all our ideas and meanings calls us to limit our generalizations. Our perceptions, words, and images are specific to the social context in which we are living and working. Third, “knowledge [is] sustained by social processes.” Understanding comes from social construction, created and shared socially through language. Fourth, “knowledge and social action go together.” The patterns of social relationships, power arrangements, and actions are rooted in shared descriptions.30 Social construction counters determinism—whether cultural, psychological, or historical.31 We use discourse—ongoing, thorough conversation—to make social meaning out of our pasts, to imagine possible futures, and to

46

C hapt e r 2

form cooperative practices. AI intervenes in a social reality by asking questions, increasing expectant listening, and shaping experiments and practices. In contrast to interventions that focus on problems and blame, AI creates a new reality by asking about life-giving forces. A congregation needs a particular kind of conversation, a generative discourse, to create the perceptions and imaginations adequate to comprehensive renewal. Cooperrider writes, “And so, the seeds of change are implicit in the very first questions we ask.”32 Our words create new images and new relationships that create new realities—that is how social construction is done. The Power of Images

Appreciative Inquiry is dependent on the power of images to bring change. Images of the future are key, according to Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly: “Appreciative Inquiry is, in part, the art of helping systems create images of their most desired future. Based on the belief that a human system will show a heliotropic tendency to move toward positive images, AI is intentionally focused on the generative and creative images that can be held up, valued, and used as a basis for moving toward the future.”33 The organization recognizes its own future, its own hope, in the images that are formed during the AI process. In the earlier section on metaphors, I noted the power of images to change churches. Whatever image enters into a church’s corporate imagination, that picture will have shaping power concerning structures, goals, schedules, finances, and practices. There are several, simultaneous forces at work as an organization encounters images. First, like placebos in medical work, images can bring hopefulness. Hopefulness itself provides energy. In this understanding, the details or content of the image (or pill) are not especially important. Rather, there is an affective benefit simply in getting the focus off of the failures (disease) and onto something positive. Even when a church cannot yet fully see or understand how it is being reshaped, the AI conversations elevate hope. There is always the danger of false hopes—and leaders who play with emotions cause real harm. But as part of a substantive, genuine process, the placebo effect is a helpful ingredient. Second, the organization is shaped by the expectations of others when those others have particular images of the organization. When persons outside the church (neighbors, coaches, partner organizations) have certain expecta-

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



47

tions, they will interact according to those images. If they have an image of dysfunction and decline, they “telegraph” that image in words and manners. If they have an image of positive change, a conversation may feature expectant curiosity. The expectations of others—conveyed in words and manners and actions—either work for or against a church’s positive, life-giving movements. This is also true within the organization as individuals and groups, in their own interaction, reinforce the best of the church or undermine it. The goal in AI is not pretense, or mimicking fictitious images, but to frame everything in an appreciative frame. That frame is created out of the church’s own resources. This theory recognizes the power of the images held by others; the process is one of influencing those images. Third, one’s own self-images are powerful in shaping reality. Athletic trainers know that if a performer focuses on a behavior to be avoided, then success is less likely. If a jumper has a strong image of missing a jump, success is undermined. It is difficult, if not impossible, to do something that one cannot imagine. On the other hand, imagining oneself accomplish a feat makes it more likely. These images are part of an inner dialog that shapes us and our context. The connection between images and reality is true for individuals and groups. A church, through conversation about images, makes the realizing of those images more likely. Watkins and Mohr summarize this image-reality connection: Taken to the organizational level, if we accept that there is at least a possibility that we socially construct our world and a reasonable amount of evidence that we have the power to create what we imagine, it follows that a process for facilitating organization change would consciously focus on empowering employees to believe that they can make a difference; rewarding leaders who know how to empower others; and focus the energy of the system on the positive, generative, and creative forces that give life and vitality to the work.34

The same can be said about a church and its members. ASSUMPTIONS, THEORIES, AND CHANGE

Churches that experience themselves as confused, declining, or conflicted may too easily live out those constructs. Participants may attempt change through problem solving or blame, or seek a hero pastor or expert consultant who is expected to provide an inspired plan. Theories about social

48

C hapt e r 2

determinism sap real choices. Endless discussions about past failures focus personal and corporate energies on everything that has proven deadening. Command and control strategies and tactics fail to engage participants fully as whole persons who can also participate fully. Alternately, churches that have a general sense of well-being, of overall success, may be aware that they are overly dependent on positivist approaches that give too much weight to modern management and strategic approaches. Appreciative Inquiry is built on theories that move a congregation away from deficit-based models and positivist management toward greater attention to their own generative images and the presence of God’s graces. Appreciative Inquiry has theoretical roots in four areas: metaphors, new science, social constructionism, and research on the power of images (table 2.7). Just as quantum theory, chaos theory, and observations about selforganizing systems gave researchers whole new ways of seeing (and a recognition that the researcher influenced what was being observed), AI gives us new possibilities for understanding and participating in organizations. Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly explain, Organizations as living systems do not have to look continually for which part is causing a problem or which project is not living up to some set of criteria. The “new” science embraces the magnificent complexity of our world while assuring us that built into the very fabric of the universe are processes and potentials enough to help us and all of our organizations move toward our highest and most desired visions.35

Order arises from chaos; the researcher changes the system; information is a force; pulses toward life are embedded in the whole and are available everywhere. Further, we create our reality through language. We form our perceptions and our futures in discourse, gifting ourselves and each other with images Table 2.7.  Theoretical Foundations Theoretical Foundations Metaphors New Science Social Constructionism The Power of Images

D e s i g n and T h e o ry



49

that can give life. Again, Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, “[A] fundamental precondition for all organization change work . . . (is) to shift the flow of ‘issue framing dialogues’ in the direction of health rather than pathology. This, then, shifts the flow of dialogues that result from the inquiries from an analysis of moments of malfunction to a holistic understanding of moments of optimal performance.”36 AI offers a process whereby questions and the stories they elicit make possible new creative futures that are rooted in the strengths of the organization’s traditions and narratives. Finally, our futures will be shaped by our imaginations. Rooted in our own narratives, the biblical and traditional narratives, and the “what ifs” of our conversations, our sanctified imaginations give us courage and direction. Isaiah saw the potential of a covenant people who would be a “blazing sunrise” (Isa. 58.6–8, NJB). Jesus lifted us out of ourselves to be “a city set on a hill” that gives light to the world and draws others to God’s reign (Matt. 5:14–15). At First Presbyterian Church, Altadena, there were numerous conversations about the members’ tiredness in continuing annual festivities. The fall festival, the spring barbecue, and other annual events took an immense amount of time, and those who hosted these celebrations were getting older. For many, the original purposes were losing their power, and newer members had not been initiated in a way that would perpetuate the events. But during our early AI research, some originating narratives reemerged. Simultaneously, two other related discourses were connected: biblical studies that noted festivals and narratives of Japanese traditions from earlier generations. We were curious if new meanings could reframe these events, if newer members could then value these congregational activities, and if the events themselves could be improved as carriers of meaning. Even as these conversations were in their earliest stages, the festivals began drawing more people. The buzz of our church’s AI conversations had already made its way into the larger community. The images that church members have created for themselves and for neighbors in their conversations were already creating a new reality.

3

Engaging Scripture Memory, Thanksgiving, and Conversational Reflections

Appreciative Inquiry seeks to develop not merely a short-term process for change but new long-term congregational habits, habits focusing on the positive. A biblical warrant for Appreciative Inquiry can be summed up with the word gratitude. Henri Nouwen commends gratitude as a discipline, a choice: In the past I always thought of gratitude as a spontaneous response to the awareness of gifts received, but now I realize that gratitude can also be lived as a discipline. The discipline of gratitude is the explicit effort to acknowledge that all I am and have is given to me as a gift of love, a gift to be celebrated with joy. Gratitude as a discipline involves a conscious choice. I can choose to be grateful even when my emotions and feelings are still steeped in hurt and resentment. It is amazing how many occasions present themselves in which I can choose gratitude instead of a complaint. . . . The choice for gratitude rarely comes without some real effort. But each time I make it, the next choice is a little easier, a little freer, a little less self-conscious.1

Congregations need encouragement and guidance to frame their lives in gratitude. Biblical resources for this formative agenda abound. Perhaps the most appropriate text for congregations as Appreciative Inquiry is engaged is Paul’s encouragement to the church in Philippi: “Finally, beloved, whatever 51

52

C hapt e r 3

is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Phil. 4:8). There is difficult work to do; the internal and external threats are real. We all have plenty of stories about blindness, blame, and banality. But Paul calls us to another conversation, a holy source of life. God has been present and continues to be active in the realms of truth, justice, goodness, and excellence. The following sections will (1) engage passages that encourage gratefulness in our remembering and story-telling, (2) illustrate the five core AI processes with biblical passages, and (3) recommend ways that a church might reflect on scripture during AI processes. BIBLICAL RESOURCES

Most, if not all, biblical authors share one common concern—the formation and reformation of social entities (groups of believers) who live with receptivity and responsiveness to God’s presence and initiatives. In the New Testament this concern primarily involves congregations—the formation of local gatherings of new believers that are centered in the gospel of Jesus Christ, shaped by the Holy Spirit, and sent by God to be agents of God’s reign in the world. Paul’s letters, John’s Apocalypse, and (I believe) the Gospels, were written with congregational realities in mind. There are identifiable reasons for the difficulties these churches faced, and the various writers name such threats. Those classifying such deficits have used summaries like “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” The “world” might be Roman hegemony or local magicians. The churches faced challenges from local synagogue leaders or those who were invested in local religions. The “flesh” needs little exposition—it simply calls attention to human tendencies like selfishness, greed, partisanship, arrogance, and licentiousness. The “devil” indicates powers that lie behind and beyond such local displays, calling into question our tendencies to myopia and pride. These authors specify such problems, point to particular causes, and name them for what they are—forces of darkness. They know that congregations will become malformed, lifeless, or even deviant if these narratives continue. But it does little good to list threats, specify sins, and name demons unless we have adequate resources for countering them. In the midst of such real dan-

En g a g in g Script u r e



53

gers, these authors display great confidence: They know that the churches just need to reconnect with the saving story that God offers. They know that these congregations have already tasted such salvation. Because God has provided them with narratives large as well as local, they face a choice regarding their own receptivity. Paul’s Pastoral Appreciation

The church in Thessalonica was under two kinds of external threats: religious persecution and social pressure. A congregational assessment committee would likely note these contextual problems. Paul’s pastoral admonitions indicate that these environmental forces were dangerous because they tempted the church to capitulate to fear (thus returning to earlier religious commitments) and seduction (especially sexual acting out) (1 Thess. 3:2; 4:3–7). In fact, he specifies some internal problems that increase the dangers: conflicts among believers, and persons described as idlers, fainthearted, or weak (1 Thess. 5:14). He also notes the temptation to vengeance that should be resisted (1 Thess. 5:15). These traits and activities increased the church’s vulnerability to the contextual threats. But Paul’s letter does not begin with the problems and his pastoral solutions. Rather, he begins with thanksgiving (1 Thess. 1:2–10; 2 Thess. 1:3–4; 2:13). One could claim this is simply the appropriate literary form—and Paul does often follow conventions—but the crafting seems more significant than that. This prayer of thanksgiving recalls specific characteristics that are most needed in the current situation. Paul notes the church’s faith, labor of love, and steadfastness of hope. The church had displayed joy in the context of persecution. They had become witnesses of the faith. They had turned from idols. Paul notes that he is not only aware of these traits, but that believers in other churches also know that the Thessalonian believers can be thus described (1 Thess. 1:7–10). Paul wants his readers to begin with this frame of gratefulness, this opening prayer of thanksgiving, so that his pastoral initiatives can be properly understood. The life-giving resources that they need are not just external, they are available through their own narratives. So, Paul commends, attend to these practices. The church in Corinth was notoriously dysfunctional. Paul had heard stories of factions, heresies, economic classism, sex out-of-bounds, abuse of sacraments, plus some bad attitudes about his own leadership. As he prepared

54

C hapt e r 3

a response, he formed a greeting and a prayer that would frame the entire epistle. The greeting alone affirms that they belong to God, that they are sanctified (!), and that they have a holy calling as “saints” (1 Cor. 1:2). Perhaps there is a push-pull strategy here—a set of positive attributes that he can reference as he pursues some difficult issues. In this opening prayer, Paul thanks God for them—a rather surprising perspective considering the realities of their common life and the disrespect some of them have for him. His thanksgiving is for the graces of God that are apparent in their common life: for their speech, their knowledge, the strength of their testimony of Christ, and the abundance of spiritual gifts. We can ask here just as we did with the Thessalonian letter, Is this opening just a ploy, a culturally appropriate style of letter writing that just sets them up for a scolding? Or does Paul’s perception—his viewpoint, his stance—genuinely begin with gratitude? I believe that these opening prayers of thanksgiving are rooted in Paul’s theology—his deepest beliefs about God and salvation and the church. Gratitude is not just a fleeting emotion—it is foundational. As a response to God’s gracious initiatives, gratitude changes us at our very core. Gratitude is not first affect (emotions), although it often helps us move from fear or doubt or anger; rather gratitude is a stance that changes our perceptions, our thinking, our discernment. When our beginning place is thankfulness—for God, for God’s creation and redemption, for God’s ongoing mercies, and for evidences of God’s grace—we give attention to any and all signs of grace. Our thankfulness, especially when voiced, makes grace more available, more present, more powerful—to oneself and to one’s community. The absence of gratitude is a primary sign that persons have turned away from God—that God’s presence and initiatives are being rejected. Paul sees the source of blindness and destructiveness in this lack of thanksgiving: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. . . . for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened” (Rom. 1:18, 21). When God’s presence and gifts are available, when graces are within reach, to turn from them, to demand something else, is a profound sign of lostness and sin. This perspective is not an invention of Paul’s; the scriptures he read (the Hebrew scriptures) give major attention to memory and gratitude.

En g a g in g Script u r e



55

Memory and Thanks in Israel’s Scriptures

In the Hebrew scriptures, numerous direct and indirect references call God’s people to remember and give thanks. The Ten Commandments and the interpretive work around them make references to both creation and to God’s saving work in the Exodus. The command to honor the Sabbath calls us to remember both God’s rest (from the creation story; Exod. 20:8–11) and God’s salvation (from slavery; Deut. 5:12–15). The narratives of God’s presence, God’s Word, God’s promises, are the very bedrock of communal and personal identity, faithfulness, and hope. The Psalms and the prophets often demonstrate this priority of gratefulness. Many psalms feature thanksgiving, voicing such prayers even in the context of threats. For example: Yahweh, how countless are my enemies, how countless those who rise up against me, . . But you, Yahweh, the shield at my side, my glory, you hold my head high. (Ps. 3:1, 3, NJB) Children of men, how long will you be heavy of heart, why love what is vain and chase after illusions? Realize that Yahweh performs wonders for his faithful, Yahweh listens when I call him. (Ps. 4:2–3, NJB)

Are those who read these psalms just clinging to communal prayers out of empty habit? Perhaps, but there is real grace available in such a practice if these words are given access to our minds and hearts. Praise and thanksgiving might start in a pro forma liturgy—personal or corporate recitation following ancient traditions. But the psalms do not promote an escapist spirituality or perfunctory chanting. If we enter into this poetry, if our readings are engaged in the words and images and affect and narratives, our own lives can be converted from myopia and denial and murmuring to a holy framing that reorients our vision to include God’s presence and initiatives. That leads to thanksgiving. Walter Brueggemann’s writings on the Psalms provide a helpful perspective on this rich literature.2 He proposes three types of psalms: psalms of orientation (creation and Torah are good and dependable and generally function as expected, and God’s salvation is readily available and apparent); psalms of disorientation (it does not appear that God and the promises of salvation are

56

C hapt e r 3

dependable); and psalms of reorientation (God’s new and profound initiatives have been or are being recognized and received). With few exceptions, psalms in each category include praise and thanksgiving. This might be expected in psalms of orientation and reorientation, but it is more surprising when the psalmist’s world seems to be void of life and hope. In these, the glimmer of hope and the words of expectation and acknowledgment might be brief, but they still ground the whole prayer: I am weary with my moaning; every night I flood my bed with tears; I drench my couch with my weeping. . . . . . . the Lord has heard my supplication; the Lord accepts my prayer. (Ps. 6:6, 9) My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the word of my groaning? . . . . . . From you comes my praise in the great congregation. (Ps. 22:1, 25)

In these prayers, arising from great personal and corporate pain and relentlessly describing death and destruction, there is a foundation, a frame, of praise and trust. Such psalms do not merely express human optimism— rather, these are words grounded in a people’s imagination that has been formed through centuries of repeated narratives and prayers. And through this recitation, God’s people might again see and respond to God’s presence. Or, if the voicing of thanks is stopped, blindness threatens to overcome the entire nation, the “good life” is sought in the promises of other religions, security is sought in military alliances, and corrupted images of happiness are pursued in materialism and sensuality rather than in God. Destruction follows. Isaiah offers a warning: For you have forgotten the God of your salvation, and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; therefore, though you plant pleasant plants and set out slips of an alien god, though you make them grow on the day that you plant them, and make them blossom in the morning that you sow; yet the harvest will flee away in a day of grief and incurable pain. (Isa. 17:10–11)

En g a g in g Script u r e



57

Jeremiah also notes the consequences of forgetfulness: But my people have forgotten me, they burn offerings to a delusion; they have stumbled in their ways, in the ancient roads and have gone into bypaths, not the highway. Making their land a horror, a thing to be hissed at forever. All who pass by it are horrified and shake their heads. (Jer. 18:15–16)

The activities of forgetting or remembering are not generic; they are content specific. The biblical narratives note some benefits in forgetting, especially when it concerns God forgetting our sins. Forgetting would also help Israel move beyond the lures of the memories of Egypt (“we had food and safety”) or of Sodom and Gomorrah (“just one more look”). But more often forgetting is a problem, and remembering (with gratefulness) is an essential means of salvation and hope. Our corporate work of remembering is intended to reconnect us to specific narratives. In psalmic praise and prophetic narrative poetry, Israel is instructed to remember God’s salvation as it has been experienced in the past and promised for the future. They are to remember creation, call, covenant. They are to retell the stories of God’s amazing provisions in desert or drought. Truthful accounts of victory over enemies will note that strategic military planning and execution were forgone in favor of God’s absurd interference. And thankfulness for leaders, embedded in narratives that never miss flaws and sins, manages to voice the occasions and years when the leader was in genuine partnership with God. It is remarkable how salvation reenters the experience of Israel. It always comes as an initiative of God (that’s the core meaning of grace), and the narratives indicate that remembering and giving thanks are primary means of receptivity. And these memories are essential to their children. [The Lord] established a decree in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our ancestors to teach their children;

58

C hapt e r 3

that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and rise up and tell them to their children, so that they should set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments. . . . (Ps. 78:5–6) One generation shall laud your works to another, and shall declare your mighty acts. On the glorious splendor of your majesty, and on your wondrous works, I will meditate. The might of your awesome deeds shall be proclaimed, and I will declare your greatness. They shall celebrate the fame of your abundant goodness, and shall sing aloud of your righteousness. (Ps. 145:4–7)

Any church today can find generative forces of memory and praise if personal and corporate practices of praying the psalms are implemented. This inspired prayer book, if allowed a presence in our hearts, conversations, worship, and business, can reshape us with new sight and wisdom.3 And we need to practice all the types described by Brueggemann—creating in and among ourselves prayers appropriate to times of orientation, disorientation, or new orientation. Praise the Lord! How good it is to sing praises to our God; for he is gracious, and a song of praise is fitting. The Lord builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the outcast of Israel. He heals the brokenhearted, and binds up their wounds. (Ps. 147:1–3) Jesus: Redefining Blessedness

One of the most startling aspects of the Gospel texts is how they seek to reverse our evaluations and tendencies. Anyone doing strategic planning is lost in these texts: The rich are not blessed—the poor are. The powerful are in trouble, the persecuted are honored. A society’s well-connected social circles are not prepared to receive God’s initiatives, so the marginalized are invited in. Even cursory reading of these narratives, if allowed room in our imagina-

En g a g in g Script u r e



59

tions and conversations, will redefine “goodness” and “thankfulness” and “hope” for any church. The perspective being voiced here is not that poverty is good or that mourning is to be sought—but that a community that lives with these characteristics in vulnerability and receptivity to the presence of God’s reign will find themselves embraced, reconciled, comforted, even recreated. Further, if such a community will honor and practice the ways of mercy, justice, peace, and generosity, they will be a brilliant light, attracting others to God’s reign (Matt. 5:14). The Beatitudes seem to assume that these experiences are already present among early followers (and perhaps among those to whom Matthew first addresses his writings) but new meanings needed to be attached to these experiences. So Jesus’s words are to foster a new interpretive approach to their circumstances. He wants them to have new eyes, different perspectives, an awareness of God’s generative work among them. Like the “psalms of disorientation,” the Beatitudes nurture memories that pry us loose from our stuckness, giving us holy sensitivities that redefine the present and hope that counts on God rather than institutional management. In one particular story, the importance of thankfulness is emphasized: Jesus’s healing of the ten lepers (Lk. 17:12ff.). Luke notes that Jesus commends the appropriateness of this Samaritan’s praise, honoring his faith/faithfulness. But Luke is not just dealing with good manners. He recalls Jesus’s question about the whereabouts of the nine Jews who were also healed—a question that goes unanswered. Perhaps we are encouraged to wonder about some persons, if they allow themselves to acquire any sense of socially reinforced entitlement, who then become less aware of God’s grace and are therefore prone to withhold thanks. There is sadness here—in the grace of healing, Jesus is offering a glimpse of God. Only the Samaritan perceives and voices (loudly) that recognition. In affirming this response, Jesus teaches that the Samaritan’s thankfulness is a direct indication of underlying faith (“Your faith has made you well”). This implies that those without gratitude (or who may have felt it but did not express it) did not have a similar faith—and perhaps limited the extent of their healing/salvation. Jesus and John: The Apocalypse

Just as Paul introduces his letters with prayers of attentive thanks, the Seven Letters of the Apocalypse usually note characteristics and behaviors

60

C hapt e r 3

worthy of commendation. To the church in Ephesus, Jesus’s words via John begin with appreciation: “I know your works, your toil, and your patient endurance. I know that you cannot tolerate evildoers; you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false” (Rev. 2:2). To the congregation in Smyrna, he writes with appreciation about their strength under challenging circumstances, “I know your affliction and your poverty. . . . I know the slander” (Rev. 2:9). And to those in Pergamum, “I know where you are living, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you are holding fast to my name” (Rev. 2:13). These letters are not commendations void of correction. Just as Paul moved from appreciation to each congregation’s need for continual conversion and appropriate practices, so too these letters open with thanksgiving and acknowledgment of the positive and then move into the body of the letter. There are destructive forces not only in the social context of the Roman Empire, but also in the activities and characteristics inside the churches. Each congregation must face those forces, building on the graces already received and practiced. Ephesus can build on memories: “Remember then from what you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first” (Rev. 2:5). And to Sardis, “Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death” (Rev. 3:2). These are profound words of hope and danger—the threats are real, but attention to their own church narratives can lead toward a transforming reorientation. Attentiveness and appreciation stand in a mutually generative relationship with courage and imagination. This shift in focus can help them receive the corrections and challenges that are blocking the graces of vitality and faithfulness. Lament and Confession

Appreciative Inquiry writings do not attend to the biblical acts of lament and confession. Because it is easy for organizational conversations to become mired in negative, repetitious analysis that leads to blame and defensiveness, there is little confidence in the role that might be played by these socialspiritual practices. But I believe that the framework of gratitude can create an environment in which lament and confession can be properly generative. I also believe that genuine lament and confession will lead to gratitude. Sorrow apart from God’s grace can lead to despair; guilt realized apart from God is debilitating. If lament defines the totality of existence, if tears and

En g a g in g Script u r e



61

sorrow and death and loss are all there is, then we feel we must deny reality, narrow our lives, and try empty means of self-protection. If we are confronted by the blame of others or the realization of our own failures, we might defend ourselves with denial and excuses, or attack with our own accusations. Churches too easily and frequently live with mutual recriminations, losing trust in each other and, at least in their practices, live without trust in God. But when a person or community is grounded in thankfulness to God, Creator and Redeemer, then there is space for lament, there is room for confession. This is a wonder. God has gifted us with all we need to frame our entire existence in gratitude—to know we are given breath and love and hope. Christian faith lives fully in reality—facing the darkness of any age, knowing our own weaknesses and sins and follies, resigning from any ideas about saving ourselves or generating our own hopes. When we enter into God’s grace with gratitude, we can be honest about our circumstances and ourselves. Gratitude alters our perceptions so we can see and receive more of God. Then as our trust in God grows, we can offer our sorrows. And as we grow in thankfulness for God’s life among us, we can face the parts we have played in a church’s struggles and missteps. Our own biases, decisions, and actions, along with those of others, have at times missed the Holy Spirit’s promptings, causing us to sin against each other, against neighbors, and against God. The great good news is that we are forgiven, that confession often brings restoration, and that God graces us with new opportunities. So gratitude makes us available to see more of God, to know ourselves more fully, to enter into lament and confession as means of life, and to know that sorrow and sin are encompassed in God’s love. Walter Brueggemann notes that most psalms of disorientation include some element of praise.4 Whether such prayers are about personal or communal suffering or sin, they tend to assume that God’s covenantal love is adequate for restoring brokenness and reforging hope. Such prayers often make references to earlier experiences, personal and corporate, that help persuade the pray-er that the covenant is dependable. For example, because the psalmist affirms God’s “steadfast love” and “abundant mercy” in Psalm 51, transgressions can be faced, truth can be told, and new life can be received, with the conclusion “I will thank you forever.” So memories and gratitude surround the confession. Psalm 74 is a corporate lament. Enemies have destroyed the temple, God has apparently deserted his people, and no leaders have been provided.

62

C hapt e r 3

“O God, why do you cast us off forever?” (v. 1). Although we do not face the same level of upheaval, there are parallels here with our churches. Many congregations are disoriented by losses: membership in sharp decline, denominational structures focused on their own institutional challenges, and a society that has decreasing regard for the church. “We do not see our emblems; there is no longer any prophet” (v. 9). The psalmist wants God to pay attention, “Your foes have roared within your holy place” (v. 4). Woven through the psalm are memories—that bedrock of narratives that allow and even define the sorrows that are expressed: “Remember Mount Zion where you came to dwell. . . . God my King is from old. . . . You divided the sea by your might. . . . Have regard for your covenant” (vv. 2, 12, 13, 20). Memories and lament and hope belong together. Paul’s letters reveal this same linkage. The words of thanksgiving that begin almost every epistle provide the context for corrections and instructions about the changes that will be sought. Paul notes their own positive narratives, connects them with himself or with Jesus, seeks a change—some kind of confession and repentance—and ends with an expression of confidence. For example, as noted above, he gives thanks for the numerous gifts he sees among the Corinthians, for their testimony of Christ, then he urges them to correct their divisive ways. Corrections are needed, but change is unlikely without an atmosphere of grace and gratitude. This is good congregational work—bringing specific life-giving resources to the surface as thanksgiving to God. More Than a Strategy

Concerning the essential core of a Christian’s faith, Karl Barth writes, Grace and gratitude belong together like heaven and earth. Grace evokes gratitude like the voice an echo. Gratitude follows grace like thunder lightning. . . . [We] are speaking of the grace of the God who is God for [us], and of the gratitude of [humankind] as [our] response to this grace. Here, at any rate, the two belong together, so that only gratitude can correspond to grace, and this correspondence cannot fail. Its failure, ingratitude, is sin, transgression. Radically and basically all sin is simply ingratitude—[human] refusal of the one but necessary thing which is proper to and is required of [those] with whom God has graciously entered into covenant. As far as [we are] concerned there can be no question of anything but gratitude; but gratitude is the complement which [we] must necessarily fulfill.5

En g a g in g Script u r e



63

Without this posture of gratefulness, we lose our way. While there are times when other orienting positions become dominant—anger, confusion, despair, blindness—our responsiveness to God, our vulnerability to grace, requires foundational gratefulness. And, as the parable of the lepers teaches us, silent thankfulness is insufficient. We become saved/whole as we voice our praise in the company of believers. There are many other biblical resources for helping a congregation enter into narratives of gratitude. The scriptures contain continuous summons to praise, often tied to specific memories. The Hebrew “sacrifice of thanksgiving” provides the narrative behind the Christian Eucharist (“The Great Thanksgiving”). And the Bible itself models the work of repeating narratives that give life to God’s people. We can recall stories that are to be commended. We have experienced the touch of the Holy Spirit’s cleansing. We know honorable saints. Paul notes that the Philippian church has already learned much, and that they are capable of faithfulness: “Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you” (Phil. 4:9). That “peace” is not primarily an inner, emotional tranquility, but a holistic social formation of the congregation that counters affliction, discord, conflict, lostness. This peace is grounded in lives of thanksgiving and assured by God’s power (Phil. 4:7). Such is the grace available to us. BIBLE REFERENCES FOR LEADING THE PROCESS

The work of pastors and other leaders is this: bringing a people together around texts (their own stories, biblical stories, narratives from church history, the stories of the church’s context) so the congregation can become more available to the narrative of God’s reign.6 Every church needs continual conversion;7 a helpful way to understand conversion is to see it as adopting a different narrative. We are given life narratives by society (such as hard work or careerism, generosity or materialism), by our families (maybe loyalty and love, maybe dysfunction and disintegration), and by our cultures (including values we embody concerning language, place, neighbors, and wisdom). We are also formed by the stories of our local setting (the narratives of fortune or misfortune, of conflicts or coalitions). We inhabit these stories—literally forming habits, practices, and ways of perceiving the world.

64

C hapt e r 3

Alongside these narratives (societal, cultural, local, personal), Christians adopt (and are adopted into) the Jesus story as transmitted in numerous traditions, embodied in congregations, and quickened by the Holy Spirit. But—as was already true during the writing of the New Testament—the congregational narratives get separated from the gospel. Those who lead churches must then help a people rediscover the stories that most likely indicate God’s presence and actions. When a church assumes stories without retelling and reentering them, there is little energy to power congregational life, and there are no resources for raising a new generation or loving neighbors. When cultural and societal stories overshadow stories of God’s initiatives and a church’s narratives of faithfulness and fruitfulness, identity is at risk and priorities are skewed.8 When a church becomes encumbered with practices and programs that have been separated from their meanings, then narratives must be reclaimed and futures must be reimagined so that congregational life can be reshaped.9 In the remainder of this chapter, I will follow the list of Appreciative Inquiry processes (explained in chapter 2) as a basis for further reflections on biblical resources.10 The biblical sources have their own patterns and sequences, which are often very instructive for church leaders. However, I will take the liberty of doing some topical construction while trying to remain faithful to what we know about any author’s context and intentions. The five AI processes are: (1) choose the positive as the focus of inquiry; (2) inquire into stories of life-giving forces; (3) locate themes that appear in the stories and select topics for further inquiry; (4) create shared images for a preferred future; and (5) find innovative ways to create that future. Choose the Positive

Appreciative Inquiry begins with an orientation, usually for some set of the board, staff, and a core group—and then gains ground as others participate. Similarly, Paul begins his letters with appreciation and encouragement. He calls attention to a church’s founding story, rooted in God’s grace (initiatives), which was often linked to his own travels. Paul names some strengths, recalls stories of faithfulness, and personalizes those memories with names. As a group gathers around a Pauline letter (or welcomes his traveling team) one can imagine how these kinds of appreciative comments might spark storytelling. When Paul thanks God for the recipients, for cer-

En g a g in g Script u r e



65

tain characteristics, or for remembered graces, they reenter those narratives, they re-feel the stories, they reimagine the events. This introduction creates space for a larger work. Without an appropriate beginning, a change process is easily dismissed or delimited. Our own work at congregational change may begin with our own awareness of barriers, resistance, fears, and potential counter-agendas. But with AI, the initiation phase begins a reorientation, and it can bring surprise, affirmation, reminders of God’s goodness, even memories when life was full of trust, expectancy, risk, and faith. John writes to shape such considerations, “I have no greater joy than this, to hear that my children are walking in the truth. Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do for the friends, even though they are strangers to you; they have testified to your love before the church” (John 3:4–6). Repeatedly, Paul works to move congregations from words that counter grace—anger, malice, lies, rumors, ignorance, bitterness, wrangling, divisiveness, scheming (1 Cor. 1; Eph. 4; Col. 3). He calls them to gather in the environment of words that “build up”—words of forgiveness, peace, wisdom, tenderness, scripture, agreement, common purpose—so that the narrative of God in Christ is experienced, visible, available. Paul calls their attention to how this is centered in worship—“with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God” (Col. 3:16), and “giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 5:20). Inquire into Life-Giving Stories

Paul and his disciples also helped reorient their readers by reminding them to think about certain narratives. What kind of memories would this stir among the Ephesians: “But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:4–5)? Here and elsewhere, inquiry comes by way of reminders that seek the readers’ capacity to answer with their own memories. In writing to the Philippians, Paul’s encouragement to live in mutual love and care for one another begins with a series of “if” statements that assume a positive answer. So, in Philippians 2:1–2, Paul wants to spark memories. We can easily hear the implicit questions behind the “if” clauses: “If then there is

66

C hapt e r 3

any encouragement in Christ . . .”—can you tell me about a time you received courage from Christ? “[If there is] any consolation from love . . .”—how were you drawn by the love of a believer, or how have you experienced Christ’s love from each other in the church? “[If there is] any sharing in the Spirit . . .”—tell me how your church shows justice and truth and generosity. “[If there is] any compassion and sympathy . . .”—What stories do you have of caregiving during times of sorrow or difficulty? These memories, these stories, provide specific and powerful resources by surrounding the church with their own best experiences of the graces of Christ. Paul wrote in a way that raised questions: “Do you remember? Have you experienced this? Your church needs a conversation about these memories.” In teaching and shaping the disciples, Jesus used questions that helped them make connections. Even as he pushes them with some rather pointed questions, he encourages them to recall some critical events: “When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” Then, “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” (Mark 8:18–20). These memories hold both specific information about the event as well as an experience concerning the nature of reality that the disciples might use to discern who Jesus is. In that case, however, they did not make the needed connections. The Seven Letters of the Apocalypse also indicate the need for memories. For example, the letter to Thyatira recalls years of faithfulness: “I know your works—your love, faith, service, and patient endurance. I know that your last works are greater that the first” (Rev. 2:19). This should generate a long and rich discourse, a time of praise and worship, and new imagination for coming years. How have those in the church at Thyatira demonstrated love? What stories do they have of serving each other and their neighbors? When did they model patience? What works show even more fruitfulness? The letter indicates some dangerous challenges to their viability, and these narratives are a necessary part of their survival. This reforming of congregational conversations along positive lines is not avoidance but reorientation. Grace precedes call. Congregations have observed, tasted, and claimed the narratives of God’s presence and transformative power—and the remembering brings those stories into the presence, providing the new day with perceptions and availability and wonder. We bless our

En g a g in g Script u r e



67

churches as we help them tell stories of truth and love, grace, and justice. Expectancy is nourished as the ripples of conversation spread through the church. Locate Themes

The stories we share—the congregational memories of mercies, love, fruitfulness, conversion, justice, comfort, success, reconciliation, faith—contain threads of cohesion and meaning. There are life-giving forces woven through this data. As a church assembles the interview data, searches for themes, and discusses what they are finding, the church gains clarity about itself and the Holy Spirit’s life around and among them. To the Ephesians, who have a beginning taste of boundary crossing between Jewish and Gentile believers, Paul works with the theme of unity. Those who were “near” (Jews) and those who were “far off” (Gentiles) have been brought together (Eph. 2:13). He connects these inceptive experiences with larger themes of what God is doing in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:14–22), then he shows the implications of the themes for their organizational and relational life together (chapters 4–6). In his letter to the Philippians, Paul repeatedly notes their generous partnership with him (Phil. 1:5, 7; 4:15–16). He recalls personal time with them as well as times when they connected with him through messengers and gifts (Phil. 2:12, 19, 25–30; 4:10, 15–18). He links their generosity with the graces that God extends to him and to them. This letter, noting “joy” and “rejoice” twelve times, makes the connections between gifts (God’s and ours), receptivity (the Philippians’ and Paul’s), and the communal character traits of love and joy. The theme of God’s faithfulness, narrated throughout scripture, is given personal witness by Paul repeatedly. While “weakness” would seldom bring congregations to focus on God’s faithfulness, Paul’s stories of weakness give him an opportunity to “boast” of God’s graces (2 Cor. 11–12). And in recalling dangers and threats that his missional team had faced (2 Cor. 4), Paul credits God’s power and presence for the team’s survival and continued ministry. Our congregations need this kind of theological reflection—bringing our own memories and biblical texts into consideration and conversation. Appreciative Inquiry, by surfacing stories, can help a congregation make these

68

C hapt e r 3

connections. Such discoveries invigorate conversations, create space for hope, renew an awareness of God’s presence and activities, and give new opportunities for imagination. Create Shared Images for a Preferred Future

As themes emerge from congregational memories, revisioning becomes possible. In the Appreciative Inquiry steps, the positive stories of the past are linked with wishes for the future, which feed the discourse that births alternative futures in “provocative proposals.” While most congregations have been schooled in planning that focuses on ideas (concepts) and programs, AI assumes that imaginations need to be rekindled. After Paul elicits memories from the Philippian congregation (about courage and love and generosity and comfort), he writes that they “shine like stars in the world,” a contrast with the society in which they live (Phil. 2:15). He asks them to imagine their own lives as characterized by certain behaviors: “regard others better than yourselves,” be “of one mind,” look to “the interests of others,” “holding fast to the word of life” (Phil. 2:3–5, 16). There is much more here; the point is that Paul works with the memories to build a future. To the Galatians, a congregation that was enamored with particular legalistic practices, Paul writes without including an introductory affirmation. This congregation’s most recent memories were of certain rituals and rules that brought pride, self-sufficiency, self-righteousness—traits that were sapping life. These were also practices that clearly differentiated an “in-group” (“we always do it this way”) from the recently converted Gentiles who were supposed to be included as equal participants. So Paul surfaces other memories about Abraham and Jesus, adds his own autobiography, and reminds them that they had experienced the love and righteousness brought by the Spirit and that they had been “running well” (Gal. 5:7). Then Paul creates an image: “fruit of the Spirit,” which includes love, joy, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness. Even in this most negative of letters, Paul reminds them of their founding stories, their experiences of the Spirit (Gal. 3:2–5), and uses those materials to form an image that shapes them with a life-giving metaphor and the consequent practices. In other letters, metaphors reshape imaginations and behaviors. For the Corinthians, Paul’s reorientation imagines them as a body with interdependent limbs and organs (1 Cor. 12; see also Rom. 12). But they are not just

En g a g in g Script u r e



69

any body—they are Christ’s body. Elsewhere, we see images of a household, citizens, and a building (Eph. 2:19–22), the temple (1 Cor. 3:16–17), athletes and celestial stars (Phil. 2:14–16). Jesus imagines followers as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:19). Elsewhere the disciples are farmers (Lk. 10:2), fishermen (Matt. 4:18–22), or extravagant investors (Matt. 13:44–46). There are also profound images in the prophets that are notable because they seem to call for such a tremendous stretch for hearers. For example, those who have been defeated and exiled to Babylon, so traumatized and disoriented that they cannot even cope with daily life, are called to some fairly normal practices (raising crops, building houses, raising families) while adopting some absolutely unimaginable traits (pray for your enemies, seek the welfare of their city; Jer. 29). This requires drawing on their memories of daily life with a dependable God, something quite dubious to them. These activities, then, are foundational—because such traits are not only good for the faith community, but they are also good for neighbors. Also, Isaiah offers some provocative proposals. In chapter 54 he offers a vision of a city in which the infants are born into a life-giving environment and the elderly live out full days in honor. The carpenters and gardeners receive the full benefit of their work—houses and food (in contrast to laborers who build and garden only for the benefit of others while they remain impoverished). And those with ancient animosities (lions and lambs) are so thoroughly transformed that they can chill out together. This phase of congregational imagination can be immersed in the study of such biblical images—showing how God has always used such metaphors, poetry, parables, and visions to help renew and recast the faith community. Find Innovative Ways

Images are essential but not sufficient. Innovation requires discourse, commitment, and implementation. This is the work of letting the power of memories and images gain full life in the congregation. The discourse, always as inclusive as possible, lets the church test out the implications of the vision, explore “what-ifs,” create designs, float plans and possible roles, and test some initiatives. Sometimes this is about modifying existing congregational practices and programs; sometimes new activities will be explored. What happened after the devastated exilic community read Jeremiah’s letter? Over the next few decades, they not only created a viable life for

70

C hapt e r 3

themselves, but evidence indicates that they also negotiated significant economic and political relationships with the city. They became convinced, against some other prophets, that God was a clear presence and partner in this foreign land. They not only engaged a project of social reconstruction (creating a viable community), but they also shaped a collection of theological texts that are astounding. The earliest (Jewish) Christians also had a social construction work to do. How were they to embody what they received from Jesus, including the reiterated narratives of the Hebrew texts, in an environment that was not neutral? They faced sanctions from some Jewish leaders and increasingly drew the ire of the Roman Empire. Regarding their relationship with the empire, they adopted what was minimally ambiguous language, but which could be understood as provocative—political words, economic words, military words.11 The earliest church practices dealt with reforming their relationships. Following the Pentecost event, believers around Jerusalem continued with their Jewish prayers, gathered often in homes for meals and discourse about the apostles’ teachings, and shared their resources (Acts 2:41–47). They addressed economic matters in relational terms (shared meals) and also in structural changes (an organized food bank; Acts 6). Paul’s letters always encourage very practical, tangible activities. The gospel is not to remain in memories and images but is to be embodied in daily practices and lifelong pursuits. The chaos of Corinthian worship is to be reshaped into appropriate forms that allow real freedom while demonstrating adequate order. Also, their discourse and manners were to be reshaped to overcome divisions. These letters feature numerous steps dealing with personal activities, community practices, and the ongoing work of appropriately defining themselves in the context of a pluralistic society. They would see beyond themselves—to care about the poor in Palestine, the servants in Caesar’s household, or the missional teams that sacrificed on behalf of the churches. What personal and communal practices would help them love each other and their neighbors? What worship activities might center them in the message and power of the reign of God? What commitments and behaviors would disallow either fatalistic passivity or urbane cynicism (which were known in their society and in ours)? The innovation phase needs to be nourished by the original data and by ongoing Appreciative Inquiry–style feedback. To the Corinthians, he notes

En g a g in g Script u r e



71

that his visit will allow him to see how generous they are with their offerings for the poor around Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16). This follow-up is not primarily a work of enforcement (although accountability is important), but a way to keep the discourse open, track the cohesion between intentions and consequences, and continually revisit the most life-giving narratives. ENGAGING SCRIPTURE DURING AI

When churches reflect on biblical passages throughout the Appreciative Inquiry process, the quality of conversations, interpretive work, and courageous imaginative experiments can be made more wise and faithful. We will suggest schedules that include reflective work with scriptures in part III. This section will provide an overview of potential passages and approaches. Because AI is participatory (sanctioning numerous, diverse voices) it is most consistent with approaches that engage scripture in reflective, conversational manners. Frequently, I have experienced lectio divina as an engaging and inspiring approach for churches looking for new imagination and motivation.12 In a format that we frequently use, each person has the passage on a sheet of paper (for notes), and the steps include: (1) two persons reading a selected passage aloud twice; (2) a silent time for participants to reread the passage several times while being aware of ways the Holy Spirit prompts their attention or how their curiosity is raised; (3) dyads that allow each person to explain what got their attention, while always listening very carefully to their partner; (4) a small group of four to eight where each person presents what their partner said; (5) the group discussing common elements that connect the various contributions; (6) then someone at each table reports to the whole room some highlights of their conversation. There are benefits when summaries are listed on newsprint or a whiteboard, so they are visible as the group’s work proceeds. Usually these steps require thirty to sixty minutes, depending on the passage and ways that groups and the leader focus the work. We tend to allow time for lectio at least once in every meeting and two to three times during a daylong session. During the initial, orienting sessions, reflective work on Philippians 4:8 is often engaging and helpful: “Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” The lectio process itself signals that all voices

72

C hapt e r 3

are important and that listening (to scripture, to the Holy Spirit, to each other, to the small group, and to the room) is essential. Even before the group engages the theory or practice of AI, this passage begins to shape the environment. Returning to this passage throughout a process is usually fruitful. Because I am often consulting with churches that have lost significant connections with their surrounding neighborhoods (other than through programmed service activities), Luke 10:1–12 is the passage that I most frequently engage.13 At later stages of the process, I have worked with Jeremiah 29:1–7. When a church is exploring the work of leaders and congregants to hear God’s call, Exodus 2:23–3:10 has helped draw us into valuable conversations. For connections between God’s initiatives (through the Holy Spirit), diverse neighbors, and day-by-day living that is both quotidian and sanctified, all of Acts 2 is promising (though I usually omit Peter’s sermon, with a comment that Hebrew texts were informing the chapter), or the later verses (Acts 2:37–47) can be a shorter text for shaping experiments. The relationship between a church’s treatment of one another in relationship to life among neighbors receives attention in Ephesians 4, especially verses 11–16.14 The frequent participatory work of reflecting on biblical texts during the process will shape an environment that is more likely to hear God’s voice. Other congregational options, during regular church activities that continue while AI is being implemented, include teaching and preaching series, especially if contributions from the inquiries can be included. Some of the biblical references noted throughout this chapter may be engaged. In more general ways, gatherings (worship, education, meetings, studies, various groups) and media (websites, newsletters, distributed e-mails) can institute practices of gratitude with stories, biblical passages, and other forms of mutual encouragement. The overall goal is to let gratefulness increase and scripture speak throughout the congregation.

4

Shaping a People through Appreciative Questions Initiate, Inquire

Imagine yourself in a church leaders’ meeting, and the informal questions indicate various concerns: “Why don’t more youth come to worship?” “What are we going to do about declining income?” “Do you know what our pastor does all week?” While this may appear to be unbiased research, such questions are not neutral. These questions are oriented around perceived deficits, based on a belief that the church should focus on fixing various problems. Even some apparently neutral research questions are, in practice, deficit questions: “How does the racial composition of your congregation compare with the surrounding neighborhoods?” “What is indicated in the congregation’s ten-year trends in membership and worship attendance?” “How do current contributions compare with earlier decades as a percentage of family income?” Answers to such questions may provide helpful information if the congregational environment is hopeful and healthy, and if there is clarity about essentials. It is more common that such a deficit-based approach parallels “piling on” in sports—just more weight on an already downed player. As the Mission Assessment Committee of First Presbyterian Church, Altadena, began its work, such deficit questions were common. These informal conversations reflected the sidewalk conversations at the church. There were wounds from the previous pastor’s departure, both from grieving and from 73

74

C hapt e r 4

intense disagreements. Most members were over age seventy, and the lack of younger families indicated a continuing decline in membership. More discouraging, some families were leaving for other churches. Because our task was to prepare documents that would support the search for a new pastor, there was an unspoken assumption that we needed to find someone who could fix the problems. The assumed method, then, would be to identify our greatest needs, form a job description around those needs, and then find that person. As noted in chapter 2, Appreciative Inquiry works with a whole different set of assumptions and expectations. The church leaders were forced into this time of change because of a pastor’s departure. This event set in motion a series of activities, framed by denominational requirements. Change always requires information, and that need to gather and interpret data forces the first, critical decision: Would we focus on obstacles, dysfunctions, and deficits, or would we focus on generative qualities, successful events, and positive narratives? In AI, the first process is “choose the positive as the focus of inquiry.” After the committee’s basic introduction to AI and the initial experience of interviewing each other, the group committed itself to a radical direction: we would develop questions and seek information about the life-giving forces of the congregation. In making this choice, we did not assume that AI was going to displace all other research or formative activities. We were not to close our eyes to historic trends, demographics, or the ministry challenges brought by an aging congregation. Nor would we consider ourselves ahistorically—isolated from the narratives of scripture and tradition. We were approaching the larger questions about change with a particular appreciative framework. Since we believed that God had been a gracious presence, it was important for us to locate the signs of God’s grace in our stories and in the listening that would prepare us to more faithfully engage God in the present context. We knew we would need to do some serious work on our ecclesiology—some earlier assumptions and priorities were no longer adequate. We also knew we were facing significant changes concerning cultural identity, generational changes, and our place in the surrounding communities. So we anticipated teaching and preaching that would connect our narratives with scripture and tradition. But, like Paul in those epistles, we decided to frame our work with thanks. Our committee followed the “4-I Model,” which was introduced in chapter 2: Initiate, Inquire, Imagine, Innovate.1 This model is especially helpful when

Shapin g a P e o pl e thr o u g h A ppr e ciativ e Q u e s ti o n s



75

there is a need to prepare leaders and build structures for carrying out the research. This chapter will explain the first two steps in the 4-I Model: Initiate and Inquire. Steps three and four—Imagine and Innovate—will receive attention in chapter 5. INITIATE

The Initiate phase includes the information and experiences that a group needs prior to a rollout of the process with the church (table 4.1). Table 4.1  Initiate Initiate Lay foundations Determine the research focus Form the generic questions Create initial strategies for the project

First, for basic foundations, the committee received an introduction to AI, including an experience with some generic questions (see chapter 1). Later, we led the same process with the church elders. These presentations included an initial experience of interviews and group discussion that used general questions about best stories of church life, a mini-lecture on some assumptions of AI, a discussion of some biblical passages that focus on gratefulness, and the creation of an outline of the overall process (comparing the five required processes with the four “I” steps). (This presentation and others are outlined more fully in chapter 6.) These sessions are good opportunities for lectio divina, perhaps using Philippians 4:8. Second, the committee discussed the topical focus. Because we were commissioned to provide a report to the church concerning priorities for hiring a new senior pastor, we might have focused just on leadership or on pastoral staff. However, because our initial experience with generic questions had been so encouraging, and because the required report was to be an assessment of the congregation (not just leadership), we decided on a broad topic: “congregational life and ministry.” Third, the committee crafted interview questions. In preparation, we worked with all of the answers that committee members had given to the first set of three general questions. We clustered the themes that had surfaced and created some additional generic questions around those themes. In writing questions, the goal is that each question has a single focus, even if there are a

76

C hapt e r 4

couple of angles in the query. So a question about experiences in education or prayer may ask for a reference point of some kind (“remember a time when . . . ”) and some elements (“How did you feel?” or “Who was involved?” or “What were some results of that experience?”). After several experiments within the committee, the initial set of questions was prepared (see table 4.2). Four types of questions should be crafted. (1) The beginning question is a large one, seeking to draw the person into the most encouraging and motivating memories. This opening question elicits an interviewee’s best church experience. (2) Then several questions pursue values—those elements that the person believes are most important concerning the church and the interviewee’s own involvement in the church. (3) A summary question then tries to surface the most important core values of the church. This question should get to the heart of what is unique and essential. (4) A final question explores futures by generating images. It is important to ask for wishes and images rather than to ask, “What should we do?” or “What do you think we ought to change?” Consistent with AI, we are creating futures, not fixing problems. Table 4.2.  Initial Questions 1. Reflecting on your entire experience at our church, remember a time when you felt the most engaged, alive, and motivated. Who was involved? What did you do? How did it feel? What happened? 2A. What are the most important contributions the church has made to your life? Tell me when this happened. Who made a difference? How did it affect you? 2B. Don’t be humble; this is important information: What are the most valuable ways you contribute to our church—your personality, your perspectives, your skills, your activities, your character? Give me some examples. 2C. When have you known the most significant spiritual growth for yourself and the church? When were you growing as a disciple? Think about lessons about beliefs or steps of faith. Tell me how this has happened. What made a difference? Who was most helpful? 3. What are the essential, central characteristics or ways of life that make our church unique? 4. Make three wishes for the future of our church. Describe what the church would look like as these wishes come true.

In reflecting on our overall process at First Presbyterian, Altadena, we have noted ways we could have improved those questions. (1) In the “values” questions (number 2) we wanted responses that were personal, but we could

Shapin g a P e o pl e thr o u g h A ppr e ciativ e Q u e s ti o n s



77

have also sought more of a corporate sense—such as insights into “our” spirituality. The other questions did generate such corporate perspectives. (2) By deciding to include a specific values question about spirituality, but not about other essentials like mission or education or worship, we lost the opportunity to gain some valuable data. The models in tables 4.3 and 4.4 take this into account. (3) Our search for a “core value” (number 3) missed an obvious caveat: as a Japanese American church, responses to what was “unique” were too predictable. I will suggest a way around this, below. Another way to craft an initial set of questions would be to specify themes for the value questions (table 4.3). For example, three questions could focus on our relationships—with God, with each other, and with our neighbors/ world. In all question sets, I believe that one value question should still seek the interviewee’s own personal contributions. A set concerning relationships could be introduced by the statement, “I’m going to ask you about the best aspects of our church concerning how we relate to God, to each other, and to our neighbors and the world beyond the church.” Table 4.3.  Values Questions about Relationships 2A. When you consider all of your experiences at our church, what has contributed most to how we relate to God? This question is about both the congregation’s and your own attention, awareness, practices, and responsiveness to God’s presence and promptings. Tell me what has made a difference and how that has happened. 2B. What are the healthiest, most life-giving aspects of the relationships among people at our church? What would you say is most important about how we relate to each other? Give me some examples of how we live together at our best. 2C. When you think about how our church has related to our neighbors and to the world, what do you think has been most important? When we are at our best, how do we express God’s love and mercy and justice to others? What have been your own most important experiences in relating to others beyond our own church? 2D. Don’t be humble; this is important information: What are the most valuable ways you contribute to our church personally—your personality, your perspectives, your skills, your activities, your character? Give me some examples.

Or, value questions could focus on primary ministry areas—leading to inquiries about worship, the congregation’s social health, and mission (table 4.4). An introductory statement could begin, “I’m going to ask you about your experiences in several areas of our church’s core ministries, including worship, fellowship, and mission.”

78

C hapt e r 4

Table 4.4.  Value Questions about Ministry Areas 2A. What are the most valuable aspects of our congregation’s worship? In worship experiences at our church, what do you believe has been most significant in drawing us to love God and to love our neighbors? Describe those times when we are most engaged in and shaped by worship. 2B. Concerning our life together, the ministries and activities that nurture our fellowship, what experiences characterizes us at our best? How would you describe those times when you have seen Christian behaviors and qualities that have increased the congregation’s social health, faithfulness, love, and unity? 2C. In all of the ways we connect with our neighbors in the local community, the nation, and the world, what do you believe are the most important and meaningful elements of our church’s outreach? Since God loves the world and is already engaged with our neighbors (and world), describe those times when you believe the church was most faithful in listening, learning, and participating with God’s love. 2D. Don’t be humble; this is important information: What are the most valuable ways you contribute to our church’s ministry—your personality, your perspectives, your skills, your activities, your character? Give me some examples.

As noted above, the question that seeks the most important core value (number 3) can be problematic. When we asked for a characteristic that was unique to us, the church’s ethnic identity was the obvious answer. The congregation was begun as an outreach to Japanese immigrants, and it continued to be integral to the larger Japanese American community. Other churches might respond with other identity-based answers—location, denomination, even social class. Even though those traits are essential to the congregation’s values, I believe the research is more helpful if something less obvious is surfaced. This can be accomplished by acknowledging the social identity in the framing of the question. Better questions would have been: “Other than the importance of our Japanese heritage, what do you think is the most important, life-giving characteristic of our church? When we are at our best, what is the single most important value that makes our church unique?” The work of crafting questions is critical—it has a direct relationship to the quality of the data for the entire experience. The questions are intended to foster conversations, so the interviewee does not need to keep strictly to the wording. Questions should be written so that they help interviewees remember experiences of the church at its best. You want stories, and you want to learn what made those stories possible. A church should use its own normal language while being careful to not restrict responses by terms that

Shapin g a P e o pl e thr o u g h A ppr e ciativ e Q u e s ti o n s



79

are too limiting. Each question should be tested with several persons so you can rewrite it to be effective. We learned that participants appreciated it when we put questions in a church’s media, such as a newsletter, general e-mail, or on a website; this helps participants think about their responses prior to the interviews. (A more complete interview protocol will be explained in the “Inquire” section.) After we crafted the questions, we developed a strategy that we proposed to the session. Even though we had been commissioned to do research on behalf of the congregation, we decided to pursue the session’s specific authorization for AI interviews. This decision was based on several factors, notably the number of interviews we would be doing and our desire that the whole church know we were working with the full endorsement of church leaders. We knew from AI theory that questions actually change the church, so it was important that the elders understand how this was happening. Also, we wanted session members to experience AI and to join us in conducting the interviews. The strategy included a timeline that set out three goals: interviews (July and August), initial interpretive work (September), then committee work on crafting the final report (October). We began discussing how we would determine who would be interviewed, based on the sociological categories we had developed. We created a presentation for the session, including handouts on AI, an interview experience with our basic questions, and an invitation for them to join us for three evenings of interpretive work. As described in chapter 1, this meeting created new enthusiasm and a full buy-in by session members. They agreed to help conduct interviews and welcomed our invitation to participate in the interpretive work. INQUIRE

The guiding team’s work during the Inquiry is that of shaping and managing the interviews and the gathering of the resulting data. This is in preparation for the later interpretive work that leads to imagined possible futures. This is also a time of increasing anticipation and energy in the church as the interviews create conversations and those conversations spread informally through the congregation (table 4.5).

80

C hapt e r 4

Table 4.5.  Inquire Finalize the interview questions Develop an interview protocol Select interviewees Assign and prepare interviewers Conduct the interviews Gather the data

We had been testing and revising the questions in the context of the meeting with the session and ongoing committee meetings. The final questions are provided, above. Even though interviews were to be conducted by committee members and elders, all of whom had already experienced an interview, we decided to create a form with important instructions. The set of instructions in table 4.6 would remind each interviewer how to proceed. Table 4.6.  Interview Instructions Start with brief notes about your interviewee—name, groups in which he or she participates, when he or she joined the church. Let your interviewee(s) know that we are looking for the strengths and best stories of the church. We know God has been present and active, and we want to name times when we have been aware of God’s graces. Emphasize, “Your experiences are important—your voice is needed as we gather stories.” You are asking for stories. This sets the tone for the interview. Probe like you are really interested—ask extra questions about who was involved; when it happened; why it was important; what it felt like. You want to know the actions (who did what and the consequences) as well as the thoughts and values behind the story (or why it was memorable). You can participate in this conversation, bring in your own memories, have fun, as long as you focus on what the interviewee has to say. We are not doing problem solving; but we still want people to know we are listening. If negative information arises, see if you can reform the statement. (If someone begins to complain about the building or some church activities, you could say, “What do you remember about when the church did that differently?” Or you could say, “My last question has to do with what you wish for the church. I’m going to make a note so we can talk about your concerns then.”) As you receive the answers, make notes about specific stories while you also try to find generalizations about the church. What worked well in the church? What was exciting? What about the church set the conditions for this answer? Remember, we are trying to learn about the strengths of the congregation—its history, its spiritual life, its ministry and mission. Help your interviewee reflect on the organizational strengths and beliefs that help the church flourish. “Tell me more about . . . ” Do not worry about being systematic. As you follow the questions, make notes about what you think that person believes is most important. You can put responses under whatever question you think it best fits. At times, check out your notes (you could say, for example, “You appreciated the fall festival because it was great being in the middle of so many friends who regathered and enjoyed each other”). We will create common themes later—your notes can be free-flowing.

Shapin g a P e o pl e thr o u g h A ppr e ciativ e Q u e s ti o n s



81

The guiding team needs to make decisions about interviewers and interviewees. A church could decide to interview everyone, active members only, or some subset. We had agreed that we were only pursuing a first stage of AI for the church. We would recommend to the elders that more work be done after this initial round. We had an immediate task with a deadline (filing a report with the denomination), so we decided to pursue about forty interviews (about a third of the active members). This decision forced us to discuss various means of achieving some type of representativeness. (In part III of this book, we will note other methods for interviewing—like large church gatherings and sequences of focus groups.) Our committee had already proposed seven sociological groups based on historical, generational, and cultural traits (see chapter 1 under “Creating the Interviewee List”). We did not weigh the groups equally; rather, we tried to balance our values for wide participation, a variety of perspectives, and a special appreciation for the seniors, who were the majority. After receiving approval from the church session, the committee went back to work listing persons in each of the sociological categories. We could include all committee and session members because we had already participated in interviews. We were conscious of the increasing ethnic variety, differing levels of commitment, and diverse perspectives. The committee then matched each interviewee with a committee member or elder. As assignments were listed, we gave attention to which interviewer would be most effective with each interviewee. Because we did not want any member of the church to feel excluded, we agreed that an article in the church newsletter would welcome volunteer interviewees. Even though this did not surface additional persons, we believe it helped sustain goodwill. This newsletter article also explained the entire process and noted that research would continue after this first phase. Also, we decided how we would schedule and conduct the group interviews with youth members. An elder offered to host these meetings and include a meal. We also created a list of optional interviewees in case some persons were unavailable. Ideally, the interviewers would be trained, using the instructions developed in table 4.6. We did this in the committee, but the session was not available for another meeting. As an alternative, we distributed the instructions and questionnaire to the session, encouraging them to read

82

C hapt e r 4

them carefully. The interview forms had blanks for names at the top, these instructions, and each of the questions with space for notes. These forms were to be turned in to a member of the pastoral staff, who recorded all of the data on a computer.2 A church’s guiding team needs to decide if confidentiality is important; if so, columns would be identified only by sociological categories. We had decided that, for this initial phase, confidentially might help participants be more candid. We set a deadline of six weeks, and even with some hesitations about getting such a large task done during summer months, we required only one additional week to complete the task. The staff person provided continual reminders to interviewers, recorded data as it was submitted, and kept the committee informed of the progress. Initial Interviews

As the rollout continued, the committee read some of the early interviews. The first general question brought memories of regathering after the internment. “After the war, we had to start from scratch. As families regathered, every room in our church was full. We were working to help everyone find housing and get jobs.” This was a time when the church was profoundly occupied in receiving back its own members and reaching out to many other Japanese Americans in the community. Others noted the challenge that Jim had mentioned in our initial trial experience about the time the church lost its property to a highway project. What might have been a discouraging and stressful event became the source of great generosity and hope. “This was a whole new start for us. The loss of our building meant we had to talk with our neighbors (non-Christian Japanese Americans) about our situation. We already had good relationships because the church had done so much for others after the war. We were very encouraged by how fast we were successful in raising the money.” Others spoke of how the church reached out to others, often connecting this to their own times of immigration. “Our pastor helped us work with a Native American family that needed some basic assistance. Also, we adopted a Vietnamese refugee family.” Others were most encouraged by some ministries that had continued for years: “I like it when we raise money for work with the homeless, helping them get job training and find housing. We also

Shapin g a P e o pl e thr o u g h A ppr e ciativ e Q u e s ti o n s



83

help cook meals regularly at a transition center.” Others commented on local and international mission efforts that still created large participation. Primary spiritual experiences included memories of prayer times in the homes of Issei (first generation), the importance of certain Sunday school teachers, and the annual twenty-four-hour prayer vigil. One elder commented on the powerful impact of his daughter’s spiritual experiences. Many noted the strength and steadfastness of being surrounded by many Christian friends. This is especially notable in an ethnic environment where so many are Buddhists. A single parent said, “The church had helped me raise my boys. We have received very practical, personal support.” Many others specified times when church friends provided care, support, friendship, and encouragement. Committee Reflections

So much of this information describes “normal church life.” While there were a few more spectacular events, most of the stories were about years of faithfulness, work, friendship, and spiritual nurture. But what made a difference was that these stories had been lost in the hurts, discouragement, and weariness of recent years, and now they were being resurfaced. We were impressed that there was a growing, generative impact from these conversations. As social construct theory teaches, we live in the reality we create with our words—so the church’s reality was changing as interviews proceeded. The theory of simultaneity teaches that change is concurrent with research—and we were witnessing that change as expectations about meetings, ministries, and futures were being reworked even in the earliest stages of the process. The content and energy of the interviews seemed to seep into everything. Formal and informal settings began to be reshaped by the themes and the positiveness of the research. People would informally ask about each other’s interviews, stories were repeated, and there was a sense of anticipation concerning what all this was leading to. Our monthly potluck lunches, a major venue for our social life, were abuzz with the stories that were surfacing in the research. The conversations taking place during the annual fall festival, held each September, had the content and affect of anticipation. This sense of life, of hopefulness, was beginning to displace the more subdued atmosphere we had experienced six months previously.3 Now we were ready for the three scheduled interpretive sessions.

5

Provoking Creative Change Imagine, Innovate

The five processes explained in chapter 2 are carried out with the “4-I” steps of Initiate, Inquire, Imagine, and Innovate. Chapter 4 explained and illustrated Initiate and Inquire. This chapter continues with Imagine and Innovate. These steps are expressions of processes three, four, and five: “locate themes that appear in the stories,” “create shared images for a preferred future,” and “find innovative ways to create that future.”1 The Missions Assessment Committee continued meeting as a large amount of data accumulated. Our own new interview experiences, the accumulating data, and conversations we were having with others continued to give us energy. We set up three Tuesday evenings to begin interpreting the data. We reissued our earlier invitation to the session elders to join us. We knew this was a demanding schedule, and we made it clear that these sessions were strictly for AI work, rather than other business or votes. Since the church had been having difficulty recruiting members to offices and tasks, we did not know who would be interested in this interpretive work. IMAGINE

The Imagine phase includes the movement from interview data (and the resulting informal buzz) toward a new future (table 5.1). Watkins, Mohr, and 85

86

C hapt e r 5

Table 5.1.  Imagine Collate and share the interview data Interpret the data to find key themes Deciding themes for initial focus Develop “provocative proposals” concerning possible futures

Kelly emphasize that “This process, heliotropic in nature, encourages the organization to turn toward images of what gives life and, through continuing dialogue, to assure that a future is built on those themes and images.”2 A church needs to decide who is involved in each stage of the AI processes. There are advantages to large participation—perhaps a daylong process or a series of gatherings that are open to the entire membership. (These options are discussed in part III.) However, because of our timeline, we decided to limit the interpretive work to the committee and the elders. There would be other opportunities for additional research and interpretive activities with broader involvement. Throughout the weeks of interviewing, a staff person was tracking progress, collecting questionnaires, prompting delinquents, and entering data on a computer. This large computer table had the questions down the left side (so each question had a row on the table) and a column for each interviewee. The data table included key themes, words, and historical references. Since we had told interviewees that their names would not be used, we coded the materials for reference (in case we needed to follow up on some data), then we used the sociological categories to identify each person (table 5.2). The entries in table 5.2 provide summary data from several interviews. These answers are all abbreviated—actual answers were usually three to four sentences, sometimes longer. Because this is a fairly small and stable church, there is a large foundation of shared memories and references. We noticed that interviewees had often written brief responses, indicating that certain events or ideas were known by everyone. The adequacy of summarized data is determined by the capacity of the interpreting group to understand references. Even an initial reading of the three responses in the table indicates important strengths of the church. The social cohesion, linked to respondents’ ethnic roots, is strong. Several events (festivals, suppers) appear significant for the church’s adults as well as for nonmembers and for the next generation. Spirituality is nurtured in a variety of ways. Also, belonging and meaning are often connected in institutional structures—holding offices, doing tasks. These and other themes appeared as the interpretive work proceeded.

Youth

Summers at beach, playing games, Fall Festival, softball every Sun, relaxing w/other kids, singing in service, and Sunday School.

At special events—help deacons set up tables, work at chicken dinners, fall festival, work in booths; I moderate worship service, and try to be available for things like VBS.

The church helps us get in touch with Japanese roots; we became Christians through the help of pastors and adults; we learned morals and values; live music in worship.

Worship service is the one time we are all involved, everyone singing; family and youth church camps; (some of us) are still searching for what we believe.

Routine—nothing changes (except now we pass mics for announcements); mostly older Japanese culture, deep tradition; our buildings look Japanese, we have some praise songs.

1. More ways for youth to be involved. 2. More group activities for youth group. 3. Combine activities with other churches. 4. Better sermons that involve youth.

Questions

1. Reflecting on your entire experience at our church, remember a time you felt most alive, motivated, excited about your involvement. Describe circumstances and your involvement.

2A. What are the most valuable ways you contribute to our church—your personality, perspectives, skills, activities?

2B. What are the most important ways our church has contributed to your life?

2C. What have been the most important spiritual experiences, lessons in belief, or steps of faith that have occurred for you at our church?

3. What are the essential, central characteristics or ways of life that make our church unique?

4. Make 3 wishes for the future of our church.

Table 5.2.  Research Data

1. Want church to grow in Spirit and be more mission minded toward community and world. 2. Better ministry to young families and elderly. 3. Growth toward multiethnicity as well as Japanese.

Consistency of church membership for many decades, mostly Japanese, but have adapted to becoming somewhat multiethnic, including other Asians and some African Americans.

I’ve had a sequence of experiences including membership vows, being an elder and Sunday school teacher, each phase deepening my faith; not necessarily a “born again” experience.

This has been a place of spiritual growth, reminding me that God is our Creator; he has provided so abundantly; helps us pass practices to children.

Serve as elder; I’m a good listener, encourager, teacher, counselor.

Rev Toriumi was excited about Native American family and Vietnamese refugees. We “adopted” a family, so many of us were involved.

Source

Categories

1. Ongoing (Japanese speaking) activities. 2. More volunteers gladly serving church (not obligatory service just through appointment). 3. Times and places for families to have fellowship together.

Unique Japanese atmosphere is disappearing; I don’t know 1/3 of people; sometimes now it hardly feels like my church.

Strangely, funerals are a blessing, since the gathering of friends reminds me of the blessing of being a Christian; I also liked retreats and conferences with other Japanese churches.

Christ and his church are the foundation of my life.

I have served as a deacon and elder, worked on the newsletter, did lots of crafts with the women’s group. I’ll stay involved as long as I’m healthy.

Issei members provided strong support after we came in 1956. They understood us and were good friends.

Japanese-speaking

88

C hapt e r 5

Managing the Data

Management of the interview data is often a challenge. Appreciative Inquiry is not about quantifying results or identifying consensus. Rather, it is an imaginative, holistic, generative process that builds as participants name, link, and find compelling threads throughout the interviews. In preparation for the work of interpreting the data in search of themes, the interview responses are organized so that each set is an accumulation of answers to a single question. For example, all the data for interview question 1 is a set. Ideally each table has a full set of the data for each question that is being worked on in the interpretive session, and there are four to eight people at each table. If the body of data is large, then each table may only read a portion of the full set of data. The approaches here assume that a minimum of four people read each interview for the interpretive work. Several factors govern how the data is distributed among tables and participants: the quantity of data, the number of persons participating in the interpretive process, and the time segments allowed. If answers are very brief, then a person participating in the interpretive work might need about onehalf minute per interviewee response; longer answers would require closer to a minute. The goal is to allow time to read reflectively and to have some additional time to consider threads and especially compelling interviews in preparation for the table discussion. Another factor is the number of interviews each person is reading. A participant reading a set of fifteen interviews and looking for common themes and impressions will need more time than a participant doing that with a set of eight interviews. (See part III for more details.) Here are some examples: Example 1 ■■

80 interviews for question number 1

■■

20 participants for the interpretive session

■■

4 tables of 5 people per table

■■

Each table gets a full set of 80 interviews

■■

Each person receives 16 interviews (80 interviews/5 people)

■■

16 minutes allows reflective reading

■■

Each person reports to the table group

■■

Table discussion and whole-room discussion proceed

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



89

Example 2 ■■

80 interviews for question number 1

■■

8 participants for the interpretive session

■■

2 tables of 4 people per table

■■

Each table gets a full set of 80 interviews

■■

Each person receives 20 interviews (80 interviews/4 people)

■■

20 minutes allows for reflective reading

■■

Table discussion and whole-room discussion proceed

Example 3 ■■

200 interviews for question number 1

■■

64 participants for the interpretive session

■■

8 tables of 8 people per table

■■

Split the 200 interviews into 2 sets of 100 and make 4 copies

■■

Each table receives a set of 100 (half) of the interviews

■■

Each person receives 12 or 13 interviews (100 interviews/8 people)

■■

13 minutes allows for reflective reading

■■

Table discussion and whole-room discussion proceed

Finding Themes

We began the three interpretive sessions with reminders about AI assumptions and then asked for general comments on the interviewing experiences. A notable energy and enthusiasm pervaded the sessions. Some commented on the stories they heard. Others voiced how good it felt to be talking about such important things with other members. One elder commented, “I couldn’t believe how quickly my interviewee thought of good things.” Another said, “I think sometimes we’ve been too pessimistic.” This set us up for how Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly describe this step: “The process of absorbing and digesting data is one that allows people to take it all in and to react to the messages and meaning in ways that move the organization in the direction of the combined positive energy of the members. It is more about creating synergy than about consensus.”3 We passed out a complete set of the data to everyone and asked them to take fifteen to twenty minutes to look for major themes, repeated ideas, and compelling responses in questions 1 and 2.

90

C hapt e r 5

1. Reflecting on your entire experience at First Presbyterian Church of Altadena, remember a time when you felt most engaged, alive, and motivated. Who was involved? What did you do? How did it feel? What happened? 2A. What are the most important contributions the church has made to your life? Tell me when this happened. Who made a difference? How did it affect you? 2B. Don’t be humble; this is important information: What are the most valuable ways you contribute to our church—your personality, your perspectives, your skills, your activities, your character? Give me some examples. 2C. When have you known the most significant spiritual growth for yourself and the church? When were you growing as a disciple? Think about lessons about beliefs or steps of faith. Tell me how this has happened. What made a difference? Who was most helpful?

After this time of reading, we asked everyone to compare notes in small groups and to record three to five compelling themes on sheets of newsprint. A theme is an idea or concept about what is present in the stories that people report are the times of greatest excitement, creativity, and reward. Selected themes do not need to be something that several persons noted; rather, the group is recording any theme that resonated with others. For example, in many stories you may hear that when the topic covered by the question is at its best, people report “a feeling of success” or “clarity about purpose” or “fun and excitement.” These phrases led us to themes.4 As groups began posting their themes around the room, the buzz volume increased. I began using colored markers to connect themes that appeared on more than one group’s paper. We initially found nine themes, so a separate sheet was created for each one. I asked if anyone thought we were omitting a major life-giving story or factor in the church’s life. A few items were explored, but all of them fit well under the initial nine themes. Next we drew comments from the newsprint summaries and from our discussion as we filled out the ways each theme encapsulated some life-giving force in the congregation. Some themes were limited to singularly important events in the church’s life, others were traits or characteristics, still others were annual events. The

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



91

following abbreviated notes show how the group was beginning to interpret the data. This first sorting effort needs to take advantage of how participants name qualities and experiences differently, so there is no need to push for common articulation; rather, just enjoy the variety and the overlap. “The process of absorbing and digesting the data is one that allows people to take it all in and to react to the messages and meaning in ways that move the organization in the direction of the combined positive energy of the members. It is more about creating synergy than about consensus.”5 1. Return from internment (the church provided spiritual, practical, and social resources; several white churches provided assistance; a realtor helped with houses and was criticized by others; there was great bonding because of the shared experience and the common needs; focus was on helping families become reestablished). 2. Forced relocation of the church from Pasadena to Altadena (great teamwork at fundraising; capacity to have a big vision; facing a large challenge together; empowerment as an ethnic minority as the church members and the larger Japanese American community were successful together; reaffirmation of the importance of congregational life). 3. Annual feasts (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, spring chicken dinner; connects church to the larger Japanese American community; family oriented; lots of people; hard work done together; creates an annual rhythm). 4. Outreach events (regular activities like the annual CROP walk6 and serving meals at Union Station, an interfaith ministry providing various resources for the homeless; plus earlier unique events like sponsoring a Vietnamese refugee family and providing resources for a Native American family; opportunities for working together, connecting with the community, and a having a sense of meaningful Christian ministry). 5. Annual twenty-four-hour prayer watch (begun only five years ago, held in the sanctuary with a table featuring requests, a journal for recording prayers and thoughts; great sense of caring about the needs in the church and in the world; some families come together to pray; provides many with a significant spiritual sense of intimacy with God). 6. Times of working together, whether events, facility upkeep, missional outreach, or meeting the needs of church members (these side-by-side labors7 create social cohesion, allow for intergenerational conversations, and give a sense of accomplishment).

92

C hapt e r 5

7. Sports activities and recreation (create intergenerational bonding, a sense of inclusion for some who are not as involved in the church, and just good fun). 8. Bible study groups, teaching, and sermons (which brought new understanding, personal spiritual growth, deeper relationships, awareness of the Holy Spirit, a “longing” for God). 9. Personal and family spiritual growth (rooted in long-term commitment of early families to the church, networks of church friendships, encouragement toward personal relationships with God, various opportunities for study and prayer).

Notice that some themes are events, some are qualities, some are resources. The first two themes were very common in the data. These two time periods were deeply formative of the church’s identity. As specific references were made, the room would become a place of corporate storytelling. In voices and body language, the struggles, the people, and the successes were recalled. Numerous values surfaced—many that were apparent in the church today. These people are survivors; they have met serious hardships and in those difficulties have grown a faith community. There were times of deep generosity and interdependence. The resettlement story (mid-1940s) revealed important partnerships with white churches and individuals. In the story of relocating the church (mid-1960s), they again met a huge challenge through hard work, sacrifice, and vision. The historic relationship this congregation built with others, notably the Japanese Americans of the surrounding communities, is visible today in the large turnouts at the annual events—especially the fall festival. This worshiping congregation of about one hundred attracts hundreds of others to these events. This link between historic congregational events and ongoing annual events was profoundly revealing for many of us who were new. We wondered where everyone came from and how these events came off so efficiently and with such large participation. As newcomers, we often did not know how to participate, noting that many of the event leaders were persons we had not met in church, and each occasion seemed like an efficient whirlwind. There were stories behind everything—but those stories were not being told. These events would come to the center of new visioning and planning. Historic events also grounded the church’s missional activities. From its founding about ninety years ago, to the reestablishment phase of the

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



93

mid-1940s, this congregation enjoyed good relationships with a number of white churches. So, when Pasadena churches created ecumenical missional programs (like the transitional shelter for the homeless or the annual CROP walk) members of First Presbyterian very quickly became loyal participants. Also, their own stories of immigration and hardship helped them understand and rally around particular families who were in stressful situations. The few comments around themes of scripture, personal spiritual life, and prayer were harder to clarify. We did not surface anything as concrete as a historic event or clarity about sequences related to spirituality. While interviewees answered the question about spirituality, those answers were often vague. I had been told that this church tended toward a more implicit spirituality instead of an explicit spirituality.8 Since I knew other Japanese Americans who were fairly expressive, I wondered if this was a generational issue. I decided to raise the question of historic grounding in that first interpretation session: “What kind of spirituality did you see in your parents?” As we had learned previously, this brought the stories we needed. I learned that the interpretive conversations allowed leaders the opportunity to surface stories that the questionnaires and interviews missed. One elder got us started, “Our parents used to pray for hours.” Another continued, “Yeah, and not just on Sundays.” The first volunteer resumed, “I remember Wednesday nights. They would go on and on, really loud, too.” So I asked, “What were they praying about?” “We don’t know. We kids didn’t understand Japanese very well.” So I asked what that experience was like for them, having their parents engaged in prayer in a way that excluded them. “I was bored. I think we just got real tired.” Another added, “They were passionate about faith. They really believed!” This was a brief, very animated exchange. We needed to look for ways to enlarge this conversation so we could discover the links between stressful times, spirituality, common practices, and nurturing the faith of children, and how memories might let the church reexamine the power of earlier forms of faith. Clarifying the Themes

For our second interpretive gathering, we left the newsprint around the room and provided the summary list (above). We again gave participants twenty minutes to work with the data, focusing on questions 3 and 4.

94

C hapt e r 5

3. What are the essential, central characteristics or ways of life that make our church unique? 4. Make three wishes for the future of our church. Describe what the church would look like as these wishes come true.

Then in small groups, they combined their discoveries with previous themes or started new themes, writing their work on existing or new sheets. After forty-five minutes, I asked for ways to rearrange, combine, and clarify what we had. The effects of Appreciative Inquiry energy were apparent again in the small groups. Discussion was animated, featuring both careful listening as well as friendly disagreements. Stories were retold, the seniors were being asked lots of questions and seemed to be enjoying the conversations, personal feelings and hopes were spoken, and the large themes began to be reshaped. I began to test observations about what we were discovering. The topics were reworked into five areas: 1. The Nisei (elderly, born in the United States)—their relationships, continuing ministry, unique needs, and the heritage they want to pass on. 2. Major events and committed activities—their roots, meanings (lost or remembered), activities, purposes, “fruit,” and potentials. 3. Spirituality—corporate and personal practices of traditional disciplines including worship, study, prayer, and what is most valued, what forms are most important, and what is fruitful. 4. Younger generations—how faith and faithfulness have been nurtured, the best experiences of younger adults and families with children, and what intergenerational life might look like. 5. Ethnicity—how we might be a church that celebrates our Japaneseness and welcomes and nourishes diversity.

As these summaries were created, always in the midst of a large ongoing conversation, I would keep asking for examples from the data or from the experiences of participants. We heard from two non-Japanese leaders who had married into Japanese families and been at the church for years. They both affirmed how they had felt welcomed and included as they participated in

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



95

church activities and took initiatives in relationships. Ethnic diversity, while not common, was not new. Another spoke of how a group at the church, called “caring cooks,” was at the center of the church’s care for the Nisei. They prepared and delivered meals, and often had conversations that provided opportunities to catch up on news and affirm relationships. This was very significant for those with limited mobility. To prepare for the third session, I asked everyone to reread the data on question 4 (wishes) and see how that might give us insights into these five themes. The committee knew that we needed to return to these five summaries to write careful explanations, but that would take place after we began working on provocative proposals with this larger group. Provocative Proposals

In AI processes, a provocative proposal is an imaginative statement about the future, crafted as if it were already experiential and generative.9 These are not “oughts” or strategic plans or vision statements. Provocative proposals build on the data and engage our corporate imagination. Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly offer this explanation: Collectively envisioning an organization’s future based on its successful past is to weave the web of meaning that endures—continuity, novelty, and transition. To engage in dreaming and envisioning is to invite organization stakeholders to go beyond what they thought was possible. It is a time for them to push the creative edges of possibility and to wonder about their organization’s greatest potential.10

Here is an example, not drawn on our church’s data, that I provided as we began our third interpretive session: Organizational structures: First Church has implemented organizational structures that enhance ministry and mission, deploy and equip members according to their gifts and passions, and nourish respect and mutual growth for all members. Structures are streamlined, responsibilities and authority are clear, leaders and participants learn from each other, and prayerful discernment grounds all decisions.

96

C hapt e r 5

This proposal has one clear focus—the church’s organizational structures. Several values are brought to bear on this topic. These values are expressed as if they were current reality, already being experienced. There are several essential aspects of provocative proposals (see table 5.3).11 Table 5.3.  Qualities of Provocative Proposals Provocative Proposals . . . 1.  are stated in the affirmative, as if already happening 2.  point to real desired possibilities 3.  are based on the data 4.  create new relationships, including intergenerational partnerships 5.  bridge the best of “what is” toward “what might be” 6.  require sanctified imaginations, stretching the status quo by pushing boundaries 7.  necessitate new learning 8.  challenge organizational assumptions and routines

Each of these essentials also indicates potential missteps to be avoided: 1. We easily look toward futures with “oughts” and goals. It is important to avoid words like “should,” “try to,” and “seek to.” Instead, place yourself into the alternative future and describe it. 2. Churches tend to say they want something different but then resist what it takes to create that change. Does the church, or at least this set of leaders, really want this new experience? The process of writing and the power of the words will indicate the level of care and passion. 3. Some may want to invent futures from their own theories and preferences. However, this is not an exercise of disconnected dreaming; rather, it is built on the church’s best generative narratives and characteristics. 4. Churches cannot assume that ideas alone create change. Organizations are held tight by inertia. New life usually comes out of new relational connections, especially across boundaries. Stories, cares, dreams, and work need new synapses, new synergy, and group experiments, thus requiring new relationships. 5. Too often churches attempt change without an adequate understanding of the complex issues, resources, and options they face, especially how the past might resource changes. Provocative proposals stand in the middle of the AI process. At this creative phase we are no longer reporting on our

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



97

past, nor are we yet living the future. But without an adequate and appropriate bridge, that generative future cannot be reached. 6. Even though the proposals are based in previous experiences, they must push beyond previous limits. This brings us back to the earlier saying, “If you keep doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep getting the results you’ve been getting,” indicating that the church must allow the Spirit in the midst of the new discourse to reshape many aspects of the church’s life. 7. Churches too easily assume they already know what they need to know or that their denomination (or theological tradition) has prescribed everything that is important. Maybe some staff persons need additional expertise, but the congregation already has an adequate knowledge base. Appreciative Inquiry, while building on existing knowledge, assumes that the church will need to gain more insights into scripture, traditions, the congregation’s own history, its current context, and the resources that are available for the future. Generative churches, including leaders and all participants, are always learning. 8. Most churches have organizational structures and styles that are left unchallenged, whether inherited from denominational norms or just from years of practice. It is important to create the expectations that existing structures, norms for decision-making, ways of doing business, and authority modes will be changing. David Cooperrider explains how provocative proposals tend to change the entire way an organization functions: What is becoming increasingly clear to me is that if people do great work with [the processes of inquiry and dreaming], then rarely, if ever, do the older command-and-control structures of eras past serve the organization. The new dreams always seem to have outgrown the structures and systems. If we, on an ongoing basis, start sharing propositions emerging in our work, we might begin seeing patterns and connections, images of post-bureaucratic forms where the future is brilliantly interwoven into the texture of the mosaic of all our inquiries.12

At this point in our church’s interpretive work, after providing examples and explaining assumptions, I listed the steps for creating provocative proposals (see table 5.4).

98

C hapt e r 5

Table 5.4. Steps toward Provocative Proposals 1.  Focus on an area of the church’s life and mission. 2.  Locate peak examples. 3. Analyze factors that contributed to the faithfulness/goodness of the church’s life and mission in that specific area. 4.  Extrapolate from the “best of what is/was” to envision “what might be.” 5.  Construct a proposition of what is possible, expressed as if it were already true.

We noted that we had already selected five themes and had begun to consider the church’s best experiences in these areas. Now participants were asked to gather in five groups, each assigned a theme, then go back to the data to find everything they could, in any question, that related to their topic. Then they were to list words, create phrases, or hold up images that could contribute to a provocative proposal for their theme. For example, the group working on the Nisei data began with these phrases for a provocative proposal: “We (the Nisei) are and have been leaders. We have a wealth of experience, commitment, and faithfulness. We impart our stories, commitments, and leadership to younger generations. Congregational life creates a bond that endures. We comfort and support one another in all life’s transitions and losses.” These are helpful images based on the church at its best. Another group worked on cultural issues, providing these notes for a provocative proposal: “Celebrate our diversity; embrace our own self-identity; embrace change; people feel welcome and want to be part of the family (be included, appreciated).” These notes, while needing expansion, headed in the right direction. The group working on “events,” however, being aware of struggles concerning events, focused more on suggested changes. “Need to be re-defined as to purpose, possibly streamlined and clarified. More events, simpler, more participation. Events have an important function in being non-threatening to marginal people and outsiders.” These notes are all from the data and can be woven into a provocative proposal. But the beginning here is not “stated in the positive.” As each of the five groups explained their lists, their oral presentations were far more energizing and engaging than the written statements. We took notes on the conversations and concluded by laying out our next steps. The Mission Assessment Committee would create a small team for each of the five

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



99

themes. These teams, often with participants who were not on the committee, would gather the thematic statements and the initial notes on provocative proposals and then create new documents. Over the next month, first the thematic descriptions then the provocative proposals went through many revisions, often through e-mail, then through the almost weekly meetings. The descriptions and provocative proposals that follow required extensive crafting through repeated iterations of conversations and drafts. This care built a sense of ownership and the proposals continued to spin off experiments for a number of years. I also need to say that in later experiences, I have put less emphasis on crafting such complex, relatively long statements in favor of simpler, short, proactive statements. I believe there are usually advantages in moving more quickly to experiments, and a cluster of thematically related bullet points or phrases is often adequate to spark imagination and innovation. The descriptions we shaped in regard to each theme benefited not only from the AI data but also from additional research. While the interviews were being done, committee members had also acquired additional materials on the congregation’s history and the community’s demographics. We decided to draft a summary of the historic data as background. This would provide a context for the thematic descriptions. Historical Description: Founding, Development, and Challenges As detailed in the historical notes, there are pivotal historical markers that carry meanings for our church: our founding as a Japanese American mission by several Pasadena churches; internment; return and reestablishment; becoming Presbyterian; the move to Altadena; and the more recent emergence of intercultural life. An ecumenical cluster of Caucasian churches not only provided for our founding, but they also helped protect our property during the internment, spoke out forcefully against this government action, brought supplies to us at camps, and helped our return by assisting us with housing and employment (sometimes at great personal sacrifice). Our current participation in local ecumenical missions is rooted in this history. Further, the internment itself has shaped us: Some of us were children in camp, and we remember the playfulness and the relationships, while others of us have carried years of sorrow, shame, and anger over that unjust action. This has made us more aware of the misunderstandings,

100

C hapt e r 5

discrimination, and injustices many others suffer, and it has created the long years of unique mutual caring and support not only among church members but throughout the larger Japanese community. We became Presbyterian when we decided to call Rev. Don Toriumi to be our pastor, and he made this affiliation part of his acceptance. As a result we have been shaped by the structures, relationships, and theology of this denomination. The move to Altadena, forced upon us when we lost land to the freeway construction, is remembered as a time of great generosity in our extended networks and the highly energetic time of designing and building our current facilities. That accomplishment is remembered by the Nisei as a time of unique success. More recently, as out-marriage increased and as the neighborhood demographics changed, we have begun to incorporate persons of other cultures. While many in the church experience sorrow (especially over not having a larger Sansei and Yonsei membership), we are also growing in our capacity to express hospitality and even mutuality as we become more multicultural.

We learned that our constant retelling of the history and our frequent references to various events created more confidence and openness among the seniors. Appreciative Inquiry had given us a way to locate and lift up the generative stories so that the positive environment of our conversations became so nurturing, so healthy, that when some negative realities arose, rather than downward spirals of recriminations and lethargy, we could move back into appreciative stories and imagination. This historic retelling, which was relevant to all the themes, helped establish a common center, a timeline that connected thematic descriptions. The working groups then continued on their assignments. Just as our initial collating of data into nine themes was eventually clarified and restated as five themes, our interpretive and imaginative work took form in a two-part approach to writing. On each theme, we wrote a thematic description that, with attention to the qualities noted above, led to a provocative proposal. Also, we began to give attention to organizational practices, structures, and leadership. The results that follow present five themes as they continued to develop, and one additional statement merged observation and interpretation that functioned as a provocative proposal. All of these statements were refined by the committee. The proposals that emerged are

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



101

presented below in a different order and name the themes slightly differently from above, reflecting the dynamic nature of the process. Event and Activity Orientation After several more hours of considering the data, exploring the church’s history, and trying various rewrites, here is the thematic description that the committee finally approved concerning how the church engages events and activities: Thematic Description: The research data indicate the importance of regularly scheduled events in congregational life. The flow of the year is most evident in these regular events. The meanings of such events vary—some have historic significance, others provide missional outreach, others maintain extensive networks of relationships. To a great extent, belonging to this church is defined by participation in these events: working alongside each other to serve others (quarterly at Union Station), raising money for hunger alleviation (annual CROP walk), or celebrating the church’s extended ethnic ties, having fun, and raising money for the facilities (fall festival). All of these events allow for side-by-side relationships; that is, we share stories and ideas and concerns while we work on a common task. These events also demonstrate a rather amazing congregational talent for planning and effectuating fairly large, complicated events with notable efficiency. Because these events have been repeated for so long (monthly potluck, holiday common meals, annual events) the knowledge about tasks and timetables is part of a corporate memory—to a newcomer it seems like everything just happens and everyone knows one’s role. So these events that are powerfully formative for the church, and which provide a relational style for cooperative service, can be somewhat confusing for newcomers. Unless one receives an invitation, some explanations, insights into roots and reasons, a freedom to make choices, and a sense of deepening relationships, the future potential of these events remains limited.

The closing sentences, probably stated too negatively, came from a number of comments that expressed admiration but also a sense of exclusion. The provocative proposal would need to create an alternative to the current norms. Also, not noted in that description, many seniors had made

102

C hapt e r 5

comments about being worn out and less able to see a viable future. The provocative proposal deals with meanings (including the need for learning), relationships (with each other and the surrounding community), and implementation. As specified above, a provocative proposal is written from the perspective of some future point in time, and as if it were already true. Later I will note how the church began to implement this imagination in the Innovate part of the process. Provocative Proposal: Our worship, relationships, recreation, and mission are woven together in our annual rhythms of holy days, meals, festivities, and missional outreach. We have studied the Jewish calendar of community festivals, the Christian sequence of holy seasons, and our church’s events that are rooted in our Japanese culture and in our own congregation’s history. We have relearned meanings, set some events aside, and brought new significance and new forms to many events. It is this weaving of traditions, cultures, and biblical teachings that give us meaning, hope, and direction. Sometimes these communal activities lead us to anticipate, meditate, and prepare; sometimes we invest ourselves in hospitality, service, and outreach; and at other times we simply enjoy our relationships and stories, God’s creation and salvation, and our living Lord’s presence in our midst.

Japaneseness and Diversity Our studies in the congregation’s history had noted the unique work of several white congregations that sponsored the early congregation. The work of those congregations was also notable during and after the internment. There had also been one point of conflict—those churches had wanted the younger members of “Pasadena Union Church” to become members of their non-Japanese congregations. However, Union Church’s leaders insisted on keeping families together with a value for their ethnic identity, so they severed formal ties, and within a few years they hired a Presbyterian pastor and became a Presbyterian congregation. They maintained very good relationships with the other congregations as ecumenical activities arose, but their primary relationships were with networks of other Japanese churches. This apparently met with a certain success as the Issei raised the Nisei generation and passed the church’s leadership on to them. As noted in the church’s current rolls, however, that success was not as notable with the next generations. The AI

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



103

working group wanted to craft some descriptive paragraphs that put this into context, using the AI data along with other research. Thematic Description: An island culture, in which relationships are more permanent, creates norms for assumed meanings, harmony, and unity. Japanese immigrants brought those traits to church. On the one hand, our church is part of a minority ethnic group in its community and in the United States. On the other hand, because our church actually came to include a fairly large percentage of local Japanese—especially when membership exceeded 600—we also have the history and identity of having a significant role in this community. Church members were community leaders; community events were church events; civic organizations were church sponsored; the church newsletter provided news and connections for the larger Japanese community. This intermingling of church life and community life means that immediate family, extended family, church family, and regional identity fused. The events of the extended ethnic family (birthdays and weddings, funerals and reunions) overlapped the church’s schedule and met personal needs for fellowship. Characteristics of Japanese culture are evident in the church’s modes of relating, organizing, decision making, communicating, valuing, and believing. No one should have any need to explain responsibilities and values because they are assumed, carried forth in a communal set of implicit beliefs and obligations. These ways of life have provided a deeply significant web of relationships and meanings, but they also provide unique challenges for newcomers to gain understanding, voice, and belonging. Those who enter the network of relationships through marriage, friendship, or as visitors easily experience ongoing missteps, confusion, and lostness, and their own contributions easily cause similar experiences among the long-term members of the church. However, the wisdom provided by the experiences of an ethnic minority congregation, the biblical values of hospitality, the richness of intercultural life, and the more culturally mixed generation of the church’s children all call us forth to new ways to embody both our Japaneseness and our multiculturalness.

The church was gaining an understanding about how certain strengths also included weaknesses; what we wanted to affirm with AI was that the narratives still had important resources for them. While the congregation needed to make major changes, those new directions still embraced many of the basic

104

C hapt e r 5

values and characteristics that the church had always wanted. There was no agreement in the committee on whether to give priority to Japaneseness or to diversity. This will continue to be an area of challenge. However, a carefully crafted provocative proposal finally won enthusiastic support all around. Provocative Proposal: We are a congregation of growing diversity whose roots are deep in Japanese American soil. Our diversity was not initially planned—family members married those of other cultures and races, non-Japanese friends joined us, and neighbors arrived. Sometimes we welcomed and enjoyed this adventure; sometimes we were less appreciative. Because we know we are becoming a church together, we acknowledge the call to understand our cultures—the unique strengths and weaknesses, the special opportunities and wounds that we all have. We have also begun rereading scripture, noting the role of cultures and cross-cultural bridging in these stories of God’s constantly outreaching love. We have a special interest in how the stories, values, and connections of our Japanese American members shape our life and mission. We are also seeing how the encounter with the stories, values, and connections of other cultures enriches our life and mission. We celebrate this intercultural life—not as a way to diminish the richness of our cultures, but as a way to enjoy and benefit from what we believe to be both a gift and a task from God.

There is a confession embedded in this proposal—an acknowledgment that diversity was not always welcome. This is not a standard provocative proposal, but the committee and the elders, when they discussed and approved the document, believed this was an important part of our narrative. As we look to the future, even as we are reshaped by this appreciative process, we know that at times we access life through confession. There was a sense that a vision of the future that omitted this reality would limit how well we could embrace change. Now, with this document, we have corporately named one aspect of our story and thereby made alternatives more possible. Spiritual Life and Resources As noted earlier, it was more difficult to know how to work with the data regarding spirituality. We knew we had to work with definitions and practices that changed over the decades. Without a deeper understanding we would

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



105

not be able to form an adequate provocative proposal. We spent more time talking with some members, we looked to the congregation’s history for insights, and we tested our descriptions in various conversations. (Here again ethnic terms are critical—Issei were immigrants, Nisei were the first generation born in America, and Sansei are the next generation.) Thematic Description: The complex elements of our common history, the diversity in our beliefs, and the variety of our personal stories lead to differing concepts and priorities in our spiritual lives. The Issei generation was impressed by the lives and service of non-Japanese Christians. They expressed their faith in passionate prayer and worship (sometimes called “boring” by their English-speaking children), in diligent service, and in the development of the congregation’s structures and property. The Nisei children caught the deep faith of their parents, committed themselves to the church’s wellbeing, and expressed that faith in modeling Christian behavior and in serving church and community. However, because of language differences and a reticence in verbalizing faith and beliefs, spirituality among the Nisei was more implicit, more embodied, less articulated. After World War II, our church was not only a place for nurturing Christian life, but many valued the church as a place for social connections with family, clan, and the broader Japanese American community. These different priorities are not easily untangled. With the clear memories of the depression, the internment, and the struggles of returning, life took on the priorities of rebuilding economic, family, and social strength, so the more explicit, earlier practices of adult spiritual formation received less attention. As the Sansei generation grew, there was an abundance of Christian resources—conferences, parachurch organizations, Bible and prayer experiences—and these forms of Christian expression were more like those of the early Issei. Some Sansei members, friends, and youth appreciated these resources, and became concerned about the more implicit, institutional, and formal spirituality of the church. Misunderstandings were common—to some Nisei this more verbal faith was not easy to understand (“all they ever want to do is sit around and study the Bible”) while those newly energized by scripture and prayer did not recognize the more implicit faith (“we don’t know what they believe”). Sunday worship, which many saw as the center of conflicting values, was not mentioned in any interviews as a place of spiritual nurture. We have not developed the language or understandings necessary to speak and work toward shared meanings and expressions.

106

C hapt e r 5

Currently many adults are in small groups—some characterized by Bible study, others emphasizing the value of relationships. Our children’s program has just adopted a Montessori approach to Bible learning. The importance of intergenerational and intercultural congregational life is receiving new attention. The needs of the elderly, the continuing needs to support parents, and the challenges that our youth face all serve to refocus us on the resources of scripture, the Reformed tradition, and classic spiritual practices. At times we benefited from helpful interns from Fuller Seminary; new families joined who encouraged our congregational life; pastors had their own priorities and expressions—and our congregation currently shows the strengths and strains of the diverse forms of spiritual experiences, faith practices, and ministry priorities rooted in this history.

This rather extended thematic description was attempting to honor numerous strands of the congregation’s spirituality. There had been very heated exchanges over the years on these topics. Families had left the church when they believed their spiritual priorities were excluded. There are layers of issues—theological, generational, cultural—and little work had been done to provide clarity. Our goal was to create a healthy opening for the discussion, to honor various contributions, and to set the stage for a positive future. Then we could make a provocative proposal more substantive: Provocative Proposal: Our living Lord meets us in worship—in word and sacrament, in praise and prayer—and that Sabbath encounter spills out into our daily lives. In shared meals, friendship, service, and play, we enjoy the goodness of life as a gift from God. We come together often to immerse ourselves in study and prayer, to be transformed toward honesty and holiness by the Holy Spirit, to have our lives and relationships healed, reformed, and renewed. We are learning the traditional practices of personal silence and meditation and of corporate interpretation and discernment, and in this our hearts and minds, our ministry and mission become redefined and energized by God. This is the basis of the hospitality and generosity we embody as we reach out into our community and world as agents of God’s love.

The church’s narratives actually had all these elements—connections between spirituality and mission, a focus on corporate spirituality as the basis for personal spirituality, and affirmation that our relationships were

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



107

critical for spiritual nurture. We had noted how some of the Nisei generation tended toward an implicit faith while others had become more expressive, especially in small groups. We also knew that worship, while seldom mentioned, was still the single event that gathered the congregation, so that led to the opening statement. The Nisei Generation The Nisei were the generation that inherited the church during the 1950s and still leads much of the church’s life. The committee did not choose to provide a thematic description concerning the Nisei because that information was embedded in the historical description. That provided the basis for a provocative proposal. Provocative Proposal: With a wealth of experience, a network of relationships, and a tradition of faithfulness, the Nisei of our church continue to embody primary characteristics of the church in lives of worship, hospitality, and service. Younger families, especially children, benefit from shared meals and times for stories. The wider community enjoys the annual events, initiated and still served by the Nisei, as times for reconnecting and encouraging each other. The church gives special attention to the needs of seniors— our own church members as well as our network of friends. With the encouragement and equipping of pastoral and health care professionals, a team of members offer visitation, transportation, meals, assessments, and other resources that are practical, spiritual, and relational. Nisei from throughout the community know that First Presbyterian Church, Altadena, is a place of welcome, care, encouragement, and meaningful relationships.

Families and Youth When the descriptions and proposals were nearing completion, the committee returned to the topic of young families. Even though a descriptive paragraph had not been written, there was clarity about a provocative proposal. Provocative Proposal: The youth and young families of First Presbyterian Church, Altadena, embrace their Christian faith in and outside of the church walls through discipleship and mission. Our church is a great resource for parents,

108

C hapt e r 5

nurturing healthy marriages and fostering conversations and classes that support parenting. Church activities are intentionally formed for intergenerational life, helping elders, youth, younger parents, and older parents learn from each other, study scripture together, celebrate worship, and reach out into our world. The youth and young families of our church bring together those with deep roots in the congregation’s history with the culturally varied experiences of newer members.

A Poly-Centered Congregation As the working groups analyzed the data and created their descriptive statements, our conversations continued to explore the essence or center of the congregation. Whenever we moved toward a potential description, there were always exceptions that loomed large. Eventually, I worked with important overlapping data in order to propose a description that tried to capture our discussions, and with some editing it gained approval. The committee document notes that this is an interpretive reflection, based on the research data as a whole, and attempts to summarize some major discoveries and interpret their meaning. Our church can be described sociologically as the overlapping of three groups. These three groups all express important characteristics that were present in a more holistic and cohesive way in the early years of the church’s life. These three groups will be referred to by terms that gives some focus to each group’s sense of church: “organization,” “clan,” and “spiritual fellowship.” Members tend to gravitate toward the behaviors, language, and meanings of one of these groups. Those who tend to understand the church as an organization define belonging and expectations along the lines of service or work. The goal that takes the most attention is organizational viability. Those who see the church as a clan or extended family express their belonging by occasional worship and by participating in various annual events. They have goals of connecting with traditions and with each other. Those who tend to see church as a spiritual fellowship find their common life in the activities and conversations around Bible study and prayer. The goal of church life is primarily expressed in terms of spiritual vitality. All three emphasize some aspects of biblical and Reformed faith. Our research shows that in the decades since the church’s founding, various forces and priorities have pulled these groups apart. There have been times of significant misunderstanding, stress, and loss of

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



109

unity. Resulting wounds have affected relationships, leadership, and the atmosphere of the congregation. Most encouraging and notable in the research is that a growing number of persons are embodying and using the language of all three motifs. We believe this indicates the Holy Spirit’s work among us to create more commonness, more unity, and the basis for the future.

This discovery of merging vocabularies and the generative effect of this statement was one of the most helpful aspects of the whole project. We had found a way to be honest about serious divisions, to go behind those divisions to a historic reality that contained these elements in a unity, and to point to the Holy Spirit’s work at breaking down old divisions. We were honoring boundary crossers without dishonoring those who had been vocal as participants in any one group. We may have done well to craft a provocative proposal on unity, but this description by itself freed more people to explore the perspectives and language of others, to respect and even desire traits they had not previously understood, and to want a more complex, nuanced faith community. As this first round of AI was ending, we were observing that more members were moving from exclusive identification in one group toward embracing the language and values of the others. The Committee’s Final Report

The committee assembled all of the AI results—the thematic descriptions and the provocative proposals—into a document, alongside other required research on the church and the community. In addition, according to the presbytery guidelines, we made connections between our research and the qualities needed in new pastoral leadership. When we presented the final report to the session members, all of whom had helped with the research, it met with strong affirmation. Because the overall report was so full of honor, appreciation, and hope, the included confessional sentences did not bring shame. Rather, they showed the strength and honesty of a congregation that was rediscovering its own life-giving narratives. The procedures required that the report receive the congregation’s approval. As Jim had emphasized at the outset of the committee formation (noted in chapter 1), previous assessments were approved but probably not read by many. Because our process had created significant participation, and

110

C hapt e r 5

our final report was only thirteen pages long, the committee and session wanted to encourage a wide readership. So the session made abundant copies to be distributed after worship for several weeks preceding the meeting. At a well-attended congregational meeting, we walked through the outline, read key paragraphs, and welcomed a brief discussion that helped us note items that might be misread. The congregation gave unanimous assent. After that meeting one of the seniors approached me with, “Mark, thanks for telling us about ourselves. We didn’t know much of this.” But I reminded her, “It all comes from the interviews and our discussions during the fall. But I’m glad you allowed me to help rediscover some of this church’s great gifts.” During these initial six months, we were observing major accomplishments: Church leaders were talking about substantive, life-giving issues. Many in the congregation participated in thoughtful, affirming interviews. A large majority of active members read and gave assent to a series of provocative proposals. The church newsletter, with a large distribution to the surrounding Japanese American community, carried occasional reports that were prompting curiosity and anticipation around the edges of the congregation. Several leaders noted that they heard related conversations during the fall festival, which came in the middle of the interpretive work. During the fall, participation in the church’s educational programs, for both adults and children, were significantly larger than they had been in recent years. The theory chapter (chapter 2) noted that researchers work in the midst of simultaneous causes; our Christian faith affirms the ongoing work of the Spirit who gives life. We knew that the actual AI process was one important process, working synergistically with other activities. Minor initiatives received significant boosts; leaders who had been tired and retreating became energized; courage arose to attempt new things. Most tangible was the Sunday morning mood—out of a previously sober atmosphere had emerged one of animation and expectancy. Also, it is expected that an initial Appreciative Inquiry process will lead to themes that need further exploration. In formal and informal ways, the church was beginning further inquiry. Below, in the subsection on the Nisei, I will provide some details on one such AI process. Prompting Thoughtful Theological Reflection

At various times throughout the process of Appreciative Inquiry, there are opportunities for the guiding team, interpretive gatherings, action teams, and

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



111

other participants to reflect more intentionally on God’s call on their lives personally and as a church. I have already suggested that most gatherings include lectio divina or some other reflective practice (see chapter 3, “Engaging Scripture During AI”). The memories and wishes of the inquiries, along with scripture and other theological resources, make it more likely that we can be moved from the assumptions and habits that have held us. Stephen Brookfield writes about how difficult this can be:13 Becoming aware of our assumptions is a puzzling and contradictory task. Very few of us can get very far doing this on our own. No matter how much we may think we have an accurate sense of ourselves, we are stymied by the fact that we’re using our own interpretive filters to become aware of our own interpretive filters! . . . A self-confirming cycle often develops whereby our uncritically accepted assumptions shape actions that then serve to confirm the truth of those assumptions.

As Christians who wish to rethink our activities and practices (among ourselves and among our neighbors), our assumptions and beliefs (about scripture, our calling, and our contexts) and how God is involved (with us and our neighbors), the activities of inquiry, conversations, and imagination provide numerous opportunities. Those who lead this process can shape conversations and gatherings so that thoughtful, theological reflection is engaged as an essential ingredient. Consider the act of looking in a mirror. The mirror you are holding reflects your image—and simply uses a piece of glass with a special backing to make that image so you can see a particular view of yourself. In thoughtful, reflection work like AI, we bring ourselves (our current church beliefs, priorities, and activities) to a mirror. The mirror is composed from the answers we voice and receive during interviews, the expansive conversations that take place as the data is discussed, the scriptures that are studied throughout the process, and any other resources (theological heritage, neighborhood studies) that are brought to our attention. When our image (ideas, beliefs, activities) is reflected off those resources so we no longer see what we previously saw, we gain new awareness and we have new possibilities for learning, seeing differently, being changed, imagining new futures, and trying new experiments. Also, we assume that the Holy Spirit is at work in all of this—prompting individuals and groups, enlivening biblical texts, and meeting us through

112

C hapt e r 5

friends and neighbors. The original image of ourselves—what we thought, what we assumed, and how we acted—gets bounced back with new awareness and alternatives in regard to thinking and acting. I have found that several key theological affirmations are especially helpful regarding God’s presence and initiatives, our theology of humanness, and our beliefs about the Holy Spirit. These are listed in table 5.5. Table 5.5.  Theological Affirmations Theological Affirmations: God is on the ground ahead of us, initiating in our churches and neighborhoods Church participants and neighbors are subjects not objects The Holy Spirit continually prompts the church with awareness, relationships, and imagination

First, as we recall stories, if we believe that God is an actor, then we are always looking for signs of God’s grace, love, justice, and goodness. We continue to trust that God is still acting, so our conversations and imaginations are focused in ways that help us discern God’s presence so we can participate with God in relationship to each other and with our neighbors. Second, because we are too often embedded in a society and in organizations that treat people as objects, as commodities (recipients of goods and services, volunteers for someone’s recruitment, voiceless participants in someone’s strategies), Christian theology needs to emphasize that God made us as subjects. That means that we listen, we engage each other in mutuality and respect, we take the time to receive thicker narratives of full and complex lives, and we patiently cooperate as we knit together collaborative and hopeful common life. Third, we are not without help because the Holy Spirit provides abundant gifts for those who are receptive. A new awareness of each other and of God’s initiatives is made present by the Spirit. Relationships that are reconciled and mutually enriched are given life by the Spirit. Our imaginations for new opportunities for God’s reign to be embodied in our lives are prompted and empowered by the Spirit.14 Such thoughtful, reflective, theological conversations are not a one-time step in this process. Theological reflection should be a common, frequent activity among God’s people. Formally, gatherings can include time and procedures to allow such conversations. Informally, participants can try asking each other, “Do you have any sense of what God is teaching us?”

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



113

or “If God’s Spirit is working among our neighbors toward reconciliation, how do you think we can participate?” These assumptions regarding God’s presence and the Spirit’s promptings will lead to practices that are transformative and salvific. INNOVATE

The fourth step, Innovate, deals with how the imaginative futures become tangible and integrated into congregational life. This is more than program development or new staff assignments. Programs and staff might be avenues of expression, but each proposal has significant implications beyond program planning and church administration. As noted in the Cooperrider quotation above, these are not bureaucratic, managerial initiatives. The generative life of earlier narratives and characteristics gain new access and power, especially when there is a welcoming of the Holy Spirit into the process. Since congregations have their own approaches for initiating and sustaining their corporate life and mission, the Innovate phase will take those norms into account. Some changes can be more organic, occurring in the accumulation of numerous synapses rather than through approaches governed by organizational structures. Other changes will require the deconstruction of existing structures and programs so the congregation’s generative characteristics can thrive. During the following months, we became aware of several generic forms of innovation. The first two are informal, in which participants noted that the AI process and the provocative proposals were shaping their activities: 1. Innovation came through informal initiatives of individuals. Church participants felt empowered and guided to try something new, such as raising a different question in a Bible study, inviting someone to tea, using new words in their conversations, or telling a story to a young person. Some members dug out photos to reengage earlier narratives and characteristics. Others initiated conversations with neighbors during a festival. All of these initiatives displayed new forms of congregational life, love, and grace, and thereby changed the shape of the church. 2. Some initiatives developed through pairs or small groups, allowing ideas and activities to be tested. Existing groups gave new attention to activities like checking up on elderly friends or being welcoming when new children

114

C hapt e r 5

came to church. Small groups initiated study, field trips, or new displays and activities at festivals or simply were freed in discussing faith and life in generative and appreciative ways. Other forms of innovation were formal, within church organizational structures: 3. Current church committees initiated their own study projects (such as finding the roots of their events), and the worship committee met with the parents of younger kids to explore ideas for intergenerational activities and asked the education committee for studies about worship. A committee for the fall festival expanded their meetings to include more voices during the stages of imagining and planning. 4. At major boards (like our session or trustees), the provocative proposals were reread in meetings, keeping these images fresh so they continually influence conversations. The session used its leadership to influence and resource particular experiments, structures, and budget items. In our situation, after the Mission Assessment Committee completed the report, we disbanded. A new group, the Pastoral Nominating Committee (PNC) took up the work of using this report as a basis for clarifying the kind of pastoral leadership the church needed and proceeded with that process. The session had noted that much of what the provocative proposals were imagining would await a new senior pastor. But the life energy that was already circulating did not need to wait; there were pockets of creativity already underway that were given new sanction and empowerment simply because these proposals had been articulated and approved. Initially, innovation is usually most generative if small groups shape and engage experiments. I have learned that if a guiding team invites church participants to gather around the provocative proposals based on their interests, and if these new groups are encouraged to imagine and shape new activities, some experiments can arise quite readily. Previously (in the subsection “Leading the Process”), I suggested that action teams can be formed so that the energy of conversations, imagination, and discernment leads to some initial new activities. Experiments are actually part of the continuing discernment process because the priority is on learning how God is at work. Experi-

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



115

ments also help participants gain new competencies in joining with God in that ongoing grace. These first experiments should have low thresholds for planning and action, they should be low cost in both money and time, and outcomes should not be predetermined (table 5.6). Peer learning, in actionreflection cycles, is key for a church if there is a desire to imagine and engage a new future that is participatory with God, each other, and neighbors.15 Table 5.6. Experiments Qualities of Experiments: Prioritize learning and discernment Require little time, money, or structure Doable, not complicated Results are not predetermined Failure is an acceptable outcome Create new conversations

The Nisei

For several years, the congregation had been increasingly aware of the needs of the church’s seniors. One group, called the “Caring Cooks,” met regularly to prepare fresh meals and delivered them to members and friends who lived alone, had restricted mobility, or were currently experiencing special needs. This group listened carefully to older members and was always learning about what was unique about their culture. For example, frozen foods are not common in Japanese homes, so everything was prepared fresh. Also, because the elderly host/hostess would feel pressure to entertain visitors and to have their home well prepared, the Caring Cooks emphasized they were just “dropping something off,” and not planning a visit. However, while they learned that this reduced stress, they also found that most recipients seemed to want to talk. The provocative proposal on Nisei was especially encouraging to this group of servants. Their own efforts fit well with what we were affirming. Now they even felt bold enough to encourage the church to greater faithfulness. Because they knew all the seniors, and because they listened, they were trusted as appropriate leaders for this area of the church’s life. For several months there were many informal conversations about how the church might increase its ministries for the elderly and how the elderly could be encouraged to share their stories. Topics included transportation, health care, and attention to how we might increase opportunities for conversation and friendship.

116

C hapt e r 5

These informal discussions led to a request, sanctioned by the session, for a longer evening discussion about what the church’s next steps should be. The deacons also sent a representative since they have some responsibilities in this area and welcomed these new initiatives. About fifteen of us met in a home, enjoyed dessert, read the provocative proposal concerning the Nisei, and began summarizing what was known about needs and current ministries and how we might proceed. About an hour into the conversation, which was full of ideas but was not clarifying any direction, Jim spoke up: “Let’s do an Appreciative Inquiry.” He had everyone’s attention. Jim was usually pragmatic, wanting results. But he had seen the shaping, energizing power of AI. “Let’s find out what we do best. Let’s get the Nisei together and learn about our strengths.” A smaller group of six took on the work of forming questions, creating an interview process, and leading toward new proposals. They began their work by reading the earlier provocative proposal, finding encouragement and sanction. They decided to host a Sunday luncheon. A few began dealing with logistics and invitations. Others knew they needed to find plenty of non-Nisei volunteers who would do the interviews. As these plans progressed, I joined some meetings for writing and testing questions. 1. Best Experiences Think about the time since you’ve become a senior at our church. During these years, when have you felt most alive, most motivated and excited about your involvement? What has been most meaningful and important? (Interviewers: Ask about who was involved, what the interviewee did, how he or she felt.) 2. Values 2A. What do you value the most in your relationships at our church? What makes relationships meaningful or important? Describe some relationships and how they were valuable for you. 2B. What do you value the most about our worship? Think about a time when worship was especially significant and meaningful—what made it that way? What has been most important and inspiring to you about worship at our church? 2C. When you think about all the other aspects of our church—classes, groups, activities, leaders, festivals, outreach to the community—

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



117

what do you find to be especially meaningful and important? What is important to you, and why? 2D. This question is about what you value about yourself. Don’t be humble; this is important for our church life. What are the most valuable ways you contribute to the Nisei of the church or to the church’s overall life so that Nisei benefit? What is most valuable about your personality, your perspectives, your skills, your activities? 3. Most Valuable Characteristic When you think about our church as a good place for Nisei—everything we do, what we’re like, how we live as Christians—what is the single characteristic of our church that is most valuable to you? What is the best and most significant aspect of our church? Describe who we are at our best. (Interviewer: You are trying to get the single most important trait, then learn about what makes that trait important, how we display or embody it, and what factors make it possible.) 4. Other Organizations 4A. As a senior, have you participated in or received benefits from other organizations? What are the most important activities for you? What services have been especially helpful? What do you like about being involved there? 4B. Are you a volunteer in other organizations? What do you most enjoy doing? What do others appreciate about your involvement? 5. Wishes We are looking for ways that we can be the best possible church for Nisei. If you had three wishes for how our church can be an excellent church for Niseis, what would those wishes be?

We took the unusual step, in questions 4A and 4B, of asking about the interviewee’s relationship with other organizations. While these questions are not directly about our church’s narratives and characteristics, we included them because the first (4A) indicated the types of activities we might wish to explore, and the second (4B) showed us the gifts, interests, and strengths of the interviewees. In preparation for the luncheon, the questions were included in a church newsletter (which helped lessen the fears of some members), interviewers were trained, and bento lunches were arranged. Many seniors were intrigued that church leaders really wanted their views. It was a challenge for the work-

118

C hapt e r 5

ing group when forty people signed up because it would be difficult to recruit enough younger interviewers. The interviews continued for about an hour over lunch, then, to help participants understand what we were doing, I led a discussion. Paralleling previous sessions, I just asked for verbal responses to some of the questions. We began to get glimpses of what we would see on the interview forms, and participants enjoyed the interaction as they responded to my questions and to each other. As the work group began interpreting the data, they noticed several thematic clusters—one set of responses dealt with relationships; another cluster centered around matters of faith, worship, and scripture; a third cluster concerned matters of daily life, like health, money, houses, and transportation. With lots of participation, the Nisei group drafted the first of several provocative proposals that offered more clarity and specificity to the original proposal. They decided to begin by focusing on how the day-to-day lives of our senior members can be revisioned. Nisei-Daily Life Provocative Proposal We are a congregation blessed by Nisei—a generation that has gained wisdom and grace through years of service and friendships. We have been inspired to move beyond our Japanese hesitancy and have learned that it is honorable not only to serve others and to give gifts but also to understand our own needs and to work together to form an interdependent congregation. We are continually encouraged and equipped by our pastoral staff and other skilled professionals to assess our needs and resources. We are inspired to reach beyond our congregation into our circles of friendships and the neighborhood around us, believing God is the author of our relationships. First Presbyterian Church, Altadena, is rooted in networks of holistic care, and the Nisei lead our intergenerational congregation in these joyful and innovative ways of meeting day-to-day needs such as healthcare, house maintenance, transportation, money management, shopping, and nutrition. We are grateful that in our daily words and work, in giving and receiving, that God enlarges our lives and forms us as a caring and generous people.

They continued work on proposals dealing specifically with spiritual nurture, education, and relationships. Values for intergenerational life, missional outreach, and interdependence pervade all of the new images. This is how

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



119

social construction works: our conversations, which prompt and surround and shape our common life, can connect us with the wind of the Spirit as we live in gratefulness and engage such imaginative futures. Nisei-Learning Together Provocative Proposal We Nisei are always learners—and the church provides a context in which we participate alongside others to learn about faith, cultures, and lifeskills. As seniors we are learning how to grow old in God’s grace, with the strength of a faith community, aware of the resources that give us wisdom and hope. Some of our education is practical—concerning medical resources, finances, product and service providers, nutrition, mental health, legal matters, residence, and funeral planning. In our own families and among our church friends we are learning how to “grandparent” the younger generation as our own children learn how to walk with us in our later years. Through seminars, small groups, story-telling, field trips, and retreats, we learn about cultures, gain skills with crafts, and explore more deeply our own Christian faith. We are in the midst of years that are full of unique joys and sorrows, giving us new spiritual opportunities to learn of Jesus, the hope that overcomes our fears, the love he offers that embraces us and shapes us to embrace others, and the life we gain in his death and resurrection. Nisei-Forming Christian Community Provocative Proposal Our congregation, led by the Nisei, reflects the passionate faith and sacrificial, courageous love of the Issei. We have known God’s faithfulness in this church—among these families and friends—as we have been shaped by a history of immigration, war, internment, racism, and also by the blessings of raising families, growing a church, and serving together as God formed in us his own characteristics of loyalty, trust, generosity, and perseverance. Now, in our multicultural, intergenerational faith community, we spend time together to listen, serve, pray, laugh, eat, encourage, cry, and give voice to our hope. In sanctuary and homes, through worship and work, by story-telling and study, during special gatherings for festivals, funerals, and feasts, we are becoming more aware of God’s presence, more able to listen to the Spirit, more expressive of Jesus’ love.

Such ongoing AI activities also have significant collateral effects. For example, I often taught the adult education class on Sunday mornings. Since I was in the middle of these interviews and the interpretive work, my own

120

C hapt e r 5

awareness changed. I noticed that I now looked at any biblical passage with an awareness of the unique lives of the elderly. For example, during our recent study of Acts, I was especially aware of how often passages included such references. In Acts 2, where I had always been aware of cultural issues, I now noted that a significant number of this Pentecost crowd must have been elderly. The reference is to “devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem” (2:5). So these were not temporary visitors, but new residents. Many of these were probably retired couples or individuals who had returned to Jerusalem in their later years, something many Jews longed to do. So the event that began among some younger apostles spilled out onto the senior citizens of the town. These seniors are noted again in Acts 6 when the elderly Hellenist widows get a strong enough voice to change how the apostles understand resources and leadership. So the new language of our church, formed under AI, gave me new perspectives on scripture, which led these men and women to see how they are part of the scripture story. Moreover, they see that spiritual vitality requires the participation of seniors. Events and Meanings

This thematic summary concerning the church’s regular activities emphasizes how much of the congregation’s identity and life revolves around events. The provocative proposal on festivals notes this as an area where Japanese culture, the church’s relationship with its own history and neighbors, and issues of Christian identity need new imagination. Few congregations benefit from hundreds of neighbors participating in festivals, rummage sales, and grand meals. While there is overlap among these crowds, each event has its own personality, its own draw. Some are more attractive to the geographic neighborhood; others make connections through the region’s Japanese American community. The provocative proposal specified some appropriate steps: (1) Attention needs to be given to resources (like scripture and Christian tradition) that can help the congregation reshape the meaning of festival. (2) The intergenerational benefits need to be reclaimed and emphasized. (3) The missional and hospitality opportunities require thoughtful attention. The education groups (children and adults) began forming their own rhythms around the Christian calendar. Since the children led the way, a

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



121

ten-year-old provided an introductory lesson for the adult class. A new adult course on the Jewish festivals was offered, including a session on Japanese festivals, and sermons paralleled these studies. Some event organizers opened their process to seek new means for emphasizing Christian meanings in some aspects of their activities, which had often been limited in favor of cultural activities. Many have become aware that the increasing sense of hard work needs to be balanced with more attentiveness to opportunities for relationships and stories. Spiritual Life and Resources

The interviews and the interpretive discussions indicated that many in the church have a reticence to speak about spirituality, that some of the small groups have a more explicit and articulated approach to faith, and that worship was seldom mentioned in interviews. Since the provocative proposals were completed, numerous initiatives have been bringing substantive and appreciated resources into the congregation’s life. The adult education committee created strong and inviting courses, doubling the participation and, most notably, drawing most church leaders. (Formerly, there was a sense that Bible study was a kind of optional hobby for the few who were particularly interested.) The curriculum combined Bible books, studies in our Reformed tradition, instruction on spiritual practices, and a series on spiritual gifts that was both reflective and practical. The seasons of Advent and Lent became more focused on their traditional meanings. An informal group spent time with readings, personal narratives, and possible covenants about Sabbath. The children’s pastor invited young kids to bring CDs with their favorite Christian music. The Godly Play children’s curriculum deepened the faith lives of both kids and their teachers, and provided means for conversations with some parents who had not previously been as intentional about Christian nurture. In many of these areas, persons leading various initiatives commented on how the provocative proposal shaped and encouraged their ministries. Worship leaders also ventured into a few experiments with dance, drama, and video. More attention was being given to the preparation of worship leaders. The adult education class gave attention to theological and practical issues in support of more intergenerational participation. Once again,

122

C hapt e r 5

those who helped form the church’s worship wanted more insights into the church’s strengths. A set of questions was formed for a preliminary Appreciative Inquiry. There were responses concerning the musical variety (hymns and praise music); some commented on the occasional participation of a group that offers praise through hula; and the singing of an African American staff member drew special appreciation. The data did not indicate notable enthusiasm for any other particular features. Rather, worship has mainly been a gathering that centers relationships and gives a prescribed form to religious expression. The provocative proposal’s image of worship will continue to challenge the church and the new pastor. But most immediately, there was freedom to try some new expressions, a commitment to better quality, participation in additional study, and deepening habits of discourse regarding what the provocative proposals imagine. In my own experiences, Appreciative Inquiry about worship has been especially challenging. In almost every situation, guiding teams write questions that are heard as consumer preferences. We are so shaped by a marketing culture that individuals expect their preferences to be important. So questions about music, sermons, environment, and other elements end up with responses that are too thin for substantive new imaginations. More recently, I have seen more generative data from questions like, “What have been important experiences in worship that shaped you/us to love God more fully?” and “What have been important experiences in worship that shaped you/us to love our neighbors in ways that are attentive to God’s initiatives?” I believe this approach will be more fruitful, especially if participants are also engaging lectio with texts like Isaiah 58:1–10 (in which God turns their attention to those who suffer violence and injustice), Luke 4:14–30 (where Jesus prompts Nazarene worshippers to connect God’s grace with outsiders), and Pauline passages about participatory worship. Evaluation, Discourse, and New Inquiries

As explained above, the innovative transformation of provocative proposals into reality (i.e., implementation) happens in formal and informal ways, sometimes through individuals and sometimes through groups. Evaluation, also, can be informal or formal. Evaluation in AI is not a hunt for errors or failures, but an ongoing inquiry into generative narratives. Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly emphasize this:

P r o v o kin g C r e ativ e C han g e



123

Intervention into any human system is fateful and . . . the system will move in the direction of the first questions that are asked. In other words, in an appreciative evaluation, the first questions asked would focus on stories of best practices, most successful moments, greatest learning, successful processes, generative partnerships, and so on. This enables the system to look for its successes and create images of a future built on those positive experiences from the past. Appreciative Inquiry enables organizations to carry out valuations that move organizations toward their highest aspirations and best practices.16

Evaluation begins as participants develop habits of expressing what is life giving. Leaders continuously ask appreciative questions about church life and mission, sometimes reminding others of a provocative proposal and then referring to some recent creative effort. When needed, a class or other activity can be followed with specific questions about what was most life giving or engaging. Those who lead experiments in worship can initiate numerous conversations to discern the most promising elements. This is not an effort at spin; leaders may need to adapt efforts according to a congregation’s proclivity toward whitewashing. The primary way to avoid shallow agreement is to talk and listen long enough to receive a genuine response. If the conversation moves toward substance, then the appreciative responses are most trustworthy. We quickly learned that the church’s larger discourse—that is, the widespread conversations in which the church’s meanings were being constructed—were increasingly integrated with the provocative proposals. Several elders said the session meetings had become much more attentive to the church’s life and mission and less involved in management details. Many committees received the provocative proposals (and accompanying documents) as helpful sources of guidance and energy. Particular stories or proposals would show up in sermons and teachings. Elders knew, as they provided guidance to committees, to bring attention to the imaginative futures of the proposals. In an appreciative organization, at its best, the asking of appreciative questions and the forming of provocative proposals become normal ways of doing business. Like our initiatives with the Nisei and with worship, some aspects of church life need their own AI processes. When fully implemented, this takes time and effort. The forming of questions, the interviews, the interpretive

124

C hapt e r 5

work, the labors of writing provocative proposals all require good leadership and the widest participation. Other less formal parallels are also helpful—like a conversation we had among parents and preteens concerning what each person most appreciates about their parents (including comments from parents about their own parents), then a similar question about what parents most appreciate about their kids. As we had already known, Appreciative Inquiry is not managed. It is too broad and powerful. We had initiated conversations, and the congregation’s best stories and traits were now the common discourse of the church. While we became aware of increasing expectations, we also noted deeper patience, more participation, and a real trust that God was continuing to author this story.

II

FIVE CHURCH NARRATIVES: HOW DID APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY CHANGE YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS? While I was writing Memories, Hopes, and Conversations, I was also engaged in the missional church conversation.1 Previously, for fifteen years in Oakland, California, I had been active in a transformation process with a United Methodist church. During those years, I was benefiting from conversations, consultations, and books that engaged the United States as a mission field, mainly under the name of a new organization, “The Gospel in Our Culture Network” (GOCN). Our Oakland adventure had received attention from some GOCN researchers, and later I was asked to present and reflect on our narrative at a gathering of European church leaders, under the auspices of the Council on World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches.2 I was encouraged by how these new friends engaged theology, cultural studies, and organizational leadership in light of the current challenges of real on-the-ground churches.3 It was a messy conversation, and I usually wanted to find more pastors among the professors, but it was more generative that anything else I knew. As the conversation has expanded, two streams have been most relevant for my work as a professor and consultant. Craig Van Gelder, a professor at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, initiated a series of consultations and books that address different themes (such as context, leadership, spiritual formation, and denominations) and crucial theological issues 125

126

PART II

(such as the Trinity, ecclesiology, and missiology).4 While that work based in the academy was gaining ground, Alan Roxburgh recalls a denominational executive asking, “I love this missional theology. I believe in what you folks are saying. The critique of culture, the evaluation of the church and the theology are wonderful. But what do I do with it?” And a pastor asked him, “Where does someone like me go to learn how to be this kind of leader?”5 So Alan continued working with various teams to create ways for churches and denominations to actually move toward transformation. He is articulate on how romantic ideals mislead, and modernist strategies objectify church participants and their neighbors.6 In books, seminars, and consulting, Alan has provided both intellectual resources and doable processes. I accepted a teaching position at Fuller Seminary in 2000; then in 2002, while I was in the midst of writing the earlier book on Appreciative Inquiry, Alan came to Pasadena for a conversation about shaping a doctor of ministry program for pastors who want to lead missional transformation. We had met previously at GOCN, and I was encouraged by this possibility—which has led to our continuing partnership in teaching this DMin program. In the conversations that followed, I increasingly saw how Alan’s work on leadership and change could inform my recent discovery of AI. For example, Alan and Fred Romanuk wrote, “At its core, missional church is how we cultivate a congregational environment where God is the center of conversation and God shapes the focus and work of the people.”7 That is what I was discovering about Appreciative Inquiry—that interview questions about how members had experienced God’s presence, graces, and imagination could change the conversations in a church. I was beginning to learn, through classes I taught at Fuller Seminary, that similar questions in a neighborhood could build relationships and common purpose among church members and neighbors. Although the phrase “missional church” is being used to mean anything from traditional missions and service projects to strategic marketing of church goods and services and tweaking the music or remodeling a church’s lobby, I have a more proscribed set of meanings. I am most encouraged by the work of Alan, Craig, and others who consistently emphasize a theological praxis that attends to:8 ■■ ■■

The Trinity—embodying difference, relationships, and sentness Grace—God is the initiator in our contexts

PART II

■■

■■ ■■

■■

■■



127

Mission—as God’s initiatives to unite all things in Jesus Christ, into which we are invited as participants Neighbors—as subjects rather than objects; God is already engaged The people in the pews—as imaginative and gifted rather than as volunteers for master plans Geography/context—regarding the concrete presence of church people in the world with God among their neighbors Leadership—that shapes generative environments for discernment rather than offering romantic ideals and tactics

In their writings and consulting work, the focus is consistently on practices that are interactive with such theological convictions. That is the meaning of theological praxis, an ongoing interplay of actions and theological reflection. Churches and their leaders are not changed by ideas and lectures—we are changed by practices and theological reflection. The following five chapters bear this out. While the narrative of part I had only initial signs that were missional, the following narratives focus on periods in which churches attended more explicitly to their contexts, in their memories and in new imagination. In each situation, Appreciative Inquiry was an ongoing process in which the congregation became increasingly aware of God’s initiatives in their context, and they engaged practices that deepened their awareness, relationships, and participation. Four of the contributors are graduates of the DMin Program, and Alan and I mentored them: Chris Gobrecht (Cumberland, Maryland), Michael Wilson (Quarryville, Pennsylvania), Jim Amstutz (Akron, Pennsylvania), and Andrew Menzies (Melbourne, Australia). Jean Burch (Pasadena, California) was not a student with those cohorts, but she frequently hosted our classes, giving tours of the neighborhoods in which her church was active. These stories offer diverse social settings (urban, town, rural) and traditions (United Methodist, Presbyterian Church USA, Mennonite USA, Baptist, and African American Bible church). I am grateful for their leadership and for their contributions to this volume. Each chapter provides a narrative that includes information on the church and their context, then an account of the AI process, including leadership, questions, interpretive conversations, new imagination, and initial resulting activities. These pastors also reflect on what they are learning about their own leadership.

6

New Covenant United Methodist Church— Cumberland, Maryland Christopher Gobrecht

New Covenant United Methodist Church (NCUMC) is old, consisting of earlier congregations going back to 1882. We are also new, birthed in a merger in 2001. Our Appalachian culture values stories; it also brings a resistance to change. The congregation was primarily elderly, with a desire to be faithful to how the Spirit of God guides us. Appreciative Inquiry was the key to how we became more attuned to God’s heart and more engaged in our context. Herein is the story of one church, and how it once again became responsive to the heart of God. CHURCH AND CONTEXT

When I first came to NCUMC as senior pastor in 2006, the outlook was bleak. There had been a merger five years previously, an effort to blend three financially challenged congregations into one healthy congregation. Some things had gone well, but in the new church’s five-year history, it had never met its budget. It had never taken in more members in a year than it had lost to death. With the projected budget deficit of $40,000 for the year, the church was six years from exhausting its reserves and closing its doors.1 There were still signs of life and hope. Ministry to the elderly was excellent with programs using phone calls, letters, cards, visits, home communion, as 129

130

C hapt e r 6

well as celebrations for the shut-in members at the church twice annually. Many of the people at NCUMC were involved in Christian mission, but these activities were often unrelated to the local church. For example, members worked with the local Salvation Army and a rescue mission. Members gave money to overseas missions, but there was little feedback that indicated the connection between their dollars and how people were being served and transformed. It was difficult to get people out of their comfort zones and into a unified church ministry to those outside the church walls. Members expressed nostalgia and grief in remembering times when churches overflowed with children. These memories caused paralysis rather than motivation and clarity for church life and mission. As a pastor new to this context, I knew some general objectives I wished to accomplish, but I did not sufficiently know the story of the people, and I could not yet discern their gifts and talents. The differences between Appalachia and the rest of the United States in terms of ministry context are striking; as a mission field it deserves careful and sustained attention. I was learning that a church’s capacities to engage the power of the Holy Spirit are related to the particular, concrete, local culture, including histories, traits, and imaginations. When I asked for information about Cumberland, Maryland, where NCUMC is located, seldom was I pointed to a resource such as a book, a computer file, or other document. Most of the time, my new acquaintances would point me to a person. People are considered to be the repositories of knowledge in this ministry context. Thus, an approach that took seriously the stored knowledge, hopes, and dreams of the people was an ideal way to learn. It was important for me to go first to the people of NCUMC and the surrounding neighborhood because there is an inherent suspicion of outsiders and of the strategies that are developed elsewhere. Many times various schemes have been imposed upon mountain communities, and the results often benefit those who impose the plan far more than the recipients.2 It was essential that any new plans be developed by Appalachians. APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY IN APPALACHIA

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) appeared to provide a way to address important issues in the church. It almost seemed that AI was designed precisely for this Appalachian culture. In oral cultures similar to Appalachia’s, AI is especially suitable to shape new imagination while drawing on the wealth of the past.

N e w C o v e nant Unit e d M e th o di s t C h u rch — C u mb e rland , M aryland

131

The First Round of Inquiry

AI, with its storytelling approach, and with its emphasis on the desires, gifts, and time-honored traditions of the congregation, was ideal for creating a vision that would succeed in this context. The process was initiated by two congregants developing a survey. They were familiar with AI and the principle of choosing the positive, but as beginners, they were not able to implement this principle very thoroughly. Looking back, I should have done more to focus their questions. At the time, I was fearful that I would muddle the process with over-management. Our surveys were appreciative, and they did inquire as to the best practices and fondest memories of the church. We collected ninety-two surveys and sixty-four wishes from members and longtime visitors. There were many life-giving forces available to guide us as we imagined a future together and prepared to find innovative ways to make that future a reality. As we began to study Appreciative Inquiry, reading Mark Lau Branson’s Memories, Hopes and Conversations,3 we conducted three rounds of inquiry, learning more about the process and about our church’s potential. We adopted the “4-I” sequence: Initiate, Inquire, Imagine, Innovate.4 Our first survey was not perfectly in line with best AI principles; some of the questions were unfruitful. However, it got critical support from important members of the congregation. Had a survey been handed down from a management hierarchy, rather than developed internally, it would not have worked as well. An imperfect AI process that gets buy-in from the congregation still seems preferable to me to a technically crafted one that takes the initiative out of the hands of the laity. I believe that some of our questions were less helpful and could have benefited from some testing. For example, some questions indicated we wanted to hear about the challenges and threats we faced, or that we were asking for the respondent to commit to something. We also used some church jargon that misled participants, such as the word “gifts,” which was misapprehended to refer to physical possessions. But even this first round helped move us forward. Instructions were given to the survey takers to be active listeners and encourage the respondents to reminisce, reflect, and feel that their previous service is acknowledged. Two questions from the first survey were particularly fruitful; the first was:5 (1.1) “Is there some activity or service that you especially enjoy doing for the church or community, or enjoyed doing in the past?” This

132

C hapt e r 6

question brought positive memories to the surface, and participants began to think with more hope. By capturing some of the best stories and practices from members of the church (and its preceding churches), we began to have a picture of the most generative ministries. The second question that was fruitful was, (1.2) “What do you like most about our church at this time?” The question could have been better phrased; this wording tended to elicit someone’s consumer preference rather than an awareness that God was active in the process. The question also lacked dynamism because it focused on the present, even though we wanted to engage their imaginations concerning a positive future. Carl Savage and William Presnel emphasize that throughout the AI process, “we seek to catalog the present futures, the possible futures that are emerging and perhaps even then to encourage and enable a preferred future to prevail.”6 By answering questions about the positives, the church members were helping us see various snapshots of success that could then be tailored into a vision for a preferred future. Many of the responses were wistful, or were simply positive general comments. The most constructive responses were those that pointed to successes in the past for the youth and children’s programs, and stories about forgiveness and healing. A few very powerful stories were told about the church being there for a person as they battled serious health or financial stresses. Reminiscing was in itself a helpful process, particularly for the older respondents. While nostalgia was a comfortable experience for the members of NCUMC, much more was going on; these stories were the beginning of a new direction. To continue the inquiry, I preached a sermon titled “Think on These Things” that explained the process of AI to the congregation at large. At the end of the sermon, all the worshippers were invited to make a wish for the future of the congregation. Most wishes focused on youth and children’s ministry, which confirmed previous results. Some wished for financial health for the congregation, indicating that many participants were aware of the money issues. Others spoke about some Christian fundamentals: prayer, Bible study, and evangelism. The following two quotes are a good sample of the most common responses that were useful: “for young families with children to come and learn about Jesus, and accept him into their hearts, and to help others learn about

N e w C o v e nant Unit e d M e th o di s t C h u rch — C u mb e rland , M aryland

133

Jesus and confess him as Lord in our church, community and country” and “more activities for youth,” with strong emphasis on the words “for youth.” These types of responses were helpful for indicating a general shape for the future, but they did not provide the kind of specific images that we sought. Our inquiry and summaries had not yet brought the congregation to the place where concrete innovations were emerging. Separating the “make a wish” portion from the rest of the AI survey was a departure from standard AI practice, and judging from the brevity of many of the responses, it was not a good one. As the AI process moved forward, the wish question was integrated into the survey that we would use for the last thirty-eight responses. This tended to make a stronger, and clearer connection between the memories and futures elicited from participants. The Second Round of Inquiry

I was writing my final project for a doctor of ministry degree, and Mark Lau Branson agreed to work with me on the research and writing.7 After our initial AI experience, I discussed the process with Mark, and we shaped some new questions; a fresh round of AI was developed. It used the following questions: 2.1: Remember a time when you felt engaged, alive, and motivated by what was going on at church. Who was involved? What did you do? What happened? 2.2: At the present time, what is it that excites you about ministry at NCUMC? 2.3: When you think about how our church has related to our community, what do you think has been most important? 2.4: When we are at our best, how do we express God’s love and mercy to those outside the church? 2.5: Tell me about a time when you were able to talk about your faith. How did you feel afterwards? 2.6: What do you think is the most essential characteristic of our church? How are we unique?

134

C hapt e r 6

2.7: Make a wish for the future of our church. What would our church look like in three years if it came true? This survey was used with the leadership and then with people who had not taken part in the first round of AI. Thus, by the end of the second survey, almost every active member and every shut-in had been a part of the AI process. This required a lot of time, but the results were well worth it. The positive buzz was having an impact on lots of conversations, and more hopeful behaviors were appearing just because people were feeling included and because they felt their opinions mattered. Difficulties in the church’s past had caused wounds, and some felt their ideas had been overlooked, but this respectful approach to interviews provided healing and anticipation. These conversations led to imagination and innovation. An immense amount of data had now been collected. The team sorted this data, separating the overly general responses from those that were more concrete and specific. As the AI committee saw similarities and correlations among numerous responses, they knew these were our major themes, which would build an imagination for the future. For instance, there were eighteen responses that had to do with youth. Eleven of these were simple responses pointing to a need for youth programs, without concrete specifics. Four of these responses recalled positive experiences from the storyteller’s own background in church as a youth. The church had been active in a basketball league, and this had been helpful in bringing these people into the church and helping them to get involved. The other three responses were ideas for coming alongside youth, based on diverse experiences of the storytellers as to what they themselves had found most valuable in their early spiritual development. These collections were used to craft provocative proposals. Mark Lau Branson writes, “[Provocative proposals] are focused, imaginative scenarios that encapsulate and then stretch the church’s greatest strengths, describing these images as potential futures.”8 We wrote three provocative proposals that arose from the first year of AI. Ministry to the youth had the most responses, and ministry to the elderly, the sick, and the grieving drew the next most. Dan told the story about how he always felt welcome in our church, and that this was strikingly different from his previous church and from other churches he had visited. Seeing diverse people loving and encouraging each other was

N e w C o v e nant Unit e d M e th o di s t C h u rch — C u mb e rland , M aryland

135

the meaning of Christianity to him. Peggy spoke about how much it meant to her to be involved with visiting the members now residing in nursing homes. Having relationships with the needy was most important to her as a disciple of Jesus Christ. We drew on stories and wishes about our life together, with a focus on hospitality, and crafted a provocative proposal: The Holy Spirit has gifted each person in the congregation. All are unique and part of God’s plan to advance God’s Kingdom. Everyone who comes here has a role to play and feels a part of what is going on. With good communication NCUMC’s leadership keeps people involved and excited. NCUMC is a friendly church that makes people, new and old, feel welcome. Friendliness is not orchestrated, but the congregation sets the stage for it. The church’s hospitality ministry goes out of its way to help and guide visitors.

Out of this provocative proposal sprang a panoply of hospitality experiments and improvements to hospitality ministries that were already in place. Church dinners and breakfasts and birthday parties were held. The newsletter went to an e-format that was able to show the church’s ministry in living color rather than shades of gray. The website became more welcoming and up to date. While we, like other churches, have habits of expressing ourselves in programs, what was more important was that the power of the Holy Spirit within people was unleashed. Without consciously making an effort, we made huge strides in disintermediation. Disintermediation means the elimination of intermediaries.9 Ideas for outreach and ministry stopped going through committee channels unless absolutely necessary. The default answer to any new idea became “yes” rather than “wait.” Instead, anyone with an idea was welcome to collect like-minded people and give it a try. There was an explosion of small, local ministries emanating from New Covenant. These ideas were conceived and implemented by laity with encouragement from the pastor. We learned how to say, “yes,” because we believed that the Holy Spirit was alive in each member. In our inquiry, we had ten responses about the value of Bible studies, particularly the value of the Disciple series put out by the United Methodist Church.10 One member spoke about how he had become a leader in the church after taking Disciple. Another spoke about weeping at one of the sessions, as he was able finally to understand the theology underneath his faith.

136

C hapt e r 6

Knowledge had always been important to him, but somehow until that time in his Christianity, he had simply gone along with the crowd. As he explained it, he hadn’t even known it was possible to understand the Bible or the tenets of the Christian faith. Virginia described home Bible studies from many years ago accompanied by dinners that also led to mission as the group connected to one another and understood how their faith led to action. This led to the second provocative proposal—we envisioned Wesleyan-style small groups that integrated spiritual formation with social action: NCUMC reaches out in the Wesleyan tradition of spiritual growth and social action. We have a variety of small groups around these two themes. These groups help people to understand their faith and increase their commitment to Jesus Christ and His Church. New leaders are raised up, and established leaders continue their spiritual formation process. NCUMC joyfully welcomes children and provides them with a safe sanctuary as well as ways to grow in their faith and participate in the life of the church. We offer praise and encouragement to those who need a special touch. We are a refuge from chaos for all those who seek the risen Christ.

From this proposal, the number of Bible studies tripled. Many of those who attended the Bible studies soon found themselves in leadership positions. Of special note was an off-site Bible study at an assisted-living facility. This was a return to the community by the church. The study attracted a good crowd, including an octogenarian who had never been to a Bible study before. We are still challenged by the need to provide for children, especially infants and toddlers, in a way that frees parents for groups, but overall this proposal was successful and helped the church to find itself and be equipped for ministry. The most difficult group of responses to assemble into a common theme and hence a proposal were stories about people who were no longer with us. There were stories about beloved pastors and things they had done. There was the story about Oliver who was at the church every time the doors opened. Oliver was now ninety-five years old and had not attended any event during my pastorate. A young member talked about how the church had rallied around her family when her father had died unexpectedly. She was one of only a few young adults in the church, and from her response, it was clear that she had stuck with the church though it had not offered her much spiritually in recent times. This connection from the past helped her to continue to

N e w C o v e nant Unit e d M e th o di s t C h u rch — C u mb e rland , M aryland

137

believe in the value of NCUMC as a faith community. These stories were all bittersweet, and in time we found the connecting link to be that suffering and loss are important parts of faith development and that the church’s role in ministering to those who suffered was of lasting value. So the third proposal connects Christ’s suffering love with our own desire to be a place of healing and reconciliation: .

Jesus Christ died on the cross to forgive people for their sins; he sets the example that we should be a community of love and forgiveness. Due to gratitude for God’s gift of love, NCUMC quietly serves the Lord by reaching out to those who are suffering or in need. God has helped NCUMC through periods of adversity, the church individually and as a collective body through those times. With God’s help, members of NCUMC offer forgiveness to those who have wounded them and sincerely seek to reconcile with those they have harmed.

Out of this proposal came an even keener commitment to concentrate on forgiveness and reconciliation. There were five hundred people who were members of NCUMC yet no longer attended. Many of these were lost during or before the church merger; these names were brought over to the new church rolls automatically. We developed a radical plan to reconnect with them. We, as a church, wrote a letter in which we apologized for failing to support these members, and we asked for their forgiveness. As a sign of hope and encouragement we let them know that we welcomed them to rejoin us, and even to consider reengaging their vows of membership, through which they could again connect with the church “by your prayers, your presence, your gifts, and your service.”11 Lay members who had a heart for this ministry of reconciliation followed up the letters with phone calls. Some recipients responded appreciatively and quickly; others took some time, but many eventually accepted the invitation. A few needed to air their grievances, and we received this with a humble spirit. People did come back, or relieved themselves of a burden of un-forgiveness, or rekindled a few relationships within the church. Appreciative Inquiry is a life-giving experience for NCUMC. People who were tired and fearful of change and engagement relaxed and shared stories from the past. As members of NCUMC’s leadership sifted through these themes, they became excited by the process and motivated to get to work at shaping these proposals into a preferred future.

138

C hapt e r 6

The most difficult challenge that still remained, even after the survey was done and the provocative proposals perfected and publicized, was the youth group. Everyone wanted there to be an active and relevant youth group, but no one felt they had the energy or skills to develop it. We formed a committee to look into the issue, and they came up with the name Youth Involvement. The committee was guided by AI principles, though they did not conduct a formal survey. They did look for positive energy and life-giving stories and then wove them into a vision. Through this committee, we looked at our resources and found that we had a lot of people who would help with special events, even if we had no one to teach on a weekly basis as is the usual format in United Methodist churches. Instead of weekly meetings, we decided to go with a monthly event. As we tried to put together a vision for a youth group that would work in our context, stories surfaced from those involved about their own experience in youth groups. While most had been involved in a weekly meeting at some point, none spoke in glowing terms about this. What people remembered were the bigger events that had been fun, helping them build relationships, or spiritual, helping them develop their relationship with God. This was not, formally speaking, an AI process; however, as people now attuned to AI practice, we knew that when the stories began to come out, they would focus our attention and our vision. Each positive story is the history of God connecting to one or more of God’s children. We wanted our youth to experience similarly powerful God moments and we decided to follow these signs of where God had met our members in the past. In this monthly event, we did the things that people remembered most fondly from their days in various youth groups: campfires, hayrides, ballgames, carnival events, board games, and kite flying. Each event had a time of prayer and a message, but the concentration was on creating positive memories and ongoing relationships. The youth ministry, which had ceased except for three boys who went to Sunday school, grew to a loose coalition of more than fifty members, with a cadre of twenty adult helpers. Because of the many responses we had during the rounds of AI pointing to youth as a focus, it seemed like a natural direction to take another step forward toward inclusion, by giving the youth a part in the worship service. Not as is traditional in United Methodist churches, on a special Sunday just for them, but by having two or three youth involved in every single service. In

N e w C o v e nant Unit e d M e th o di s t C h u rch — C u mb e rland , M aryland

139

the past, attention had been focused negatively on the youth because of their restless behavior, but now they are engaged, and are an asset because of their heart for ministry. This initiative came into being for exactly the opposite reason that the youth gatherings were instituted. We uncovered an omission. The youth events were instituted because of the members’ fond memories, but youth involvement in the service was instituted because of the lack of responses stating that this was seen as important. None of the AI responses had mentioned youth participation in the worship service other than a single response mentioning joy at seeing them there. No one spoke of their own participation in services as a child, either. As we worked together, we realized that this participation would make a great contribution as a new initiative. It was in harmony with our principles, though it had no history. Creating a future where our youth would become adults engaged in the worship service would be more likely if they enjoyed and participated in the worship service now. Throughout all this activity, the church’s heart for the elderly and the shutins has remained strong. We were aware that rapid change is disorienting, and significant growth can make a familiar place seem unfamiliar. The stories of caregiving among members kept us aware that we wanted to carry these practices into our future. The elderly enjoyed being heard and being able to share their reminiscences about successful ministry in days gone by. They were nearly unanimous in expressing concern about the state of the modern youth, and in expressing confidence that the church could help the youth find their way. Some of the very elderly were still doing ministry, and AI helped uncover this so the church could develop it. One shut-in, Mary, talked about her current ministry, which involved calling another shut-in each day for conversation and sometimes prayer. This became a model for how to give other shut-ins an opportunity to minister. Five pairs of shut-ins now have this kind of mutual-support relationship. Also, shortly after participating in an AI survey, one member organized a house church with the terminally ill at the Veterans’ Administration Hospital. And while there are unique challenges among the elderly, there are frequent experiences of loss and grief throughout a church and community. We were aware that as a church seeking restoration and revitalization, we wanted to develop a hospitable and compassionate heart for these persons and families. And we were learning how some stages of grief were present in the

140

C hapt e r 6

congregation, even as we engaged life-giving conversations and experiments; this degree of change and growth was no doubt a source of loss for some.12 This awareness also led us to increase our support for local missions, such as initiatives with disabled veterans and the homeless. This commitment to our own context has been a critical adaptive change that sprang out of AI. These first experiences with AI changed the church’s conversations and shaped innovations. We had a deep sense of being led by the Holy Spirit; as the pastor, I was learning more generative ways of creating an environment in which the imagination and ministries of the people were increasingly missional. Even though Appalachian communities tend to be hesitant, we were now connecting regularly with the homeless, veterans, shut-ins, and fifty youth—many of whom had no church background. The Third Round of Inquiry

AI is now a standard practice at NCUMC. It is particularly appropriate in this storytelling culture. People respond warmly to this approach and easily return to remembrances of best practices. They are empowered to develop their own stories by engaging the Holy Spirit in their own context. The latest AI survey to go out has these questions about the city in which our church is located: 3.1: Have you always lived in Cumberland? If you haven’t, what brought you here and how long have you lived here? 3.2: What are the most positive aspects of living in Cumberland? What has been life-giving to you? 3.3: In your experience, how does NCUMC make a difference in this community? 3.4: Describe a time when you saw the community working together toward a common goal. 3.5: What comes to mind when you think about how your own skills and interests might contribute to the community? 3.6: Make a wish for the community.

N e w C o v e nant Unit e d M e th o di s t C h u rch — C u mb e rland , M aryland

141

This survey came out of some observations about a rift between those who were native to Cumberland, and those who were not. A third group, which seems to have great ministry potential, are those who grew up in Cumberland, then left to find work, and upon retirement returned to the community. They seem to have very different views on questions about the uniqueness of Cumberland from those who were either new to the community or who never left. Those who were new to the community tended to focus on programs they had seen or heard about elsewhere and to trust external authorities. For example, I heard about the accountability groups in Sherri’s former church. Sherri said that after bonding socially, these groups had gone on to choose small but specific missions in the community. While this worked well in her previous context, NCUMC had no history of this sequence, and our participants would need a very long time to develop trust and overcome the ingrained Appalachian attitude about religion being a private affair. These newer arrivals were very much in tune with NCUMC’s current programs of outreach such as Pennies for Potatoes, which feeds the hungry. Those who had lived their whole life in Cumberland tended to be especially fearful of external authority and programs. They wanted to return to the good old days. In large numbers they spoke against the merger that had created NCUMC, though all of those surveyed had gone along with the change, and most had voted for it. They felt that closing the church facilities in the poorer area of town was destructive to our community ministry. They all remembered fondly the former church’s outreach, particularly the basketball program for troubled youths, but few had much to say about the church’s current community impact. Also mentioned were China Overseas Mission and Salem Trust, an orphanage in the next county over. No connection has been maintained to these ministries for more than a generation, yet they are still remembered as important moments of outreach. Grieving and loss came through on these surveys, even though it was not intended to be the focus of the inquiry at all. Those who had left the area and then returned struck a unique balance. They saw what was good about Cumberland; they too remembered fondly the good old days. Yet they had a realistic picture of how changes needed to be introduced in appropriate ways, and they understood the dangers of bringing change too quickly. Carol spoke about how she had been mentored by Ray when she first came to NCUMC. It was not a formal program, just

142

C hapt e r 6

a connection between two people. She felt that the church could impact the community through intentionally making one-on-one connections with people who were lost or hurting. As of this writing, the results of this survey are not complete, and there are no provocative proposals as of yet. It is encouraging that the leadership of the church thinks the AI process is a valuable means for engaging challenges and bringing about innovation. They have seen, over a period of time, positive results in the church’s life, across generations, and across various themes, including greater participation, attendance, missions, stewardship, and relationships. They trust the process and have made it their own. The insights from this survey will lead to innovation in God’s time. PARTICIPATION, PATIENCE, AND PRACTICES

Through AI, the best practices of the church have been rediscovered, and a future is unfolding through provocative proposals and experiments. We are seeing new ways in which the Kingdom of God is being announced and lived imperfectly by its members, but it is progressing. Through relationships, small groups, preaching, and hands-on mission, the framework of love and forgiveness is increasingly permeating the lives of the people of NCUMC. With gratitude, the people tell their own stories of how God has impacted their lives. Prayerfully, they continue to struggle with areas where their lives do not align with God’s will. Numerous different kinds of outreach have been explored. The ones that have worked are those that are organic for NCUMC. Entirely new programs and avant-garde ideas are unlikely to transform NCUMC because they are not in tune with the Appalachian heritage. By working with what the people already believe and engaging their imaginations and turning outward as we enact and articulate the gospel, we are attracting new members as we raise awareness within the Appalachian community about who the church is, what we care about, and how we engage the community in love. This is sustainable growth that has not caused an upsetting rate of change. The people of NCUMC have shown more adaptability than I had originally anticipated. In looking back over the path NCUMC has traversed, it seems that the most likely indicator of future success has been continuity with tradition and lay initiative. When a new innovation can be framed and adapted in terms of continuation, or a resurrection of a past tradition, it is normally welcomed.

N e w C o v e nant Unit e d M e th o di s t C h u rch — C u mb e rland , M aryland

143

Change is resisted if it is perceived as foreign. When it seems an initiative is altogether new, it has been rejected, usually through passive neglect rather than active conflict. When I instigate an initiative, I am allowed to take it as far as I like, but with only token support, and not much in the way of results. When a proposal has been championed by trusted lay leaders, it has consistently succeeded. My role is that of shaping the environment so that the imagination and innovation of the people can surface. It was not possible for me to control the outcomes. I am a more hopeful person and a more steadfast leader as a result of the changes I have seen take place. I am now comfortable in this role and look forward to the lasting changes that I am confident it will continue to bring. Prior to the AI processes, we faced an unsustainable decline in revenues and in attendance. We are now benefiting from a reversal of those trajectories. When I observe changes and listen to conversations, I am convinced that AI was the intervention that made a difference. We have had more confessions of faith and adult baptisms each year than were recorded as a combined total for the preceding five years (which was the first phase of the church’s existence after the mergers). The percentage of worshippers engaged in ministry has risen from around thirty to ninety.13 There is more laughter, we are more prone to singing, and we smile more often. AI is a vehicle the Holy Spirit uses to reveal the heart of God already present at our church and context. We are convinced that we have become more adept at attending to the Holy Spirit, and that means we are not in control and we have reflected on a relevant word from Jesus, “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8 NRSV). The church is learning, and I am learning, that trusting people, trusting the process, and trusting the Holy Spirit are key practices for us.

7

Akron Mennonite Church— Akron, Pennsylvania Jim S. Amstutz

Akron Mennonite Church was at a crossroads in 2001. The then-current tenyear goals were nearing completion, a new lead pastor had just been called, the sanctuary mortgage would be paid off a year early, and a new national denomination (Mennonite Church USA [MC USA]) was in formation. The church council asked me (the new pastor) to assist in shaping a vision process. Little did I know then that we would still be finding our way on the journey toward missional transformation over the next ten years. Feeling quite overwhelmed with the enormity of our collective kairos1 moment, I pulled out a copy of a book given to me by one of its contributing authors. I suggested that staff and congregational leadership begin reading Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, edited by Darrell Guder.2 After all, it had vision in the title and I knew MC USA claimed that becoming a missional church was one of its core values. Call it luck or the movement of the Holy Spirit, but this book set the stage for what came next, which included the subject of this book—Appreciative Inquiry—and missional engagement.

145

146

C hapt e r 7

CONTEXT

Akron Mennonite Church (AMC) is a fifty-six-year-old congregation in the Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition. We are situated in the northern part of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, surrounded by small towns (Akron and Ephrata) and farms owned by plain (horse and buggy) Mennonites. We are home to three Mennonite agencies that have national and global visibility: Mennonite Central Committee, Ten Thousand Villages, and Mennonite Disaster Service. We have about three hundred attenders each Sunday, and many are not native to the area, but have ties with one of these agencies. We also have a deep talent pool of professionals, business owners, educators, artists, and musicians. All ages are represented, although we are increasingly aware of our graying and expanding over-sixty-five demographic. We are committed to community life, nonviolence, service, and discipleship. APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY, NEW CONVERSATIONS, AND NEW STRUCTURES

What we called our “vision process” began with the first of three retreats where a cross-section of the congregation spent a weekend listening to scripture and one another. Our goal was the holy grail of organizational planning and management: a vision statement that would change our life, grow the church, and resolve all of our postmodern angst! We quickly learned that just because we have good intentions as people of faith, doesn’t guarantee God’s blessing and success. That said, missional language, habits, and practices started seeping into congregational life. We began dwelling with scripture, continued reading missional literature, and gave ourselves permission to experiment. We hosted a significant number of missional scholars and thinkers during these formative years, including Lois Barrett,3 Alan and Eleanor Krieder,4 Darrell Guder,5 Mark Lau Branson,6 and Wilbert Shenk.7 They cheered us on and invited us to go deeper in claiming a missional identity. I also began a doctor of ministry course of study in missional leadership at Fuller Theological Seminary with Alan Roxburgh and Mark Lau Branson. The church was gracious enough to be the lab for our missional experiments and studies. Appreciative Inquiry was introduced in multiple settings during this time.

A kr o n M e nn o nit e C h u rch — A kr o n , P e nn s ylvania



147

Cycle One: AI with Charter Members

Our first round of Appreciative Inquiry was with our founding or “charter” members. Twenty-six were still active in the life of the congregation at the time, and twenty were able to participate in the AI process. We created table groups of about six each, and I prepared facilitators as “listener-scribes” who kept the conversation on task and recorded individual and group comments. This deep listening opened up the living history of Akron Mennonite Church. The early years of formation, commitment, and life together were brought to light as memories were sparked and connections made between God’s leading and their faithful discipleship. What follows are the questions used, which we circulated to the founders ahead of time, and the summary compilation of responses. Question 1.1:8 When you think of the formation of Akron Mennonite Church, how did you experience God at work in the process and what gave you hope for the future of the church? As you remember those first years, what was most engaging and powerful? The founders provided stories and reflections that focused on commitment, unity, vision, and leadership. Young families were committed to one another and this new venture of faith. They met not only on Sunday mornings in the Brownstown Fire Hall but also on Wednesday evenings. They committed time, money, and their collective talents with a high sense of ownership as they sought God’s guidance and wisdom. Unity was forged as they met in small groups for decision making and sharing the rhythms of family life. As one participant commented, “We established an intimate and meaningful small fellowship in homes on Wednesday evenings which included decision making. Our diverse backgrounds contributed to a sense of openness, listening, and sharing.”9 They became a close-knit congregation, felt free to express themselves, and were open to change. Retreats helped forge closeness and growth. Emerging from the Monterey Mennonite Church (MCC) (now Forest Hills), the Akron group began imagining a future separate from their mother church. Even though Monterey was already affiliated with the more progressive Ohio and Eastern Conference, the Akron group sought a place of refuge for those not

148

C hapt e r 7

from the dominant (and more conservative) Lancaster Conference. They wanted a church closer to home for their children, and to be a community church in Akron. Lay leaders provided day-to-day administration functions of the church. They were a gifted and hardworking group, including business leaders, teachers, farmers, MCC workers, and homemakers. Key leaders helped balance youth and eagerness with wisdom. Question 1.2: Since 1959 you have participated in numerous changes—ways that God worked among us to deepen our faith and faithfulness. Tell us about one or two times when you believe the church was responsive to God’s initiatives in renewing or deepening or challenging us—and what was the result? Who was involved and what happened? Many responses to this question focused on the cultural/theological issues that the Mennonite church faced in the early 1960s, especially here in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. For example, divorce and remarriage was a significant challenge for the young church. One person observed that they learned the importance of working through difficult issues before an actual case arose: “Two times this church could have divided, but didn’t. We would go on retreat and work things out.” Other cultural issues that needed theological reflection included wedding rings, church practices requiring head coverings, women in leadership, rebaptism, becoming a dual conference congregation, and facing public opposition on issues of war and peace. Finding land to buy, breaking ground, and completing the first building project were also highlights. Others saw God at work as this group stayed together through conflict, and several observed the strength of not focusing on the negatives as the church evolved. The formation of Community Mennonite Church of Lancaster, the AMC’s twenty-fifth anniversary, and forming house groups were also mentioned. Question 1.3: As a founder you have a unique perspective on our church today. In all of our relationships and ministries, what is currently most encouraging and hopeful for you? What are the most important signs of God’s grace? Common themes emerged as the focus shifted to church life today: the large number of children and youth is a sign of hope, strong programs, opportunities to serve, and leadership. Being a church that embraces inquiry

A kr o n M e nn o nit e C h u rch — A kr o n , P e nn s ylvania



149

and accepts a diversity of views is seen as a strength. Worship is important and nourishing, especially the music. The strengths of our relationships were noted, “We have a community of caring and treat each other like family, especially in times of crisis. Prayer, support and acceptance are very evident.” Leadership was affirmed among younger members who are actively taking responsibility for congregational life and ministry. Different generations are present and involved. Prayer ministry is much appreciated as is community involvement. Four themes received repeated attention: the significant participation of children and youth, the congregation’s relational competencies, our worship life (especially music), and the diffusion of leadership toward younger members. Participants noted relational strengths like our capacity to process controversies with grace, a general sense of warmth, and the absence of a judgmental ethos (which members had experienced in other settings). Several other traits were also affirmed: our intergenerational life, prayer ministries, and community involvement. Question 1.4: If you had three wishes for the next few years of our church. What would they be? One theme that emerged when we asked for wishes was the importance of holding strongly to the tenets of our faith: biblical and theological foundations, staying centered on God, pacifism, tithing, and passing these on to our children and youth. Our musical heritage was also affirmed with appreciation expressed for having many people involved. Community outreach was hoped for, with Diamond Street Early Childhood Center (that shares our building) affirmed as a bright spot. Other wishes related to how we live in this community included welcoming marginal people, increasing our diversity, simple living so that we can give more, and exploring church planting. Finally, wishes were expressed in the area of congregational life: becoming better listeners, having courage to deal with issues, maintaining the best qualities of acceptance and tolerance even as we define boundaries, and perhaps extending discernment time for longer discussion/ resolution. The founders expressed hope that “we can be graceful as the transition to the next generation takes place.” One tangible take-away from this charter member experience was the creation of a contemporary historical narrative. I deliberately chose a number of newer members to be the listener-scribes since hearing these stories would

150

C hapt e r 7

be formative as they got to know the congregation. We circulated a summary widely in the congregation, which I believe helped create a collective narrative about our identity. The founders said we are innovative, open to questions and diversity, and expressed a strong desire to connect with the local community. All of the themes would be revisited in the course of the ongoing transformation process the congregation was engaging, but this initial AI experience laid a solid foundation. Cycle Two: AI with the Council and Small Groups

Over the next several years, Appreciative Inquiry was used with the congregational council10 and small group leaders. Questions were adapted to each specific group and their particular role in the congregational system. The council was exploring how new people connected with AMC and what kept them coming back, so we created a series of questions that were used sequentially over several months of the council meetings to inquire into their own stories of affiliation and discipleship. Small-group leaders responded to the three introductory AI questions dealing with our relationships with God, each other, and our community and world:11 (2.1) When you consider all of your experiences at our church, what has contributed most to your spiritual life? What relationships or programs or events have been most powerful and helpful in fostering the congregation’s relationship with God? Are there particular characteristics or traits of our congregation that are most valuable as we grow spiritually, both personally and as a church? Tell me what has made a difference and how that has happened. (2.2) What are the healthiest, most life-giving aspects of the relationships among people at our church? What would you say has been most valuable about your friendships? Have certain groups been valuable for you? What would you say is most important about how we relate to each other? Give me some examples of how we live together at our best. (2.3) When you think about how our church has related to our community and to the world, what do you think has been most important? When we are at our best, how do we express God’s love and mercy and justice to others? What have

A kr o n M e nn o nit e C h u rch — A kr o n , P e nn s ylvania



151

been your own most important ministry or missional experiences in relating to others beyond our own church? Because the majority of Akron Mennonite’s adults are not from our local Lancaster County, small groups called “house churches” were formed to provide the personal network of care and support not available from extended families. The importance of nurturing church connections and relationships was strongly affirmed in the responses we heard in both of these settings. EXPERIMENTS, COMMITMENTS, AND OUR COMMUNITY

Appreciative Inquiry initiatives during the first two phases of our missional transformation generated imaginative thinking and concrete proposals. We gave ourselves permission to experiment, to reflect on what we tried, and to deepen our commitment to these initiatives or move on. One indicator of the breadth and variety of initiatives can be found in the approved Ministry Teams that were formed by members who came together around missional passion and energy, often shaped by experiments arising from Appreciative Inquiry conversations. Ministry Teams require personal involvement from AMC members/attenders and must be in keeping with our overall mission and identity as an Anabaptist-Mennonite church. What follows is a sampling of Ministry Teams formed by laity at AMC from 2003 to 2007. Gifts and Vision. One group spent most of a year dwelling12 with 1 Corinthians 12. They formulated the Ministry Team structure to better utilize the gifts and passions of our members. Led by Jim S., a business owner with a keen interest and expertise in organizational change, the Ministry Team model continues to serve the congregational in significant ways. Rooted in the biblical teaching that all believers have been gifted by the Holy Spirit, Ministry Teams provide a nimble, organic way of empowering missional imagination. Homes of Hope-Ephrata. This interchurch transitional housing ministry for homeless persons in our local community took flight after a series of exploratory meetings hosted by Akron Mennonite Church and the local Ministerium. Ten years later, Home of Hope, under the umbrella agency Love In the Name of Christ, or Love INC, continues to draw upon AMC members who serve as volunteer mentors, board members, and others who assist with cleaning and repair projects. Initially a Ministry Team, Homes of Hope is now part of the annual budget in the church outreach committee structure.

152

C hapt e r 7

Refugee Family Sponsorship. Over the past ten years, AMC has assisted two families of five to resettle here. The first family from Eastern Europe quickly adapted to the challenges of transitioning into another culture. With AMC support, they acquired all of their necessary paperwork, found employment, took language classes, and eventually moved to a neighboring community where they continue to thrive. The second family came to us from Iraq by way of Syria. One of the only Iraqi Christian families to be resettled in Lancaster County, they have remained connected to the congregation and participate in one of our house churches. They purchased a home and sent all three of their children to a university. Both families put stories and faces to issues related to war, displacement, and resettlement. Argentina Partnership. Now in its tenth year, this church-to-church partnership involves three congregations in our area conference and twelve Mennonite congregations in the central zone of Argentina. Economic disparities are secondary to the relational connection established through alternate delegations sent to preach, see one another’s home context, and agree on mutual projects for outreach. My wife and I had the privilege of participating in a ten-day visit to Argentina in February 2011. I preached six times in ten days and visited nearly half of the congregations in the partnership from near Buenos Aires to as far west as Santa Rosa. The partnership participants met to reaffirm our covenant with one another and renew our commitment of supporting one another in prayer and personal visits. Every Church a Peace Church (ECAPC). This national ecumenical initiative was founded by AMC member John Stoner to assist congregations across the denominational spectrum to declare themselves a peace church. AMC provided much of the early funding and support to this peace teaching and educational endeavor. After gaining nonprofit status, ECAPC has continued to provide a consistent voice calling for a reexamination of Christ’s way of peace as a viable alternative to the Christendom assumption of redemptive violence. Respite Care for Philip. When their oldest child was born, little did Phil and Marion know what the future would hold. Born profoundly disabled because of a toxic blood disorder, young Philip was blind, unable to speak or crawl. Phil and Marion decided to care for him as long as possible in their home. After son Peter was born, the family also adopted a ten-year-old daughter from Vietnam. When Elizabeth turned eighteen, they promised to make a family trip back to the orphanage where she was born and still had many friends. But

A kr o n M e nn o nit e C h u rch — A kr o n , P e nn s ylvania



153

what about Philip? A Respite Care Ministry Team was formed among AMC friends and family who provided around-the-clock care so that the family could make the trip. At the age of twenty-five, Philip was able to successfully move into a personal care home where he is surrounded by many friends and a loving staff. Philip still attends worship regularly with his parents, occupying his familiar wheelchair spot in the sanctuary. A more recent highlight was Philip’s baptism in September of 2014. Listening Ministry Team. This group of fifteen met during our Christian education hour. Each member made the commitment to dwell with Luke 10:1–12 daily, and each Sunday their gathering started with this discipline. The idea was to deeply listen to scripture and the local community. Multiple local mission initiatives were launched from this team.13 As AI-shaped listening questions were formulated, members began hearing stories from neighbors, parents, and teachers in the local elementary school, and employees at the local hospital. Luke 10:1–12 1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go. 2 He said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. 3 Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. 4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road. 5 Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house!’ 6 And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you. 7 Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house. 8 Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you; 9 cure the sick who are there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town.”

Lisa worked in the hospital on the cleaning crew. One afternoon she shared her current challenges with Donna, then the hospital chaplain and a

154

C hapt e r 7

member of our congregation who was part of the listening team. Lisa was a single mother working three jobs to care for her special needs son. She was being summoned to District Court for overdue rent. Lisa clarified that she always paid her rent but not always on time because of the monthly trips to the nearby specialty hospital where her son went for treatment. A connection was made with the school social worker. On her court date, a listening team member and the social worker accompanied her to the hearing. Just by having someone in her corner, Lisa found the courage to speak up and make her case. The amount owed was reduced to a fraction of the original amount and the remainder covered by benevolent funds. The wide variety of initiatives described above is representative of what happens when missional imagination is encouraged, and the gifts and passion of participants are nurtured and empowered. The ministry team structure is nimble and responsive, enabling AMC members to respond to God’s activity in our community and form new partnerships with neighbors. The oversight committee was less a gatekeeper than a coaching resource. When we paid off our sanctuary mortgage, we created “The Missional Challenge Fund” rather than continuing our previous budgeting approach of creating a predetermined mission program. Some ministry teams were focused internally and some externally; some were local while others had a national or international focus. We later found the language of “foundational ministries” and “passion ministries” helpful.14 We could then distinguish between missional activities that would run for a season or be episodic, like sponsoring a refugee family or repairing someone’s porch, and initiatives that we incorporated into our ongoing ministry structure as budgeted line items. Passion ministries are contingent on finding “champions” to take initiative and organize the work. Foundational ministries—like hospitality, worship planning, or the long-term mission partnership we have with churches in Argentina—are considered ongoing and overseen by our committee structure. This background sets the stage for the main focus of this chapter on how Appreciative Inquiry aided our move toward missional transformation in the local community. Cycle Three: AI and Community Engagement

The third in a series of vision retreats took place at Akron Mennonite Church during January 2008 and was open to anyone who wished to attend. Appreciative Inquiry provided the overall framework for the weekend. Since

A kr o n M e nn o nit e C h u rch — A kr o n , P e nn s ylvania



155

we had utilized AI in smaller group settings before, the current leadership team planning the retreat was open to this approach. Our main focus was on AMC’s relationship with the local community. We had developed a strong national and international mission, and we were aware and engaged in service, due largely to the aforementioned agency connections. But were we a community-minded church or only a church located in a community? Missional Church conversations within our denomination and congregation provided a theological context for our AI initiatives. We engaged in the spiritual discipline of finding God in the everyday. As Alan Roxburgh writes, “The primary way to know what God is up to in our world when the boundary markers seem to have been erased is by entering into the ordinary, everyday life of the neighborhoods and communities where we live.”15 We learned that God doesn’t always bless our good intentions. Sometimes our efforts to help can actually harm. We had previously participated in numerous “fix-it and forget it” short-term projects, but when the mess is located in our own community, the chronic problems are harder to ignore. We learned that you can never force someone to make good decisions and that too often “pray-and-pay” isn’t enough. Walking alongside people whose network of support is fractured and frayed helped us realize that we may not consider ourselves rich in material things, but we do possess a wealth of relationships. The missional invitation is to broaden that network to include people who need a trusted friend. We used the 4-I Model of AI: Initiate, Inquire, Imagine, Innovate, and spent considerable time shaping the questions and flow of the weekend. Each session began with listening to God by dwelling with scripture. Luke 10:1–12 (above) was lifted up as a key text for building a local theology. We also engaged Matthew 5:13–16 since a focus group at church spent nearly a year dwelling with this passage, and had helped us understand where we were stuck in our desire to engage the local community in a way that also attended to our theological identity. Matthew. 5:13–15 13 You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. 14 You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. 15 No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house.

156

C hapt e r 7

We posed the following questions, keeping in mind the three basic movements of AI (searching for a usable past, identifying current best practices, and voicing hopes and dreams): Question 3.1: As you review the last six years of life and activity at Akron Mennonite Church, where have you seen God at work? How have you personally been challenged or changed? Question 3.2: How have you grown as a disciple of Jesus? How have your gifts and passions been used for God’s mission in the world to neighbors near and far? How is AMC making a difference? Question 3.3: Naming our fears and ambivalence about (being a) “Community Church,” what threatens us by that term? What are the assumptions? Challenges? Where is God in this question? How can we care for one another and reach out to persons in the community in need? Question 3.4: How can AMC be a “City on a Hill”? What are our unique gifts, vision, contributions as a church? How can we be a catalyst for Christ and community? How can AMC be a gracious guest in our host community? (Luke 10 theology) Question 3.5: What hopes and dreams do you have for AMC for the next five years? I have become aware that drafting AI questions is often the most difficult challenge. This is especially true when working collaboratively with folks less familiar with the AI process, as was the case in shaping the questions for this vision retreat. We wanted to shape questions specific to the experiences and vocabulary of our participants at this retreat, but we also knew that new language and stories were needed if we were to change. For example, question 3.3 could have been more helpful if we used the second sub-point (about experiencing God) as the framework since we want to focus on what God is already doing rather than focus on our fears. An alternative wording would be, “Either in your personal reflections or in conversations in groups, how have you experienced God’s grace and promptings in the midst of our ambivalence or resistance?” Sub-points might include “Have you experienced deeper relationships with church friends when you were in the midst of outreach?” and “How have you found yourself encouraged, changed, or newly motivated?”

A kr o n M e nn o nit e C h u rch — A kr o n , P e nn s ylvania



157

I would also avoid so many “how” questions in 3.4 and ask instead about their wishes about our relationship with the local community. So perhaps, “If you had 2 or 3 wishes about how God’s grace creates new links between us and our community, what would those wishes be?” We could also have prompted their imagination regarding our study of Luke 10. “Considering our reflections on Luke 10, what hopes do you have about how that story could shape us?” We were able to receive very generative responses, but I believe those changes would have been helpful. What Did We Learn?

I believe Appreciative Inquiry played a pivotal role in helping AMC move toward a more intentional community engagement. In the earlier AI encounter with charter members, we learned that “being a community church” was articulated by the founders as a core value. Even the name “Akron Community Church” had been considered. Unfortunately, we were hard-pressed to find any tangible expression of how that desire was incarnated in those early years. But this history was very useful in the 2008 AI event since it validated the conversation and lent credence to the local theology being constructed. That awareness allowed us to build on our useable past and take it forward into a new and preferred missional future. Luke 10 and Matthew 5 had already shaped us theologically, calling us to see our local context through missionary eyes.16 As a result, we began shifting the assumption of always being the host, which leaves us in the relational position of having power and resources, to being a guest in our host community, which Jesus insisted on as he sent the 70 into nearby towns. We affirmed the importance of listening to those who are literally across the street, next door, and at the local elementary school a half mile from the church. We built on the witness of members who through newly formed ministry teams were pioneering missional engagements by creating transitional housing, engaging families experiencing the grind of poverty, and tutoring at-risk children and youth. Throughout the retreat, we experienced how stories transformed our imaginations and our commitments. People recalled how Kent shared a “Moment in Mission” during worship prior to the retreat. He had served on the 2002 focus group exploring how AMC might reach out to our local community. Newly retired, he began volunteering at Ephrata Area Social Services. Since that agency

158

C hapt e r 7

prompted the discussion of starting a transitional housing ministry, Kent was in on the ground floor and served as our first mentor along with his wife, Sarah. That journey from vision to reality changed him—it was a conversion experience—and his witness left an impression on many at the retreat. Dale, then congregational chair, shared how he assisted his wife in hosting the refreshments at the first funeral our church had for a community member who was not a church member. Sharon was a local neighbor. One of our members had introduced her to us, and soon her need for porch repair became the focus of a creative missional partnership. When Sharon was later diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, she told the hospital chaplain to call our office: “Tell them I’m not a member, but they know me, I’m the porch lady.” After visiting with Sharon several times and meeting her daughters, we promised that we would host her funeral when she passed. Dale shared his sense of gratitude that our congregation could extend such hospitality to a nonmember and literally make room on our own porch for community folks who needed to smoke a cigarette before coming in for the service. “That stretched us,” said Dale, “but we were able to share our space and invite them to see God at work in our relationship with Sharon.” Members of the “Mission, Identity and Community” focus group shared how they spent nearly a year dwelling deeply with Matthew 5:13–16, the text on becoming salt, light, and a city on a hill that informed questions 3.3 and 3.4. “We moved beyond the popular interpretations of salt as seasoning or a preservative,” said Cheryl, “and we found out that salt was used in first century ovens as a catalyst—helping the fire to burn hotter but maintaining its character.” Renny shared how, instead of the familiar image of a lighthouse, the group thought of the illumination in the aisle of a theater or on an airport runway. “Those lights help us find our footing and stay grounded. They also seem more Mennonite than a flashy lighthouse!” A third member of the group said they were amazed to learn that the root word for “city on a hill” in Greek was Akron (“acropolis”)! Appreciative Inquiry questions helped us to reframe and move beyond our initial fears of local missional engagement. The assumption was that we would lose our Anabaptist-Mennonite identity and become another generic community church. Through personal witness and focused table discussion, our narrative and theological framework began to change. In fact, one of the agreed upon findings of this third vision retreat was that Akron Mennonite

A kr o n M e nn o nit e C h u rch — A kr o n , P e nn s ylvania



159

Church was not only connecting significantly with the local community, but we were also calling ourselves to deepen those connections. We had turned a missional corner. Inagrace Dietterich writes that, “The goal of ‘Appreciative Inquiry’ is to change the conversation—to stimulate the thinking and the imagination of congregations—through a process that focuses upon the honorable, the pure, the pleasing, the commendable.”17 That is what we were learning in our own process. MISSIONAL LEADERSHIP

As a pastoral leader, I was deeply involved in the process of helping Akron Mennonite Church build a connection with the local community. Robert Quinn argues persuasively that organizations will not change if the leaders themselves are not willing to also change: “Deep change at the collective level requires deep change at the personal level. Organizational change cannot occur unless we accept the pain of personal change.”18 I had to confess and face my own inadequacies in reading our community. What I had been taught, and assumed to be true, was that population statistics and demographic studies about the community were useful to market the church—to bring people to us. That perspective only began to change when I was assigned to intentionally listen to people in my neighborhood and community. Patrick Keifert writes that this marketing approach is “a very bad moral habit of modernity” that leads to “the objectification of persons and communities.”19 When we take the alternative approach of a being a listener, a guest, and a student in our neighborhoods and communities, those demographics are redefined by real humans whose voices change us. Then we are able to reflect on (1) the biblical narrative, (2) the narrative of the local church, (3) the local church’s role as public moral companion within civil society, and (4) the narratives of real, specific persons and households within the proximity of the local church.20 By the time our listening ministry was launched, I had already personally completed twenty-one community interviews. We began seeing how God was at work in the lives of our neighbors, schools, and community ministries. We pushed one another to take a more relational approach and co-create ministry instead of the traditional “pray and pay” form of ministry. Getting to know our neighbors and our community led us to a deeper level of mutual respect and awareness that we give and receive, listen and learn, and often are the

160

C hapt e r 7

ones most in need. Now, in the midst of these expanding relationships, community meals, homeless prevention, and transitional housing ministries have become an ongoing part of our community engagement. This personal involvement not only added momentum to our various initiatives, but it also gave me a platform for interpretive leadership.21 Missional transformation requires leaders to help others connect the dots—to say “this is that.” As members of the listening team began their own exploration of the community, they would say on the following Sunday, “I saw Luke 10 come alive this week,” and then would tell a story of a neighbor’s hospitality or name their own baggage. I was constantly looking for opportunities for people in the church to give witness to what they were seeing, hearing, tasting, and smelling in the local community. I’ll never forget Ken sharing how he took it upon himself to visit the home of the elementary school student he was tutoring. The mother had died recently and the boy’s father was raising the children alone. With tears in his eyes Ken shared how the boy’s little sister would have her teacher brush her hair and put in a barrette since daddy didn’t know how. Appreciative Inquiry levels the playing field and gives everyone involved a voice. Those voices were heard not only at the retreat but also during worship, in Sunday school classes, at coffee/tea fellowship, and around the church council table. Gloria and her family found their way to AMC by way of the preschool in our building. During a congregational discernment session, she shared how she crossed the “invisible barrier” between the preschool wing and our sanctuary. Appreciative Inquiry not only empowered Gloria to feel safe enough to share her story, it helped all of us begin to understand what that invisible barrier was that she was describing. Gloria sings in the choir, teaches in the children’s department, and served a term on congregational council. Her family transcended another barrier recently when they purchased their own home. In their description of a process for congregational missional transformation, Alan Roxburgh and Scott Boren stipulate that “getting there from here” requires a long-term commitment to conversations and experimentation. It is not a linear process or a once-and-done event.22 Akron Mennonite Church continues to venture out into the Akron-Ephrata area as a catalyst for Christ and community, striving to be a good neighbor in our local context, and seeking to live into our congregational identity as a city on a hill within it, not in spite of it. Appreciative Inquiry equipped us with the conversations and processes to articulate and implement this missional engagement, and for that we are very grateful.

8

Community Bible Church— Pasadena, California Jean Burch

In 2004, Community Baptist Church (CBC) faced a cascading set of challenges. Many of us at CBC realized that we had become satisfied and very proud of our accomplishments. Also, even though it may have seemed inconsequential, “Baptist” was in our name, but we were not connected significantly to the theology or history of that tradition. Influenced by my corporate background, I felt that we needed the assistance of a consultant to take a look at who we were and where we wanted to go. The leadership on our boards and committees was not especially strong at the time, and the work with the consultant compounded the frustration the members were experiencing. The consultant tended to focus on what members identified as problems. There were no discussions around our history and strengths. The main group the consultant engaged were those who were most discontent with the church. Relationships began to splinter. Secret meetings and grumblings almost split the church into several different groups. This church was recognized by many in the community as having played a significant role in the Pasadena area, and its historic identity was important to us and to others. In this changing situation, I devoted more time to seeking the Lord for help. Growth had stopped and several families left. I knew we needed change, but I wasn’t sure how to proceed. I decided to seek the advice 161

162

C hapt e r 8

of a friend, so I scheduled a meeting with Mark Lau Branson. We had met in 2000, shortly after I became pastor of Community Baptist Church. He had worked with our community development board and encouraged us in some major community projects, and he knew the heart and history of the church. Some of that narrative is needed as background for this story. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

On September 12, 1938, fourteen people from northwest Pasadena (California) joined Dr. Jesse W. Coleman at a meeting held in Pasadena’s old Chicago Club House. The Club House was a convenient and popular meeting place for blacks in the 1930s. The purpose of the meeting was to organize the Community Baptist Church. After moving from Illinois to Pasadena during the Depression years, Dr. Coleman felt the need to organize a church to create a place of hope for the residents of what is called the “northwest community.” The name Community Baptist Church was chosen to describe the church’s purpose and mission. This would be a church that would stand in the gap between God and the people while engaging in the civic affairs of the community. In the beginning, the church held its worship services at the local pool hall. Eventually, the members were able to purchase the building and converted it into a comfortable place of worship for the small group. The membership grew, and by the early 1940s it had grown to approximately fifty members. After World War II, in order to help church members and neighbors face the many challenges and changes in northwest Pasadena, the church organized the Community Baptist Credit Union. During the mid-1960s, Dr. Coleman and the members of CBC decided that it was time to emerge from its storefront existence, so they purchased a Seventh Day Adventist Church building located in the same community. The new building was dedicated in November of 1966 and marked a significant milestone in the life of the church, the congregation, and the community. Dr. Coleman had many ideas and dreams concerning how to help those less fortunate in the northwest community. He took Matthew 25:40 to heart, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me.” Among his dreams was that of building affordable housing for low-income families. This small African American church was about to embark upon making a dream become a reality. The congregation had little experience in building, but they

C o mm u nity B ibl e C h u rch — P a s ad e na , C alif o rnia



163

had a lot of faith in God. Their determination and hard-work ethic, energized and directed by their faith, made up for their lack of experience. In 1968 the church selected a committee to begin this massive project, and in August 1970 they formed a nonprofit corporation and named it Northwest Pasadena Development Corporation. The majority of the members of the corporation’s board were members of the church. Their first job was to find property for the building project. They chose a site that had been known as “Cancer Corner” or the “Snake Pit” because of its crime infestation and social decay. Soon they received some seed money and began numerous meetings with neighbors, property owners, the city of Pasadena, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), architects, realtors, contractors, and developers. After much prayer and hard work, in 1974 the Community Baptist Church dedicated 133 units of affordable rental housing and called it Community Arms. Dr. Coleman died one year after the dedication and open house of the Community Arms. With Dr. Coleman’s dream fulfilled, CBC became known as the “Small Church with the Big Dream.” For almost four decades, the Arms has not only provided housing but has also been instrumental in providing career training, afterschool programs, parental training, and summer programs, and we have numerous stories about successful work and changed lives. Community Bible Church is the fourth-oldest African American church in Pasadena. Each pastor has been challenged with the responsibility to continue the legacy of serving our urban community. My father, Pastor John W. Burch, became the third pastor in 1981 and served as the senior pastor of CBC for almost twenty years. Under his pastorate, the church became debt free as it continued to provide the services of Community Arms to the less fortunate. During the late 1980s, CBC began to experience some internal challenges. Young people were leaving, sometimes saying that the church was not connecting to their lives and a changing context. The charter members were satisfied and not overly concerned with the declining numbers because they still had a church, and they still owned Community Arms. Finding it difficult to watch, I left CBC. I went on a journey that I now know was a God thing. I needed to meet some people, learn some lessons, and study under another pastor who would prepare me for something I did not expect—to return at a

164

C hapt e r 8

later time to give my father the help he would need to bring a dying church back to life. During those years, I completed a BA, became the director of continuing education for the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and was ordained by the church I was attending. In 1995 I was asked by my parents, with the blessing of my pastor, to come and teach CBC’s weekly Bible study, which drew ten to fifteen members. Through observation and conversation, I learned that this forty-plus-year-old church had lost its way. There was no sense of a unifying purpose. Everything had begun to revolve around the success of building Community Arms while the “mother ship” was slowly sinking. I served with my father as his assistant for the next four years. Each ministry department had become an entity within itself. Each had its own agenda and participants, and it became difficult for newcomers to figure out where they best fit. Change did come but not without continued challenge and some struggles. The Baptist associations we had were still not ready to embrace women in ministry. I preached on designated days, and the midweek group that I taught continued to grow, but the leaders were not fully ready to give me a leadership role. Still working in corporate America, I was very driven by process and procedures, and that orientation became part of the new struggle. I thought that creating systems could solve all of our problems. There was obvious resistance from the seniors who did not think their church needed change. In the summer of 1999, we were jolted by the sudden passing of my mother. Mom had been a big part of the spiritual and relational landscape. She was a woman of great revelation and energy. She had accepted her call to the preaching ministry in June of that year. Dad had her preach her trial sermon in July, and in August she went to heaven. Dad’s grief and some health challenges led him toward retirement. With Mom gone and Dad struggling with his sight, he was ready to retire. With everything at a standstill, my Dad declared to the trustee board that God had already prepared the next pastor and suggested that CBC name me as its fourth pastor. Even though there were dissenters, the vote was in my favor, and in March of 2000, I left a twenty-year career in corporate America; in April of 2000 I became the fourth pastor—and the first female pastor—of Community Baptist Church. Upon becoming the senior pastor of CBC, I learned that I had not only been handed a legacy to continue but also an opportunity to lead the church to hear and respond to God’s missional call for a new era.

C o mm u nity B ibl e C h u rch — P a s ad e na , C alif o rnia



165

One day soon after I became the pastor, during a time of prayer, I was led to walk the church’s neighborhood as my prayer continued. I was spiritually and emotionally moved by the stressed living conditions of those in the nearby King’s Villages apartments. When I shared what I had experienced with our congregation, I learned that a couple of church leaders had brought our nonprofit corporation into negotiations about becoming the nonprofit partner in the ownership this property, which is the largest affordable housing complex in Pasadena. King’s Villages was built on thirty acres of land and spans six city blocks with a total of 313 units. This huge property, pockmarked by drugs, gang activity, and crime, housed over 1,200 people, with the majority being children and youth. This would be a massive undertaking for the small church with a big dream.1 The next two years would be consumed with the rebuilding of this property by pulling down the prison-like wrought iron fences, fixing broken plumbing, replacing deficient heating, and irrigating the land. Each unit would receive new carpet, air-conditioning, paint, kitchen cabinets, countertops, and appliances. In 2002, the summer of completion, CBC was faced with new opportunities and responsibilities. We realized that this challenge would begin a new season for life transformation. We began to develop programs and activities to enhance the lives of the residents. This was a major accomplishment. There were as many as three generations of families still living at the property, many who felt as though no one had ever listened to their needs and concerns, not even the church. Now we realized we had neighbors and we needed to listen. We were learning the importance of mutuality—that we were sharing a neighborhood with other residents. John Block, in referring to the work of John McKnight and Jody Kretzmann, writes, “Communities are built from the assets and gifts of their citizens, not from the citizens’ needs or deficiencies. Organized, professionalized systems are capable of delivering services, but only associational life is capable of delivering care.”2 We had begun to imagine a different future; it was time to hear what the residents felt they needed to move them beyond a mere existence. We gave them a voice by forming a residents’ council that would meet with management monthly to share concerns, assess their needs, and plan events. In 2004, a couple of years after the physical rehabilitation of King’s Villages was completed, several things became apparent to us as a congregation. With

166

C hapt e r 8

this major project behind us, we were becoming aware of our own lethargy and self-satisfaction. In addition, with no real ties to the Baptist denomination, we were challenged by our name. We needed the courage to change our course. We needed to figure out why we were at a standstill, and we also needed the courage to change our name to better reflect our mission. Our name was Community Baptist Church. The name served the church well under the three previous pastors, who all happened to be men. The founding pastor, Dr. Coleman, was a member of the Western States Baptist Ministers Conference. It was at an annual conference in southern California in 1938 that he announced that he was organizing a new Baptist church in Pasadena, California. The church would also eventually become affiliated with the National Baptist Convention, but the church leadership saw fit to withdraw its participation during the late 1980s. Several years were spent considering other Baptist groups. In this quest, the CBC became an independent Baptist church. Although we were not formally affiliated with any specific Baptist denomination, we were a Baptist church by name—with a female pastor. The stigma against women in ministry was a dark cloud hanging over us. BEGINNING THE APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY PROCESS

So in 2004, when I met with Mark to discuss our church’s post-consultant situation, he shared with me a process that he had introduced at his church. He suggested that I take a look at Appreciative Inquiry, as he narrated it in Memories, Hopes, and Conversations. Mark assured me that if I could get the people to change their conversations and begin talking about their memories and their hopes for the life of the church, that something positive would happen. We found it amazing how a church that had been a part of the community for so long could become so consumed with what was going on inside the four walls and lose sight of what God was doing and had called us to do in our neighborhoods. I believed that God had placed gifts and work into our hands, and we needed to be the church God intended. I was desperate, and after much prayer, I began to read Mark’s book. Memories, Hopes, and Conversations became the vehicle that assisted us in our much-needed change. I first met with the church leaders and introduced them to the AI process. This allowed us as leaders to come together before introducing AI to the congregation. Realizing that the word “change” could be threatening, we chose to begin the process by emphasizing a gathering in

C o mm u nity B ibl e C h u rch — P a s ad e na , C alif o rnia



167

which we would remember the best days. Together, we studied and affirmed five key AI processes:3 1. Choose the positive as the focus of inquiry; 2. Inquire into stories of life-giving forces; 3. Locate themes that appear in the stories and select topics for further inquiry; 4. Create shared images for a preferred future; 5. Find innovative ways to create that future. The process took about two months to complete. After the introduction to the leadership, we spent about a week identifying and training three interviewers. We decided to use our Sunday school hour to conduct the interviews, and twenty-one people agreed to participate. We formed three groups, and we made sure that each of the three groups represented the diversity of the church by age, gender, ethnicity, and length of time as members. Each group was assigned a trained interviewer and a scribe to record the responses. The First Inquiry Series

Once the interviewers were trained, we spent the next week introducing the teams to the AI process. The following four weeks were spent on the interviews, with one question for each session. All three groups were given the same questions. The first question set the focus for the upcoming weeks; the second question focused on personal and church spirituality. The third question sought responses about the church’s outreach.4 The final question was open-ended, about wishes. The questions we used were:5 1. Reflecting on your entire experience at Community Baptist Church, remember a time when you felt the most engaged, alive, and motivated. Who was involved? What did you do? How did it feel? What happened? 2. When you consider all of your experiences at our church, what has contributed most to your spiritual life? What relationships or programs or events have been most powerful and helpful in fostering the congregation’s relationship with God? Are there particular characteristics or traits of our congregation that are most valuable as we grow spiritually, both personally and as a church? Tell me what has made a difference and how that has happened.

168

C hapt e r 8

3. In all the ways we connect with the local community, the nation, and the world, what do you believe are the most important and meaningful elements of our church’s outreach? Describe those times when you believe the church was most faithful or effective in missional activities. What have been your own most valuable experiences? 4. Make three wishes for the future of our church. Describe what the church would look like as these wishes come true. As the groups shared in positive conversations among themselves, we began to see what I called a “sparkle” in the eyes of the participants. The discussions brought about a new energy and excitement. This was so obvious that others wanted to join the conversations. One person stated that the process reminded him of a husband taking time to remember after many years why he fell in love with his wife in the first place. The young adults and newer members enjoyed hearing the historical perspective of the seasoned members. Pastor John highlighted the church’s happy times, which he described as “five generations when we were our best, working together to make things happen.” He commented, “We bought a church building and built Community Arms just by working together to get it done.” It was amazing to hear about the bridge created between generations. It was also exciting to realize that there were so many consistent signs of goodness from year to year. The memories of the senior and charter members were invaluable. Donald recalled, “The church was known for caring about everyone. We took pride in inviting the community at large to participate in different activities with the residents living in our affordable housing properties.” This meant that neighbors enjoyed this improvement to their community. Robert recalled that a member of the police department was always on the board of the church’s nonprofit corporation, which built and managed Community Arms. This represented a concern for safety and provided an important connection with the city. Janice remembered the children marching in the black history parade, the summer internships for the youth, the holiday parties, and more. She commented, “There was so much excitement among the children and youth as they looked forward to and prepared for the annual events that included our church, the residents of Community Arms, and

C o mm u nity B ibl e C h u rch — P a s ad e na , C alif o rnia



169

many of our neighbors.” She went on to say, “This was what we were known for, and we did a good job at it.” After much discussion, all the groups were excited about lifting the best of our life-giving times out of our history to help us decide where we were to go next. Several themes arose during the discussions. We constantly heard words like love, unity, serving, celebrating, and fellowship. Discovering Seven Themes

Once the initial discussions were concluded, two follow-up meetings were scheduled. The meetings consisted of the three interviewers, three church leaders, and myself. At the first two meeting, we teamed an interviewer with a church leader and gave each team the data that was collected from the interviews. The teams were asked to identify three to five major themes, with a focus around question number 2 (the church’s connection with God) and question number 3 (expressing faith in outreach). We used one of Mark’s questions to help our discernment—“What are the essential, central characteristics or ways of life that make our church unique?”6 I moved among the three teams and listened to the encouraging conversations. The teams were quite energized. We eventually came up with seven themes: 1. The church was and is the center of family relationships: James remembered and commented on how the entire family came to worship together. There was a big smile on his face as he spoke. “We could do the impossible with a little faith and a lot of work from the youngest to the oldest.” 2. The importance of community partnerships and participation: We have always been a church involved in our community, from marching in parades to providing job training and summer internships for youth. Our vacation Bible school was and is one of the largest in the city, and this is important because our children were the lifeblood of the church. 3. Our ability to express love and warmth to anyone and everyone who came to CBC: Lewis stated, “As soon as I walked through the door I felt like I was a part of the family. No one was ever a stranger or just a visitor.” Pastor Barbara commented, “We displayed the love of God to any guests and we tried to be at our best at all times. As a result, some joined the church on their first visit.”

170

C hapt e r 8

4. Serving our community: Pastor John, with great excitement, stated, “God had made a way for this small church to build 133 units of affordable housing and then become the non-profit owner of an additional 313 units. Providing housing for the least of these and transforming their lives was what God had called us to do.” He also emphasized that “everyone loves serving meals at the Bad Weather Shelter during the winter months and Central Park on Thanksgiving and Christmas.” 5. Fellowship and celebration: James commented, “We celebrated everything from birthdays to anniversaries. This kept us alive; our family days and annual celebrations were not only fun to plan but were much appreciated by the congregation. These events keep us connected to one another.” 6. Appreciation for the freedom of worship: One of the participants voiced a great summary of our Sunday mornings, “We look forward to the music and singing, corporate prayer and fasting, and the equipping of the saints through the teaching of God’s Word at Bible study and Sunday morning sermons.” 7. Being unified and connected to what God is doing: A participant commented, “We are at our best when we remember our mission and are led by the Holy Spirit and not our accomplishments.” After the two meetings, the Sunday morning groups met again to review the results. It was a wonderful positive meeting. The groups felt that we had effectively identified their thoughts, memories, and ideas. The following week, we presented the themes to the leaders to create our provocative proposals. What Flowed Out of the AI Process

It was up to the leadership now to discern what we needed to do next. They were given the themes to study in preparation for the next meetings. We decided to meet an hour before Bible study each week for several weeks to come up with our proposals. At the first meeting of the leadership team, we formed several groups. Each group identified a leader, and the discussions evolved around question number 4—“Make three wishes for the future of our church. Describe what the church would look like as these wishes come true.” Our discussion was already rooted in the previous questions and the themes we had shaped and discussed. Now, seven proposals came about as a result of

C o mm u nity B ibl e C h u rch — P a s ad e na , C alif o rnia



171

these new discussions, and we added an eighth that was more related to the church’s nonprofit development corporation: 1. We will always embrace our legacy of being a missional church as we focus our plans around what God is doing in our church and in our community.7 The heart of our ministry will no longer evolve around the success of projects and events. We will recast our mission and vision among the leadership annually so that as we perfect our worship services, programs, and community outreach our ministry will evolve around saving souls and transforming lives. 2. We are a people of prayer, continually bringing our neighbors and community before God in intercession. We pray personally and corporately, and we fast quarterly as an expression of thanksgiving and love. 3. We are at our best when members consistently participate in worship, programs, fellowships, and activities. The invitation for participation will begin in our new-members’ orientation. We will encourage more members to become active in the planning and preparation for such events. We will identify new leaders and focus on equipping them for the work of the ministry.8 4. We are a congregation deeply rooted in the African American tradition. As we celebrate our culture, we acknowledge that we are growing in diversity. We are blessed to have members in our congregation who are trained in intercultural communications and have assisted us in becoming crossculturally sensitive in our worship services. 5. As the number of young families increases in our church and our housing properties, we must focus on children/youth ministries for our surrounding community as well as our church. With vacation Bible school as one of our largest evangelism initiatives, we included picking up kids from both Community Arms and King’s Villages. The youth group now has the freedom to reach other youth by different means from those of the seniors’ group or the men’s group. The needs of each group were identified, and a program could be built around the challenges pertinent to that group. As a result, we saw young people inviting their friends to first be a part of the youth group and then the church. We saw the same among the men’s group and the singles’ group. The church began to grow by the growth in the specific groups.

172

C hapt e r 8

6. It is time to change our name. With our name being Community Baptist Church, we appeared to be under the Baptist denominational banner. The Baptists, for the most part, did not embrace women in ministry. Our identity needed to be clear, and both the members and the community must be able to identify our mission with our name. Our name must reflect our character and commitment to God and the community and also be positive for nonbelievers. We did change our name by simply changing the Baptist to Bible. The name change would move us away from the male/female controversy of the Baptist denomination as well as give us a name that would better reflect our mission as being Bible based and community minded. 7. We realize that in order to accomplish what God had called us to, we need a larger building. We organized a group called the “Kingdom Builders” with the responsibility of doing a feasibility study on such a move. Having been reminded by the AI process that we were indeed the small church with the big dream, and that unity was our great strength, we were ready to take on this huge endeavor. We were encouraged that this was not only possible with God but with the congregation, who believed that united we could do anything. A number of other committees were formed under the Kingdom Builders, such as the property search committee and the capital campaign committee. For several years, we exercised our faith as we worked toward achieving our goal, which came to fruition on New Years Eve 2009. 8. In addition, we agreed that our mission of transforming lives needed to also be the goal of our nonprofit corporation. Stepping outside of our four walls, we needed the courage to participate with how God was transforming the lives of those we housed. We created new volunteer opportunities, which expanded our social programs at both Community Arms and King’s Villages—including homework assistance, a parenting program, a job preparation program, senior activities, and a cooking class. We added these volunteer opportunities to our new members’ orientation. We continued to learn about mutuality in these activities, and we were being changed by new relationships. LEARNING ABOUT LEADERSHIP

This was an amazing time for Community Baptist Church. As the pastor, I knew that focusing on our problems was neither helpful nor hopeful. For

C o mm u nity B ibl e C h u rch — P a s ad e na , C alif o rnia



173

the duration of the process, there was much remembering, appreciation, and laughter. Love surfaced as anger faded. However, this time of celebration brought me face-to-face with the fact that more than once we had been blinded by our success. The church was not dead, but she had fallen asleep again. Our challenges were clear, and we found that our story was informed by an Old Testament prophet. In the third chapter of Ezra, the rebuilding of the temple was completed, and there was an “indistinguishable sound.” A closer listening could identify two groups. The older generation wept loudly because the new temple was nothing like the old temple, and they feared that the change would diminish the importance of what they once knew and cherished. The younger generation had no real appreciation for what was— for those memories of an earlier temple—and they rejoiced with loud shouts celebrating the new structure and what it meant to them. This Ezra story helped us understand that we had two different groups moving forward but in different directions. From a distance, in Ezra, there was one sound heard because the distinctive noises could not be distinguished. Only closer attention revealed the situation. That was similar to our situation at CBC, and I needed to reflect on my own leadership skills and priorities as we embraced the future that AI had clarified. Edgar Schein’s work on organizational culture helped frame this for me. Culture is the result of a complex group learning process that is only partially influenced by leader behavior. But if the group’s survival is threatened because elements of its culture have become maladapted, it is ultimately the function of leadership at all levels of the organization to recognize and do something about this situation. It is in this sense that leadership and culture are conceptually intertwined.9

Because of the challenges in our changing church, my leadership work included both creative and management tasks. Paralleling Ezra, we needed to be a people with relationships and activities and worship that would help the two groups come together to make one sound. This very tangible goal and work provided a focus for other important changes, and those changes required that I reflect on my role. As we remembered, it became obvious to me that the process and procedures of the past may not have been perfect, but the participation of the church members was faithful and consistent. We had accepted the challenge

174

C hapt e r 8

to change, and I realized that change had to begin with me. I asked myself, what was my role in shaping an environment and empowering people so that the church embodied these faithful ways that God was authoring among us?10 As I reflected on my leadership style, I decided to begin spending more time reflecting on how Jesus’s activities shaped those around him. In observing Jesus’s leadership, I noted several obvious things I would need to change about my leadership style. His activities evolved around his mission, and he never became consumed with his successes. With all of the challenges, threats, and complexities, Jesus was focused on love—for friends, for those he encountered, and for enemies. Theologian Ray Anderson emphasizes this focus: “Love is the single criterion for that which upholds the dignity, integrity and essential value of the other person in the concreteness of every social relation and every culture.”11 And Jesus was acting in a way that has become recognized as “servant leadership”—he was a team motivator as well as an equipper working diligently to prepare his team for this kind of leadership.12 I knew that motivation was about both relationships (conversations, trust, listening) and imagination (how we learned to see together). I was also learning that equipping had to do with paying attention to the skills of others and to potential synergies. In addition, I decided in moving forward that we needed to create a way to involve the whole congregation in the work of the ministry. Using Jesus as my model, my leadership style would move from being the pastor-leader to that of pastor-equipper, who would empower the people to be leaders. Leadership responsibility would no longer be a solo act for me as pastor. My first challenge would be to move the people from their dependency on me to a dependency on God. This meant an increased mutuality among all leaders and members. In times of reflection, I became aware that it was too easy for me to work in solo mode assuming that I was the only source of vision and plans. I used the perspectives of AI to reflect on my previous career. I had become the pastor of CBC after spending twenty years in the corporate world. I had assumed that I would dismiss the experiences of those years, but I was beginning to realize that I had actually developed and practiced some good leadership principles while in corporate America. I had taken my staff of twenty and divided them into teams with team leaders, and each group had a specific task that was equally important for reaching a common desired goal. So now at CBC, through observation and conversation, we added additional men and women

C o mm u nity B ibl e C h u rch — P a s ad e na , C alif o rnia



175

to the previously small group of leaders. The movement from potential futures, to clarifying potential experiments and steps, to more committed steps, would need diverse groups with a variety of skills. They would know that each person’s imagination and work was critical to the overall movement. This new approach was twofold. It arose out of my corporate experience and out of an old awareness that we were at our best at CBC when we were unified and connected to what God was doing. In addition to those already in leadership, I began to identify others with potential to lead, something that was often visible because of how they listened, how they worked, and how they were energized by a changing future. It would be my responsibility moving forward to prepare a whole new leadership team by equipping them or helping them to identify their giftedness and encouraging them to take responsibility for what God had called them to do. I realized my work was that of shaping an environment in which we, together, could gain the imagination, resources, skills, and teamwork needed to do the work of the ministry, an environment that would be sustained by those in leadership. Our new approach to plural leadership would unleash gifts and talents that had been suppressed by the old way of thinking that the pastor was the only one who could lead. I had been challenged to bring about a change that would not only be effective in our church but our community as well. As my reflections and changes shifted church practices, new ideas and methods were developed to deliver the message of Jesus in ways that met the needs of different groups. We were able to continually articulate what God was doing around us and how we could enter into those initiatives. The leaders were at liberty to focus on their tasks while being clear about our shared mission. As I gave priority to inviting new people into leadership roles, I learned that my enthusiasm for expanding leadership resulted in some mistakes. I was too quick to fill positions that needed new skills for experiments and continual adjustments. I learned that it was better to wait and to let people try different work before giving them larger responsibilities. In addition to equipping, I found that there was a need for healing, mending, and repairing of relationships that needed to be done prior to some leadership appointments.13 The challenge was to love like Jesus loved even when I realized I had made the wrong appointment. This presented an opportunity for memories, hopes, and conversations on another level.

176

C hapt e r 8

On one particular Sunday morning, I preached from Matthew 18. My sermon was entitled, “Jesus’ Method for Conflict Resolution.” At the end of the message, I was prompted by the Holy Spirit to invite anyone who had been offended by a brother or sister that they saw in the congregation to get up and go to that person. For a moment no one moved—then suddenly one person got up and then another and another. Hardened hearts melted right before our eyes. There were tears and hugs and then laughter and more hugs. The musicians began to play and everybody began to hug whoever was next to them. There was forgiveness, healing, and reconnecting. One person commented that they had no idea how heavy the burden of misunderstanding and unforgiveness was until it lifted that day. The renewing of relationships gave us another reason for celebration. Old wounds were mended like broken bones being realigned. We moved from having some disjointed and disconnected groups of people to once again being our best since we were united. It was from that experience that I made Jesus’s method for conflict resolution part of our new members’ orientation. We purchased a nearby industrial building and moved our offices and gatherings to that site as we began remodeling work. Previously, we were somewhat hidden in a residential neighborhood, but now we are on a major street where residential, commercial, and industrial properties are all nearby. This has given us the opportunity to reach out to new neighbors including other churches and schools in our new community. We now have our ministry in two cities, Pasadena and Altadena, which allows us the opportunity to enlarge our witness to Christ and to engage in the lives of even more people. We are learning how God is at work among our neighbors, and our own witness to Jesus’s love and our participation in works of justice and mercy are bearing fruit. Finally, I was reminded that change is inevitable and that if we are to radically impact our world, AI needs to be more than a one-time experience. We serve an unchangeable God who is the orchestrator of change. Therefore, the church is called, like Jesus, to be an agent of God’s change. And, while our focus must be on what God is doing today, our confidence lies in what God has already done. The past should never hold us back from participating in what God is up to now nor should it blind our anticipation of what God is going to do in the future. We know that the accounts of scripture and the stories of our own past can help us see God’s grace so that we become more

C o mm u nity B ibl e C h u rch — P a s ad e na , C alif o rnia



177

capable of participating with the Spirit. As the fourth pastor of Community Bible Church, I now realize that my father’s ceiling is the floor or foundation that I now stand on. God reassures us through Haggai’s message to the Jews during their time of restoring the temple: “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace” (Hag. 2:9; KJV). Haggai’s story indicates that God’s people are not always aware of what God is up to but that we can connect former stories, gain insights into God’s grace and provision, and engage each other and our neighbors in conversations that move us into God’s future.

9

Camberwell Baptist Church— Melbourne, Australia Andrew Menzies

Camberwell Baptist Church (CBC) is a 120-year-old church, situated approximately five miles east of downtown Melbourne. This chapter describes the use of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) and how it was employed at CBC over a two-year period during 2005–2006. It explores the context at CBC before the use of AI, how AI was employed, and the results of this process with particular attention to how AI helped unify CBC and guide it toward the generation of a healthy, missional imagination and experimentation. CHURCH AND CONTEXT

The church was founded when the suburb was a small rural outpost; however, the extension of tram and train lines in the early 1900s saw Camberwell grow significantly. Today it is a bustling middle/inner suburban residential, educational, and retail center. There are approximately one million people within a twenty-minute drive of the church. The story of CBC reflects these demographic changes. Several of the older people in the church have been members of the church for longer than fifty years. They are now moving into their later years and long to see their church continue. Many of their friends and former spouses had passed away. The younger people who had joined the church were typical of the demographic 179

180

C hapt e r 9

renewal occurring in what has now become an upper-middle-class area. They were mostly professionally qualified and their world of high mortgages, job insecurity, globalization, technology, and advanced degrees was different from the world of the older church members. CBC was founded in 1891 and grew from its inception. It was thriving by the 1920s as Melbourne boomed and sprawled outward in an easterly direction. Records of the children’s Sunday school show that the hall was packed with hundreds of young people. As these young people grew up, sporting teams and youth societies were started. The current worship sanctuary was started in 1939 as many of these children approached the age for marriage. After World War II, changing demographics brought a flood of what were to become baby boomers. Three important social developments occurred in the next years that were to shape the church climate. First, the boomers who grew up in the church throughout the 1950s and 1960s eventually married and typically moved five to ten kilometers in an easterly direction to settle in newer neighborhoods. This was the typical demographic trend in Melbourne during this era. During these decades, newer churches were planted, which became the large and mega churches of Melbourne’s Bible Belt. Second, the gradual movement of the younger generation away from the area enabled the older generation to keep things the way they had always been. Consequently, there wasn’t much internal pressure to gradually modernize the church’s worship services. The older musical style kept other younger people from joining the church. Church governance and the relationship to surrounding culture also calcified somewhat. Finally, in the 1970s, CBC called a renowned biblical expositor to become their pastor. This gifted preacher quickly filled the church with older and more socially conservative people around notions of truth and aged notions of culture. The church’s relationship with and understanding of the world about them calcified further. The legacy of this climate lasted until recent times. Therefore, by 2005, the preferences for style of church life and mission at CBC were represented in the conflicting generations. Both groups within the church made demands typical of their preferences, particularly in the area of church music. Over time, generational preference became conflicted and at times turned to outright hostility. Church meetings were dreadful and explosive experiences. Numerical decline was already following the demographic

C amb e rw e ll B apti s t C h u rch — M e lb o u rn e , A u s tralia



181

changes within the area; the toxic system that developed at CBC was certainly not attractive to newcomers. As a consequence, pastors resigned, church meetings continued to be divisive, denominational consultants were continually called in for help, and an Intentional Interim Pastor was appointed. The interim pastor described the church at this time as being “quite impossible” and wanted to resign. Fortunately, the interim pastor stuck out his term. He had commenced some initiatives that were valuable in preparing CBC for the coming AI process and its fruitful results. The interim pastor navigated CBC toward naming some of the hurts and divisions and encouraged a positive atmosphere of communication. Programs and activities employed during this process included a special “Camberwell Baptist Church History Celebration” day, several questionnaires detailing hurts and beneficial changes in the church’s history, a process for receiving and acting on data about what people appreciated about the church, and some basic teaching about generational differences. It is worthwhile to note that the seeds for Appreciative Inquiry were being sown by people who had never heard of this as a method. The church was, however, still not united and healthy. Certainly, the church was not an inclusive community ready to welcome strangers. An example was the search process that was undertaken for the new senior pastor. The church appointed a pastoral search committee representative of the various groups in the church. Over thirty candidates were interviewed and rejected because none of these satisfied the demands and expectations of all of the members of this committee. Other prospective candidates voluntarily withdrew their applications. The denomination’s executives did not know what to do with the church; they put it into the “too hard basket” as their sole hope was the appointment of a senior pastor with conflict resolution skills and a thick skin. The church was essentially still divided in two halves: young and old. ADAPTIVE CHALLENGES AND APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY

Technical skills for ministry are those skills employed in the normal course of events when their outcomes and consequences are, on the whole, predictable. Examples would include abilities for preaching, pastoral care, and administration. AI was introduced when CBC was at a point where all of the technical changes previously employed were simply not working and usually only increased the conflict. The attempted technical changes taught by any number

182

C hapt e r 9

of popular churches and business-oriented organizations added levels of pain that were destructive. For example, CBC enjoyed a common worship service where all ages would attend together. Some members of the church attended an emergent church conference that suggested that the generations were too different, so generation-specific services should be run in order to grow a church. This suited the preexisting arguments of younger members, and they started an alternative worship service in the church hall. Another example was in the removal of a prior pastor. This individual had an excellent pastoral presence across the whole church and was a solid preacher. However, when he was asked to deliver a more expository form of sermon, which did not fit with his style or method of ministry, he resisted. Subsequently, a significant number of younger adults refused to attend services when he was preaching. Endeavors such as these divided and inhibited the church from moving toward meaningful, unified, adaptive change. For example, some younger members of the church attended a local mega-church’s conference. At this conference, a number of strategic and technical steps were prescribed, assuming that CBC wanted to grow like that particular mega church had grown. The problem at CBC was that the various technical steps employed seemed to make things worse! Ronald Heifetz uses the term adaptive to describe an organization that has exhausted technical options and needs to explore and experiment with cultural and behavioral change: “Adaptive work consists of the learning required to address conflicts in the values people hold, or to diminish the gap between the values people stand for and the reality they face. Adaptive work requires a change in values, beliefs or behavior.”1 Heifetz and his coauthors Marty Linsky and Alexander Glashow identify the sorts of organizational signals that, when present, require adaptive leadership.2 These include: there is a “persistent gap between aspirations and reality”; the “responses within the current repertoire are inadequate”; difficult learning is required; “new stakeholders across boundaries need to be engaged”; a “longer timeframe [is] necessary”; and disequilibrium is experienced as participants sense there is a crisis. There were three primary and deep reasons why adaptive change was needed at CBC. First, at a general level, Western culture is going through rapid discontinuous change, and in this context, many mainline churches are experiencing a declining membership and an imbalance of generational participation, with a significant leaning toward older members. The chil-

C amb e rw e ll B apti s t C h u rch — M e lb o u rn e , A u s tralia



183

dren and grandchildren of most of the older members of CBC do not go to any church, a symptom that is related to the deep shifts in Western culture. Relevant cultural changes, noted by Alan Roxburgh, include globalization, democratization of knowledge, postmodernism, rapid technological change, staggering need, pluralism, and loss of confidence in primary structures.3 Mere technical “tricks” being employed by the church were inadequate for attracting them back. Second, technical solutions alone could not enable CBC to move toward effective missional faithfulness in the new world that was emerging. Ecclesiologically and missiologically, the application of strategies alone would not help the church be transformed as a people or within its community as a witness of God. Strategies that simply employ modern management skills and techniques lack any transformative essence, which is what the church needed most.4 What if the leader(s) in a church do not know the way forward and have only technical skills available? What can they do? In this situation, CBC attempted, and the denomination supported, what Ron Heifetz notes as misplaced confidence—the appointment of the new senior pastor. Heifetz notes, “In times of distress, we turn to authority. To the breaking point, we place our hopes and frustrations upon those, whose presumed knowledge, wisdom, and skill, show the promise of fulfilment. Authorities serve as repositories for our worries and aspirations, holding them, if they can, in exchange for the powers we give them.“5 They thought that they were appointing a strong, authoritarian leader who would prove to be the needed expert who would see the church again become strong and successful. Third, technical options disregard and often violate a system’s patterns and rhythms. They call for either simple or complex changes and do not bring out the best of the church system that currently exists and gives life. Often they risk expediting its death rather than rejuvenation and rediscovery. AI was attractive as a step toward adaptive change because it is designed to bring life, as described by Watkins and Mohr, “Appreciative Inquiry is a collaborative and highly participative, system-wide approach to seeking, identifying, and enhancing the ‘life-giving forces’ that are present when a system is performing optimally in human, economic, and organizational terms. It is a journey during which profound knowledge of a human system at its moments of wonder is uncovered and used to co-construct the best and highest future of that system.“6 AI was employed in this situation at

184

C hapt e r 9

CBC because of its intention to find the good in an otherwise conflicted system. Sue Annis Hammond comments, “The major assumption of Appreciative Inquiry is that in every organization something works and change can be managed through the identification of what works, and the analysis of how to do more of what works.”7 Susan Star Paddock, writing about AI and Roman Catholic churches, adds, In troubled times it’s easy to focus on what’s wrong, but the usual problem solving approach to life often provides more discouragement than effectiveness. Our brows knit in concentration on the negative, while the answers to our problems elude us. Appreciative Inquiry (AI) reveals that those answers are often already present in our experiences. AI helps us explore when things have worked well, when things were at their best, and identify the causes of success.8

The AI process was initiated by giving copies of Memories, Hopes, and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change9 to the church leadership council. It was important that the church’s leadership had the opportunity to understand what they were being led into. This book not only provided accessible detail about the purpose of AI, it introduced the nature of the forthcoming journey through the story of another local church, which the leadership council members could identify with. As Mark Lau Branson states, “AI is built on theories that move a congregation away from deficit-based models toward the images and forces that are most life giving.”10 THE AI PROCESS AT CBC

At the commencement of the New Year, the church leadership council met and surveyed the prior two decades of conflict and decline. With the appointment of a new senior pastor, there was a temporary window for openness to learning and reflection. The various strategies and models employed as well as the damage (and in some cases successes) were evaluated against the church’s preexisting purpose statement: “To lead people in worship, faithfully proclaim the Word and make a difference in the world.” The question asked of the leadership was, “In light of the current church purpose statement, where has CBC been closest to the purpose statement being lived?” It was agreed that there had been many examples of the purpose statement being realized and that technical changes had generally not been the cause of these successes. Unity, good leadership, and close connections in

C amb e rw e ll B apti s t C h u rch — M e lb o u rn e , A u s tralia



185

the community were the sources for success. The meetings also agreed that in light of this discovery, the church was at a point where healing and unity were needed rather than new programs and models. As has already been explained, the church leaders had been given copies of Memories, Hopes, and Conversations, which uses the case study of a congregation as a means of introduction to the method. As representatives of the church constituency, the church leadership council had been heavily conflicted and needed a path to find common ground. They were told about the need for better communication and listening skills within the church and between the members and the leadership. They were informed that at the forthcoming quarterly meeting of the church, there would be a significant time given to sharing over two questions that they would be given on that day and that it would be the small-group facilitators’ job to facilitate conversation and to listen rather than dominate the group. The assumptions about AI were then explained.11 Church quarterly meetings had been the points of open conflict and tension in previous years. Being a Baptist church, CBC valued highly the freedom of individuals to say whatever they wanted at such meetings. While freedoms and liberties were sometimes inappropriately used, there was a culture in the church where open conversation was cherished. This, therefore, seemed a natural point of introduction to the wider church for AI. The church needed to move conversations toward sources of life and gratitude and further develop a climate of listening. What was needed, however, was an opportunity to listen to positive conversations rather than the divisive attacks from the various bunkers. The Initial Inquiry Sequence

In order for AI to work properly, a broad cross-section of the church needed to participate. We emphasized this so that the AI process could discover the underlying narratives that formed the congregation and also so that it could have greater impact across the church. It was important that the members of the church started to listen to each other’s lives and memories before racing forward. Participation was achieved through randomly giving each person who attended the meeting a small strip of colored paper. When the time came in the meeting to introduce AI, people were asked to create small groups with the others present who had the same color. This created a random spread of ages,

186

C hapt e r 9

genders, and ethnic backgrounds so there was a good opportunity for listening and sharing of stories in response to the designed questions. Members of the leadership council were asked to spread out into each of the groups as had been discussed and listen to the stories being shared. These leaders were asked to be the small-group facilitators for the day, their job being to facilitate, listen, and take notes. Two introductory questions, from Branson’s book, were designed to stimulate discussion in mixed-age groups at the quarterly meeting. The first question enabled those present to share and listen to personal experience. A second question was designed to identify, at a deeper level, other stories and memories that resided in the church’s collective memory.12 Question 1.1: Reflecting on your entire experience at Camberwell Baptist Church, remember a time when you felt most engaged, alive, and motivated. Who was involved? What did you do? How did it feel? What happened? Question 1.2: Reflecting on your entire experience at Camberwell Baptist Church, when has the church seemed to be at its best? Describe what it was like. How or why did it occur? What happened? How did it feel? A surprisingly large majority of the church members at the meeting enjoyed the opportunity to talk and listen. At the following leadership council meeting, time was given to hear the narratives and themes that were emerging as observed by the leadership. The council was asked to share the themes from their notes and any particular stories that captured them. This was designed to help the leaders increase their capacities as listeners. The leaders were then invited to continue this listening whenever and however they wished at an informal level through conducting further crosschurch discussions that could explore more deeply the themes that were emerging. They were invited to have people around for meals and take people out for coffee to continue hearing them. Elderly and frail members were visited in homes and hospitals to ensure their inclusion in the process. Some of the stories that were emerging were retold on the cover of the church’s weekly bulletin for added emphasis and reinforcement. Typically, the stories that emerged were positive stories about a bigger and more vital church of yesteryear. For example, there were stories about an ac-

C amb e rw e ll B apti s t C h u rch — M e lb o u rn e , A u s tralia



187

tive young-adults department with a high interest in crosscultural mission. There were also many stories of marriages that started in that group. The church has a display board on which missionaries who have gone overseas are listed, and most originated in this young-adults group. There were also many stories of a booming children’s Sunday school over successive decades. The AI process continued throughout the rest of the year and well into 2006. From the beginning, the church leaders had underestimated the significance of AI because they were used to finding technical responses to problems and challenges, and they thought that this process would be another approach to such strategies. One of the interesting findings of the AI conversations was that programs and conferences didn’t really emerge as significant markers in people’s memory. The things that mattered were generally the experiences and relationships that gave life with or without programs. The majority of CBC’s official history shows that technical solutions (musical style, leadership shaped by management frameworks, building programs, gifted preachers, etc.) have carried the church forward. Therefore, for some of the leadership, there was initial disappointment in AI’s not suggesting more of these things. It took most of 2005 for the church leadership to realize that they were the laggards13 in this process to which the rest of the church was not only quickly adapting but thriving in! The problem for the leadership was not that they rejected AI; they enjoyed the listening processes. Their challenge was that once the listening was done, they quickly reverted to applying technical solutions to adaptive challenges. To the peril of their leadership, they were not adequately hearing the stories and hopes that were being expressed. They did not notice how older and younger participants were connecting with each other as they shared stories and hopes. So it took a whole year, but AI forced the leadership council to learn to listen to the people they were called to represent in their decision making. It was an important lesson to find that this research process (which is obviously overtly biased toward being appreciative) does not necessarily avoid hard issues. AI Embedded in Regular Meetings

The church continued to engage similar AI-inspired listening times throughout that year at each quarterly meeting. Business items were reduced to brief periods of each meeting in favor of more time for questions and

188

C hapt e r 9

conversations in randomly appointed small groups. For example, in August, when the annual general meeting (AGM) fell due, arguments over budgets and elections were forgone in preference for conversations. For the first time in many years, the church enjoyed a smooth and uneventful AGM. At the AGM, all participants were divided into small conversation groups for thirty minutes, and the following question was presented: Question 2.1: Looking back over the various decades of this church’s life and witness, what have been some of the highlights where God has clearly been evident? Notice that this was a question that required theological reflection—it is about God as a subject in our lives. All conversation groups were then asked to appoint a person who could summarize the conversations in a plenary time. For a visual representation, a member of the church was appointed to illustrate the stories on butcher paper that was spread across a wall. We began by asking for stories from the 1990s, and people spontaneously reflected on some of the highlights that still resided in their living memory. The church then did the same for the 1980s and 1970s, and so on. This pattern led the church to discover how far back its memory went and what narratives were foremost in people’s memories. Narratives from these discussions that emerged demonstrated the many patterns that were waiting to be discovered. For example, there had been a long and close association with various types of civic engagement. One example of this association was the extent of loss suffered in service to the country during war. The church lost ten members in the two world wars and sent another sixty to serve. (I am aware of the ambiguity and complexity of this issue and nonviolence in general, however what stories emerged, emerged.) Another example of this association was that aged and former members were life members of local sporting clubs and the Returned Servicemen’s Clubs. One of the surprises of the AI process was that conversations that were ignited in formal meetings sometimes continued informally afterward. For example, the church is next to a major intersection of six roads. It is a very busy meeting place with numerous attractions. This crossroads includes a popular cinema, eight churches, many cafés and restaurants, and hundreds of shops. CBC has always been right in the middle of all of the action. And there

C amb e rw e ll B apti s t C h u rch — M e lb o u rn e , A u s tralia



189

was another meaningful connection: there had been a long association with the Anglican and Salvation Army churches, and with the Returned Services League, which were all burned down by an arsonist in the 1950s! The church also possessed some of the last remaining links to the original inhabitants of the local area. During the AI process, a story was unearthed about a large tree that was a place of meeting for the Wurundjeri clan (an Australian indigenous people) of the Woiwurrung people (a language group). Two elderly members of the church played under the tree when they attended the local state school in the 1920s. In terms of the oral history of the area, this was an extraordinary discovery. Finally, the AI discussions unearthed a significant interest concerning different ethnic groups. Our AI conversations surfaced stories about a longheld commitment to crosscultural mission, especially to other countries. This historic commitment to boundary crossing had more recently become visible in our own locale; this attention to crosscultural matters had resulted in over a third of members being from non-English-speaking nations. Two questions were selected for the next church meeting. They were developed in order to capture the positive group dynamics and conversations that were now functioning at quarterly meetings and direct the conversations toward a shared future. They also were to help the leadership catch onto the positive climate going on in the church:14 Question 3.1: What are the essential, central characteristics or ways of life that make our church unique? Question 3.2: Make three wishes for the future of our church. Describe what the church would look like if these three wishes came true? Again, all participants were divided into small conversation groups, and they elected a person from their midst to provide feedback during the plenary time. In general, the orientation of these two questions was toward the dreams and wishes that the members had for their church. These dreams and wishes were deeply connected to the memories that were revived in the first AI meeting ten months earlier in February. Given past hostilities, it was observed that the music and service format used in the church were not even mentioned.

190

C hapt e r 9

MISSIONAL INITIATIVES AND INNOVATION

The AI process continued formally, and we noticed a side benefit. It stimulated a culture of freedom and imagination for new ideas across the church. Church members began to reflect that if good, imaginative things had happened in the past, then there was no reason why they could not happen again. These conversations came out at one of the church meeting plenary sessions where new possibilities for missional imagination were being explored, and informal conversations were invited to become contributions to the whole process. The church was asked, Question 4.1: Having been encouraged in recent sermons and various church events to consider possible new areas for outreach, what ideas have emerged? Immigrant Students

Ideas started to emerge concerning our hospitality toward new immigrants to Australia. One of Australia’s largest export areas is higher education, particularly as Asian students come for degrees and return to their nations. Tens of thousands of students come for a wide range of academic and vocational disciplines, often at great cost to their families, who see this as a means of improving their family well-being. These students are particularly vulnerable and are often caught between uncaring tertiary education providers, migration scams, poor housing, and street violence. They often have few or no support networks. This need for support systems was often in the media, and one of our church-wide AI conversations led to the formation of a task group of willing representatives to look at effective ways that CBC might respond. These groups were known as “missional action teams” (MATs) following Alan Roxburgh’s missional change process, which parallels the action-learning model of community development.15 This task group (made up of representatives from across the church) was asked to identify possible points of engagement in the local area and to bring recommendations to the church for consideration and implementation. As a consequence of this task group’s work and recommendations, some families opened their spare rooms to overseas students, thus providing safe and affordable accommodations. Another outcome was an initiative of a group of retirees who began to teach English to immigrants and overseas students. These activities were promoted through student friendship networks. Then, over these hours of

C amb e rw e ll B apti s t C h u rch — M e lb o u rn e , A u s tralia



191

reading and speaking, friendships were developed and the emerging holistic needs of the students were addressed. Being alienated and lonely in a foreign land, these students soaked up the hospitality. Students were grateful for the care that they received, and the retirees were encouraged because they found a practical way to make a difference in the world in a manner consistent with the church’s mission statement. It brought a dynamic and new lease on life to the students, the retirees, and the church through new stories of hospitality, faith discovery, and friendship. Worship, Membership, and Baptism

The discussions in the AI process and the collaboration and response concerning international students raised another issue that was closer to home for the church. As has been noted earlier, one thread of division in the church was along generational lines. However, with the attraction of new students who were connecting with older church members, separate services for different ages became inappropriate. More and more people saw the need for greater connectedness between generations, nations, and genders in the various activities of the church, which countered earlier approaches that separated various groups. The church-health and church-growth conferences and consultations previously mentioned had all suggested that the church needed to segregate the generations and modernize the worship services in order to attract newcomers. The AI process started to unleash an alternative imagination because deeper, boundary-breaking relationships were being formed across the church. The church decided that it would explore ways to conduct a blended service where all ages could worship together. This was warmly received by the older people, who were generously prepared to forsake many of their traditions and songs in order to deepen our life as a community that had unity in our diversity. The younger people reported that they felt that they were finally being included in the leadership of the church, and they were committed to make decisions for the benefit of all ages. In order to gain better skills and resources for these new commitments, the church created a new position for a pastor to lead us in appropriate forms of blended worship. The church (being Baptist) also decided that it needed to thoroughly discuss the issues of baptism and membership. Over a third of the church in attendance on any Sunday morning had come from different denominations

192

C hapt e r 9

and nations, each with its own tradition and emphasis, prior to their migration to Australia. A result of this was that many of the younger Asian attendees, especially those from South Korea, could not become members because they had been previously baptized as infants. A ten-page biblical reflection paper was developed around the concepts of baptism, membership, inclusion, hospitality, and community, and a series of discussions was held throughout the church. Even though some very conservative members expressed concerns about any change to this policy, only two persons voted against the change when the church voted to open its membership. This meant that membership requirements would be met if the individual had been baptized in another tradition and currently confessed their faith in Jesus Christ. So as we gained skills and capacities for listening to one another, and gave serious attention to study, discernment, and experiments, we experienced a church that was more diverse ethnically and generationally. Kindergarten, Youth, and Young Families

The AI process led to two other initiatives at the end of its first year. From the AI conversations, CBC discerned a clear priority for a more effective ministry concerning young families in the area and also experienced a deepening concern for the many youth who lived and went to school locally. The church had managed a preschool kindergarten on the property for many years; however, its mission had drifted away from the church’s original purposes and was generally geared toward wealthier families. The kindergarten community was essentially people who accessed this quality program with no interest in the church’s larger concerns for the neighborhood. Several of them were also resistant to Bible stories being told in the church’s own kindergarten, and a somewhat faith-resistant ethos was gaining influence. Also, they were in the process of hiring a new director who had no sympathy for Christianity. It was in the course of AI discussions on dreams that people had for the church that a new imagination for the kindergarten was forming. Several people expressed hopes for the kindergarten’s alignment with the mission of the church. These discussions created a groundswell of determination that the church reclaim its responsibility for the kindergarten, so members of the church were appointed to the kindergarten board. As the discussions gathered steam around the church’s newfound commitment to the kindergarten, others expressed a dream that the church would

C amb e rw e ll B apti s t C h u rch — M e lb o u rn e , A u s tralia



193

have deeper relationships and relevant ministry with kindergarten families, along with other neighborhood families. This led us to envision the appointment of a “young families coordinator” to the pastoral staff to connect the church programs, the playgroups program, and the kindergarten. Many older people expressed their joy in this larger vision and commitment since they had lamented the decades of neglect. Just as some parents and older people were dreaming of a renewed ministry among children and young families, so also did the parents of teenagers dream of a growing ministry to the youth of the church. Discussions initially centered on memories of what youth ministry was like in earlier times (at CBC and at other churches) and quickly turned to dreams for the church to again have thriving relationships and discipleship among adolescents. The church therefore appointed a youth pastor, and over the next three years, the church partnered with this youth pastor in developing effective and growing junior high, senior high, and young adult engagement. Over the next few years, CBC experienced strong growth among new families who came to the church because of what it was offering in its youth ministry. A New Apartment Tower

Parallel to the AI process, the church was faced with negotiations with a property developer who was building a fourteen-story complex next door, which included 140 apartments. While this project did not impinge on our main building, the developer did propose changes for some of the church’s property. This issue was placed before the church at a quarterly meeting. The question created was as follows: Question 5.1: Next door to our church, a large housing development is about to proceed. What wishes would you like the church to present to the property developer in negotiations as they proceed? What would be a great outcome for the church, the new apartment tower, and the local community in this development? Can you see any possibilities in this development that might benefit the church? This question fostered an imaginative environment, resulting in conversations about potential missional endeavors as well as innovations that would support our internal life and ministries. We talked about creating a neighborhood house that would become an access point for community needs. Church

194

C hapt e r 9

members indicated that they would like to be involved in shaping and managing this experiment. Like other city churches, we often faced limitations due to a lack of parking, and this development motivated us to propose new options. These ideas were taken to the developer who, due to the large footprint of the project, was keen to minimize any community anxiety. The creative process impressed him, and he returned to the church with some generous offers. He agreed to build a community neighborhood house if the church would make the rooms available. This fitted well with our desire to shape new ways to engage our community. The developer also provided a creative solution concerning car parking, which also provided opportunity for new income flows into the church. AI AS A WAY OF LIFE

Pastoral leadership, in any conflicted church, faces huge challenges. AI was a valuable tool that enabled our complex and rather divided church membership to move together toward adaptive change. The AI process was profoundly healing for many groups in the church. The speed of healing in the church was quite remarkable, given the many prior years of toxic behavior. The different generations came to enjoy being together to listen and pass on the narratives that ran deeply in the church’s memories. Many of the stories unearthed were profoundly important for the church in its self-understanding and would have been lost in a few short years as the older generation passed away. The AI process enabled the church to transition from being toxic and conflicted to being hopeful and energized about a new missional journey together. This process gave CBC a unique shape and identity. The church no longer looked to other churches that appeared more successful, or to external proposals for strategic plans and growth steps; we were comfortable in our own skin. Initially, the leadership council became aware that they had played a role in holding back the church; however, it must be added that they were also victims of distrust that was embedded in relationships and in governing systems. The AI process has not only brought positive narratives to their attention, but it has also shaped imaginations and innovation that made new futures possible. When I was called away from the church (to my great surprise) at the start of 2010, the church knew what to do. The AI habits for generative questions,

C amb e rw e ll B apti s t C h u rch — M e lb o u rn e , A u s tralia



195

inclusive listening, and imaginative engagement shaped church meetings and general conversations. Even though they did not create a full cycle of formal AI processes, these ways of life became the norm. With remarkable ease, they interviewed twenty-five candidates external to the church and then they called one of their own associate pastors. They decided on someone who understood the path that they were already on. The AI process was successful at bringing a diverse collection of people from different cultures, traditions, nationalities, ages, and theological convictions together in conversation and partnership. While many in positions of leadership struggled to “get it,” many others throughout the church really engaged AI. Even though we began with a mood and discourse that was discouraging, the narratives from AI allowed a wonderful, God-stimulated counter-narrative to emerge that is continuing to renew CBC. It forced tough conversations but did so in a positive and generative group climate. AI enabled this local church to find its own path to a preferred future. This future was not one taught by other churches nor strategized by external church consultants. It lay in the midst of this particular people, in a specific local situation, as given by God. CBC’s new pilgrimage was indigenous, organic, neighborly, and engaged with a gospel discipleship that called everyone to new faithfulness and mission. Personally, I learned a huge amount throughout this whole process. I learned about how unifying, effective, and lasting change can really happen within a church through listening via well-crafted questions. Human interaction was elevated and dignified. As a church community, we discovered that we could be unified in the journey of mission. It meant that our priorities became more relational and less programmatic. Importantly, concerns in our neighborhood emerged through this relationality, which permitted appropriate responses. AI also shifted my role as senior pastor from executive to curator. I functioned less like a CEO and more like a pastor-leader of a healthy, missional church. That lifted a lot of pressure from all of us, including myself. It helped us become healthier and yet more diverse. It also affirmed our vocation as members of a local church who sought to become a sign and foretaste of God’s reign in Camberwell.16

10

Chestnut Level Presbyterian Church—Quarryville, Pennsylvania Michael R. Wilson

Stepping outside our church’s office building (a former parsonage), I looked one way and saw some new housing. In another direction, I could see another former parsonage, sold forty years ago as a nice home for an active church member. More recently it had become a rental home that was subdivided for two families, both with substantial social and financial challenges. Looking another way, I saw past our beautiful stone sanctuary, built in 1775, and our dilapidated Christian Education building, the “Church House,” to a bucolic field of corn and soybeans. In another direction lay the cemetery, but past it I could glimpse a restaurant that has struggled to keep up with demographic shifts but was still bustling on Sunday mornings with families and couples pursuing weekend renewal. I paused there. I prayed. I felt anxious about how to engage spiritual and social needs in our community. And I felt excited about the possibilities. Then I walked over to a meeting with some of our leaders—so that we could study scripture, talk about important questions facing us, and pray together about our future. With a Christian education building that was structurally and programmatically substandard, population growth in the area, and a sense that old ways of doing ministry were going to be increasingly inadequate for all the cultural changes swirling around us, Chestnut Level Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) 197

198

C hapt e r 1 0

faced a series of important choices. We needed to decide whether to renovate or replace our present building. We needed to understand our community more deeply. And we needed to dream about the future in creative ways. As we moved toward the decision of replacing our present Church House, it became increasingly apparent that we faced the dual challenge of building something solid (a building of concrete and steel) and needing to develop an increasingly fluid ministry. As we met and recognized our need to deal with a decaying structure, we were also aware of the unique role that church buildings play in the social fabric of rural settings. We asked ourselves—is this possible—a fluid ministry, with a building, in a rural but changing area? What would it look like? How do we go about moving in this direction? I presented to our session (leadership team) and the building committee the possibility of entering into an Appreciative Inquiry process in which the groups using our building would begin to dream about what their future could look like. It was risky—because it released control of the future into the hands of a multitude of diverse groups. We learned that this approach was full of life—because it allowed the people who were going to do the work to dream about it themselves. And throughout the process, we learned—about ourselves, about one another, and about God’s ways in our midst that were often mysterious while profoundly life giving. We began to see our community differently—more clearly. And we began to have different, new, and energizing dreams about how to live as people of the gospel in this area and in this age. CONTEXT

Chestnut Level Presbyterian Church is a three hundred-year-old congregation that prides itself on its Scots-Irish heritage1 and a stone sanctuary that was built during the Revolutionary War. It is a mid-sized congregation (250 people in worship) with a stable intergenerational membership. With this kind of history, there is a pride in the buildings (making a building project an emotionally charged event in the life of the congregation) and a risk-averse attitude (making tearing down an old building something entirely new and an additional anxiety for the congregational system). We are in a rural area that is being pressed by growing suburbs and by people moving in who desire a quieter way of life.2 These same people, ironically, bring with them a quicker pace as the congregation and community grow. We are also pressed by the cultural pressures of greater complexities in life, young adults who don’t look

C h e s tn u t L e v e l P r e s byt e rian C h u rch — Q u arryvill e , P e nn s ylvania



199

to the church as an important part of their choices, and increased social and religious plurality in our midst. Our rural area comes with its own particular context and culture. I’ve talked with colleagues for whom parks, coffee shops, or pubs are increasingly important places or buildings. That’s where connections happen and relationships can form. In our more rural place, we experience our own building as a place where these happen. When the local township building (a local government building) no longer worked structurally for voting, the township approached Chestnut Level Church to see if we would host primary- and general-election voting. No one in the community complained about this or saw it as an inappropriate mixing of church and state. I once asked a local community leader whom he expected to host a larger gathering of a Lion’s Club (a local civic service organization). His reply was, “Oh, we’ll ask your church to do it.” And we did—complete with a meal! It has become increasingly apparent to me that the tradition in this rural area is that churches have been both an important social presence and the provider of important facilities. Our buildings are not just a religious place in our area. They are a civic and social place for the relationships in our community. Like many congregations, we looked to the future with a mixture of anxiety and anticipation. I heard stories from people whose children had grown up here and moved away. After a meeting, one of our elders remarked, “I get it now. It used to be that this congregation replenished itself from within. My great-grandparents were members here. But my two kids live in Chicago and Philadelphia. And they aren’t coming back! I guess the future really is going to be different from the past.” These parents were aware that the next generation of this congregation was not going to come from within. They wondered if they could make the necessary changes to welcome people from diverse places and backgrounds. I heard stories about past ministry—full buses that brought hundreds to vacation Bible school, innovative Christmas Eve services, and youth camps that went on for several weeks during the summer. Another elder would frequently say, “I remember when . . . ,” then he recalled when there were all kinds of children gathering for an activity, or our youth group was underneath a particular tree in the yard, or the church initiated an activity. And all these stories were tinged with gratitude and sadness. People believed that God had been at work in the midst of this congregation. But they wondered if it could happen again and if they would actually be a part of it.

200

C hapt e r 1 0

Meanwhile, they saw that the area still held possibility. While agriculture was slipping as a main vocation, the location of the area at the edge of cities and the lure of a more rural lifestyle held promise and possibility for people moving in. I could see in people’s faces as we talked about our physical plant and about our ministry future—they wanted to believe that the future could be full of life, but they were also shaped by their past to be cautious about giving themselves to anything too fully. In the swirl of all that was going on, our building committee proposed, and the session agreed, that we would replace the present Church House with a new Family Life Center. To the congregation, this seemed like a bold move that could serve our neighbors in a way that was consistent with our heritage and the community’s well-being. This both excited the congregation and raised the anxiety level. The project was well beyond what many thought was possible financially, but it excited people as they thought about genuinely reaching out into our community. In an important pivot point, one of building committee leaders came to me and said, “We need to listen. This could be about ‘us’ doing something for ‘them’ (the people not here). And that won’t work. We’ve got a lot to learn about this community.” We wondered—how could we harness the energy, hear the dreams, and also keep the anxiety from taking over the project? While church leaders were proposing a new concept for the building, they had only begun to imagine the opportunities and implications. It was important that the project not become something shaped only by the leadership; we did not want to leave people behind and cause them to lose their own excitement about the future ministry of the congregation. And, of course, because this was a building project, we needed to make decisions. We couldn’t dream forever. We needed to design rooms, pick lights, and acquire furniture. INQUIRIES, CONVERSATIONS, AND EXPERIMENTS

We invited members of the congregation to engage in numerous conversations among ourselves and in the community.3 Some conversations engaged the entire congregation, others were with parts of the church, and others were with community groups using our facilities. Our process followed the 4-D cycle, which includes an initial orientation, then discover, dream, design, and destiny (which we tended to call “future”).4 Our conversations began during the initial orientation phase and continued throughout the project to give

C h e s tn u t L e v e l P r e s byt e rian C h u rch — Q u arryvill e , P e nn s ylvania



201

shape and direction to ministries that have developed in our new building. Each of these conversations was guided by the convictions of Appreciative Inquiry. We wanted to discover what is present by appreciating where God has been at work, to begin to dream about what might be in the future, to start to design new possibilities, and then to move into the act of creating a new future. We believed that the questions that we asked would shape our future and that asking positive questions would help us shape our future in a positive way.5 We knew that given the nature of reality and particularly this congregation, we would be taking large parts of the past into the future, so we wanted to take the best parts of the past.6 And we knew that, given the nature of the agricultural community and the type of project in which we were engaged, we needed to make practical decisions with observable outcomes.7 Appreciative Inquiry processes gave us the ability to do this, and more. It was a great way to engage the issues before us and also to move in positive ways into the future. Round One: A Congregational Query

Our first process involved the entire congregation. This gave us broad ideas and helped to engage everyone who wanted to be a part of the conversations. We called this “Café Chestnut Level,” where every member of the congregation was invited to name narratives that had shaped the congregation and broader geographic community and then to dream together about our future. I ask other church leaders to participate in leading the process, including members of the building committee (which turned out to be more important that I originally realized). We did not promise a certain outcome but told them that their perspectives would help us plan for the future and for the new building. The “Café Chestnut Level” was a variation on “The World Café.”8 This was a multi-week gathering between worship services on Sunday morning, in place of our regular Christian education time. We implemented several key principles of The World Café, beginning with the creation of a hospitable space.9 At each gathering, we made sure that people were welcomed, comfortable, and able to see each other. The groups were around small tables and had drinks. The groups explored questions that matter.10 Many were motivated to participate because they were interested in the initial conversations about the new building. We encouraged everybody’s contribution;11 I told them that every voice counts, and that each person has something to contribute. This also

202

C hapt e r 1 0

meant that they needed to listen to others. They got the message that this was their group and their future, and they could do something that counted in the future. We encouraged the group members to “cross-pollinate” and connect diverse perspectives.12 For our process, we gathered everyone involved in the same room. Tables were set up with newsprint, crayons, pens, and pencils. Each week, we featured one question (below). For each question, groups gathered at the tables, discussed the question, and wrote on their paper. After each round, most would disperse to other tables, and at least one person would remain to welcome a new group. Again, they would discuss, write on the newsprint, and begin to make connections between what they were discussing and what was written on the newsprint before they arrived. This allowed the process to build ideas and make connections. Between sessions, they were encouraged to continue engaging the Bible verses we studied (see 2 Corinthians below) and to be observant around our community. I also encouraged them to talk with one another during the week. We were to listen together for patterns, insights, and deeper questions.13 I also had the building committee reflect upon what they had learned. The process led to collective discoveries14 that connected with various ministries, our building project, and better communication to the congregation. This café process worked to involve people, get them in dialogue, and help them talk and dream together about their future. 2 Corinthians 4 (selected) 1Therefore, since it is by God’s mercy that we are engaged in this ministry, we do not lose heart. . . . 5 For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us.

In our conversations around these tables, we began with scripture: 2 Corinthians 4:1–12. In regard to this text, we asked participants to reflect on and discuss only one question—“What do you believe God’s Spirit is saying to us,

C h e s tn u t L e v e l P r e s byt e rian C h u rch — Q u arryvill e , P e nn s ylvania



203

as a congregation?” We wanted to keep it as open-ended as possible and not push people into a certain direction. The responses were tremendous; one member noted the encouragement that comes from being a “clay jar” that is imperfect but still useful to the healing of others, and another commended us about how wonderful it was that we (as a congregation) were being so open since there was a perception that decisions were not fully shared in the past. An older couple (after telling me that they had difficulty hearing!) said that it was their first experience engaging scripture and talking about the future of the congregation at the same time. Another younger member said that, for her, it was inspiring to see our different generations together as we talked about our future. After spending time with scripture, each group discussed three questions. The first question served to bring an awareness of our context, then we used two appreciative questions: (1.1) What changes have you seen in our community over the last 10, 20, 30 years? (1.2) Reflecting upon your entire experience at Chestnut Level, when have you been most excited, motivated, and alive? Who was involved? What did you do? What happened? When is our church at its best? Think about what is most life-giving in our relationships, our ministries, our spirituality. What is most important and how do we embody those important characteristics? (1.3) If you had three wishes for our church, what would they be?15 In subsequent weeks, we continued to work on these questions. (Frankly, the process took longer than we had planned because people were so engaged.) We also asked them to have informal conversations with community organizations with which they were involved and then to bring those conversations back to their tables and our conversations. Our final conversation around the tables was about the question, (1.4) What does this mean for how we will engage our community?

204

C hapt e r 1 0

This question was added as we went because it became evident that people were making the connection between our lives as church members and the life of the community. Our members were involved in various community organizations in the area, and some of those organizations had been using our Church House, so these activities became part of the conversations. We wanted to search for the best in people and in the organizations in which they were involved (whether church or community based) in order to give life to these individuals, to various organizations, and to our collective future. We ended up asking questions in order to discover how God had engaged the groups that had been using the Church House. In response to these questions, the groups were able to reflect on what they had seen change in the community and how their hopes for the future were being shaped as they talked about ways that God had provided. One member told me that the best part of this process was that the congregation itself identified changes in the community. She said, “Before, we’ve had people come in and tell us how the community has changed. They acted like they knew our community better than we did, and it really turned me off. It was much better for us to talk about our past. Thanks for not having someone stand up there and use big words and act like he/she knows more than we did.” To me, one of the most interesting things was that the congregation identified (by itself) all the important demographic and social changes about which I had been reading. They could point out that “we don’t know our neighbors,” “life is busier,” and “communication is faster.” And they could also connect those observations to themes such as globalization, postmodernism, and individualism. Because of the discussion process, they named responses of frustration and fear and were able to move past those to hope and anticipation. Our initial Appreciative Inquiry questions did not specify missional engagement with the community. However, people made the connection between building usage and the community. And then, as people began to name some fears and frustrations that they had (“we’ve tried this before; we’re not sure people want more connections, people are so busy and ‘they’ won’t come to church”), the Appreciative Inquiry process helped us move more deeply into those stories and really listen to what is going on for people who are part of the church and those who are not. The leadership kept saying, “Let’s deepen that” or asking, “What else might be going on there?”

C h e s tn u t L e v e l P r e s byt e rian C h u rch — Q u arryvill e , P e nn s ylvania



205

As we discussed what is best about the congregation and began to name a new preferred future, many people named programs, people, and more informal gatherings that had been meaningful to them (like a large vacation Bible school, a youth program run by very committed volunteers, committed individuals that had spent time with youth and young adults in the congregation and broader community, and people who visited the sick). Our conversations consistently referred to both the congregation and the surrounding community. These stories led to conversations with me where several people said, “Wow, when Bob was visiting in the community and not just with church people, we were much more connected.” And people told me that this helped them make commitments to begin that kind of engagement again. I have seen how the AI principle of simultaneity works. While these conversations did not result in formal programing, they have impacted the work of our deacons because now their attention to the community draws people who want these connections. They have become deeply involved in getting to know people and networks as they do their work of providing financial assistance. While there isn’t a direct line between our conversations and that outcome, the leadership of the church can see this growth and these increased connections. Over these months, many involved in the conversations simply became more aware. This discussion about the future led to images of life-giving internal congregational dynamics and dreams about renewed connections to the community. Two important outcomes (both of which were indirect and both of which were very important) were increased support for a paid youth director and a renewed commitment to deepening a relationship with a Cub Scout chapter meeting in our building. Both of these connected our church families and community families. One of our members said afterward, “I have been vocal about why we don’t need to pay a youth director. But now that I’ve seen how much our community has changed, I get it. We need more resources toward this community.” And another member said, “I’ve been wondering why they [the Cub Scouts] are in the building. Now I want to make sure the new building works for them.” While conversations like that don’t result in an immediate new programmatic direction, they do help to change the culture in powerful and important ways. We worked with the groups to create provocative proposals16 that would help them see and move into their preferred future. We made sure that these

206

C hapt e r 1 0

paragraphs were written in the present tense, grounded in the stories that we had discovered, and stretching for the ministries of the church group. These proposals were also given to the session and building committee so that they could be used for future planning and the building process. For example, our preschool board wrote: “We are an 80 student school that welcomes and loves these kids, prepares kids for life and kindergarten, has solid finances, gives scholarships to needy families, invites unchurched families to worship at Chestnut Level Presbyterian Church, and tells kids about Jesus’ love and glory through our programs.” Our Youth Leadership Team wrote: “We are a youth ministry that is reaching out to the youth in this community left out by others through recreation and outreach.” Many of the others said things like, “We are connecting to our neighbors by getting to know them through our visits to them” or “We are inviting people to events here that are full of hospitality and welcome.” Through Appreciative Inquiry questions contained in The World Café environment, we gave voice to the people involved in the ministries, helped them to dream about the future, and saw them engage with renewed energy in their work. Because I was immersed in the literature of Appreciative Inquiry and also was very invested in the outcome, I was initially planning on leading much of this myself and having a primary role in interpreting the data and providing a report to the building committee and the session. Early on, one of the elders came to me and said, “This is our project, so it would be really good for all of us to lead it.” Because of that conversation, others were included in leading the café—ranging from the technical aspects of helping with setup to asking questions and leading the groups. I had a major role as facilitator, but I was not the only one in that role and certainly not the only one who was leading the process. And afterward, all of the data was shared with the building committee and session, not just an edited selection. Both groups said that it was good to see everything and then process it themselves. The broad leadership helped this process yield results of increased energy for the life of the congregation and insights that affected building design. There was a specific emphasis on welcoming and hospitality that led the building committee to propose that the entryway of the Family Life Center be called the “Gathering Space.” This meant that people did not walk into narrow hallways, but instead came into a room with high ceilings and open space.

C h e s tn u t L e v e l P r e s byt e rian C h u rch — Q u arryvill e , P e nn s ylvania



207

Round Two: Reimagining the Family Life Center

Later in our building process, all of our church leadership and every stakeholder in the building project were invited into a time to reflect on Bible passage, called “dwelling with scripture” (this is also called lectio divina)17 and an Appreciative Inquiry process where they developed proposals for future ministry that were related to our new building. Thirteen different groups participated, including some of our own church groups, community groups like Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and board members of our preschool. We had approximately 110 people—about eighty adults and thirty youth. Most of the youth who participated were not involved in our church, and while most adults were active at Chestnut Level Presbyterian, many were not—they represented community groups and may or may not have been active in other churches. This broad spectrum of involvement was meant to engage the conversation throughout the congregation and move it out into the community. We had the groups do dwelling in scripture with 1 Chronicles 29:1–22, a passage about King David’s initiative to provide and gather resources for building a temple (which Solomon would do); the emphasis is on praising God and connecting the building to their narrative and the priority on faithful obedience to God. We asked participants to make connections between the text, their community awareness, and our building project. They talked about the importance of buildings and how God can be involved in buildings. Also, groups reflected on the dangers of buildings—how they can become a focus that depletes energy and resources of a congregation. The groups became excited about the possibility of what God can doing through physical space, and one of our members commented, “You know what, buildings really matter. And I hope that this building becomes a place where God is present to this community.” After that, each group spent time in an Appreciative Inquiry process. As a group, they discussed and answered two questions. (2.1) “How has the present Church House supported your ministry and mission?” (2.2) “What do you believe can happen as a result of the new building?” and “What are your hopes for ministry in a new building?”

208

C hapt e r 1 0

Facilitation was shared among several church leaders, members of the session, and our building committee. Neighbors from the community who are involved with our facilities were all involved. By engaging in Appreciative Inquiry questions, we were able to enter the history and narratives of diverse participants. Some of these organizations, like our youth program, have very strong connections to the ministry of the entire congregation. Others, like the Boy Scout troop, have a much more tenuous connection. Because we avoided a top-down mode in which a few leaders direct a plan, these groups not only gained insights into how God had been engaging them previously, but they could also discern future possibilities that reenergized them. In order to connect their stories and God’s stories, we encouraged participants to read and reflect upon scripture, using the dwelling process. I share Jim Brownson’s conviction that “the early Christian movement that produced and canonized the New Testament was a movement with a specifically missionary character.”18 Since the Old Testament was a primary resource for the early church, it was also an important resource for these conversations. While there are certainly radically different social contexts between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and between both of the Testaments and our world, we share the displacement from our environments and the need to reconstruct our sense of identity in a new world.19 Several centuries after Solomon’s temple was built, in the midst of the Babylonian captivity, the Hebrew people needed to reconstruct their identity. Still later, the people of the New Testament had the work of shaping their identity in the social context of their first-century missionary task. There are parallels for us, so we return to these texts to shape us in and for our context. I chose texts that would provide a holding environment, which Ronald Heifetz defines as a social space that is safe enough that people will talk about the issue but is uncomfortable enough that they cannot avoid the challenge that is before them.20 This would allow us to stretch toward the adaptive issues that we faced. Dwelling in scripture created an environment in which the congregation’s awareness, reflections, and decision making continued in a noncoercive way (i.e., the process did not become a way for me to persuade others of my convictions but rather a means for God to speak to the community). We wanted the entire conversational process and building project to move us into an innovative missionary encounter between the gospel and the local context in which we find ourselves.21

C h e s tn u t L e v e l P r e s byt e rian C h u rch — Q u arryvill e , P e nn s ylvania



209

The responses to the Appreciative Inquiry questions were tremendous. Participants were able to become more aware and imaginative concerning both our connections with God and with our community. First, we were able to connect our work to the work of God. Participants said things like, “I can see how God has been at work through what we were doing” and “I came to know about the love of God for me here in this space.” Through these conversations, we moved beyond having a building that would look better or cost less money or raise the church’s profile in the community. Rather, second, we became excited about how the new building could be an important resource in connection with our lives in the community. Later, one of our members who had his children in our preschool remarked to me, “After this, I decided to get to know some of the other parents in my daughter’s class. Truthfully, they invited me over to their house before I could invite them to mine. I thought the building would be a bridge for them to come into the church. It turned out the building was a bridge to relationships.” While there were predictable responses about numerical growth in programs, we became more excited by dreams about new connections with the community and more possibilities for how we could live among those who are poor and/or struggling in the area. Following dwelling in scripture and conversations around the Appreciative Inquiry questions, we used the framework from Memories, Hopes, and Conversations to engage a series of questions that resulted in a provocative proposal.22 Participants experienced new energy and clarity. While some provocative proposals tended toward internal matters rather than community connections, and others were not immediately translatable into experiments, there was an overall sense that shifted the center of our conversations in ways that were both missional and innovative. Our Boy Scouts said, “We are connected to both the congregation and to the Solanco Community.” (Solanco is the name of our local school district.) Our Christian education committee decided to try a Bible study in a local restaurant. Our deacons stated, “We are in relationship with the people who come asking for help.” After this, rather than just writing a check when someone in the community came and needed financial assistance, they began to build relationships. This resulted in ongoing relationships and what I would call “actual help.” In other words, often the problems that we see are not just financial—they are social, emotional, relational.23 Our deacons had often kept their distance when helping. For

210

C hapt e r 1 0

ministry in a rural setting, people who ask for financial assistance are rarely strangers—they or their families are neighbors. It was an act of courage to enter into a relationship with these neighbors because these situations are complicated. The deacons have let go of some of their preconceived notions about people who are experiencing poverty and have both seen lives changed and had their own lives changed. Our youth ministry wanted to be more intergenerational, and they have done that. Our Christian education committee wanted to reenergize some of the discipleship offerings for children, and they engaged in another Appreciative Inquiry process to do that (below). Even in the groups that didn’t follow through completely with their provocative proposal, we sensed a new connection to the life of the larger conversation. The Boy Scouts now communicate more clearly to the larger body. The Girl Scouts have taken the lead in some fundraising that helps to connect them to the mission of the church. We’ve seen more connections between those participating in these ministries and the relational and worship life of the congregation. So while we didn’t get the programmatic results that some groups articulated, we have witnessed even better results—closer relationships, renewed energy, deeper awareness, and better connections. People engaged in experiments, tried new things, and talked with one another. In some places, we had great results from the provocative proposals. The wide participation in conversations and the sheer amount of data collected means that not everything that was written about could possibly happen. The process and outcomes increased our leadership’s capacities to live with more chaos and more risk. This increased adaptability has been a great gift. As leaders provided a process for diverse voices, numerous dreams, and imaginative conversations, they gained respect and trust in participants. And the dreamers developed trust in the leadership of the congregation to support and guide the overall project, saying “yes” whenever possible and saying “no” only when necessary. Round Three: Children’s Ministry

Our third Appreciative Inquiry process began with questions about our Wednesday evening children’s choir program. Many years ago, there had been a large children’s choir, but it had dwindled over the years for a number of reasons—demographics, schedules, leadership. There were also some spo-

C h e s tn u t L e v e l P r e s byt e rian C h u rch — Q u arryvill e , P e nn s ylvania



211

radic children’s discipleship offerings on Sunday afternoons that came and went depending on parents’ commitments. And there was a small Wednesday evening meal with overwhelmed cooks and a sporadically attended adult class with a frustrated pastor. Our Christian education committee decided to engage the issues of these Wednesday evening programs. This committee gathered people for an intensive AI process that included dwelling in the Word. A member of the committee led the process. She and the committee invited anyone who was interested to come and talk about the possibilities. The group first spent time with Deuteronomy 6:1–12. Again, they only asked the opened question, “What is the Spirit saying to our church in this passage?” Because of the open-endedness of the question, those who gathered shared stories of how they came to “love the Lord” and of who had helped form their faith. Without pastoral presence or prodding, they began to dream about what the future could hold. After dwelling, they discussed two questions that were influenced by Appreciative Inquiry: (3.1) How has God been at work in the Children’s Ministry of Chestnut Level Presbyterian Church? (3.2) What do you think God wants to accomplish in the next five years? For me, an interesting part of this process is that I had stepped away and “let them run with it.” Thus, the first question may have been too evaluative; we might have surfaced more if we had begun with a question that was more general about life-giving experiences and then asked about where they saw God’s activities. And the second question jumped to opinions about needed actions rather that wishes and imagination. Even though this was a very generative process, I realize the leaders did not have adequate guidance on writing questions. Even though I would act differently in the future, I was grateful for their initiative and willingness to learn and try something new. Out of this, they experienced a renewal of energy for deeper relationships on Wednesday evening. They wanted to gather around tables for good food and conversation plus reimagined activities. The shift was most obvious in how their imaginations and conversations moved from managing set programs to a more continuous openness to observe, to dream, to write, and to experiment.

212

C hapt e r 1 0

Deuteronomy 6:1–7  1Now this is the commandment—the statutes and the ordinances—that the Lord your God charged me to teach you to observe in the land that you are about to cross into and occupy, 2 so that you and your children and your children’s children may fear the Lord your God all the days of your life, and keep all his decrees and his commandments that I am commanding you, so that your days may be long. 3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe them diligently, so that it may go well with you, and so that you may multiply greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has promised you. 4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. 6 Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. 7 Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise.

As they followed up, the group gathered for dwelling with scripture and further conversation. They looked at Deuteronomy 6:1–7 and discussed how they were formed in their faith and what God might be saying through this passage for the congregation’s ministry. One of the key moments came when a member said, “This happens as different generations interact with one another. How can we do this?” From there, the group became excited about doing something that often seems counterculture—making space for multiple generations to gather together and share life and faith together. Then the group continued to engage two Appreciative Inquiry questions: (3.3) “How has God been at work in this program?” (3.4) “What do you think God might be dreaming for the next five years?” The combination of dwelling in scripture and discussing these questions helped the group move beyond the problem-saturated narratives of “Who will cook?” or “How will we get more people here?” or “Why don’t people come?” As a result of this sequence of conversations around scripture and questions, members became convinced that God wanted people to be able to gather across generations for a meal so they would be more engaged in

C h e s tn u t L e v e l P r e s byt e rian C h u rch — Q u arryvill e , P e nn s ylvania



213

relationships and discipleship. As I reflect on this process, I am aware of two things. One, I’m grateful for the energy and initiative of those involved. Two, I’ve seen how often programs can become inflexible approaches that cause us to do the same things year after year. I am more apt to use words now like “activities” or “times together,” so I would probably reword the first question to something like “How have you experienced God in these times together?” Even though our AI approach needs corrections, we definitely saw new experiments emerge. One person got so excited about the possibilities that he volunteered to be the cook. Several people became energized about children’s discipleship, and they wanted to start Wednesday evening classes. The Children’s Choir became less of a central focus, which created space for kids who do not especially want to sing. The committee began to plan intergenerational activities—including classes where adults and children were gathering around tables engaging scripture together. The youth ministry started Bible studies on Wednesday evening. Some of these ideas were new, while other activities just became energized with greater participation and hope. As we continued to try new classes and to spread the word that people were enjoying being together, the meal has grown from forty people (at most) to a regular attendance of over 150. Because of the interweaving of these Appreciative Inquiry conversations and the deepening relationships, many of those coming are young families we have connected with in the community along with unchurched youth. Older adults appreciate being connected with other generations. The meal is no longer dependent on a few laborers; there is a rotation among cooks and other workers. These experiences indicate increased energy along with new opportunities for the synergism across generations and with friends in the community. LEARNINGS FOR THE CHURCH

One of the most important results of using Appreciate Inquiry is that concrete decisions were shaped through listening to the community. Previously a few leaders would have made decisions about how we charge for the meals, what kind of tables we purchase, where our leaders sit, or how we manage our shared space. Now leaders work in new ways because the voices of our neighbors are heard, and there is increased collaboration across church organizations. The genuine enjoyment of Wednesday evenings has led people to invite

214

C hapt e r 1 0

friends and neighbors, and we have children, youth, and adults coming from our immediate neighborhood. In an area where families can get a “name,” thereby becoming part of an informal social class so that they are treated differently by the school and business (and church) community, we have begun to demonstrate that the gospel can break down cultural barriers. As a church, we have become more gracious, less self-righteous, and more able to have genuine engagements with our neighbors. This allows us to live differently, with more attentiveness and even with confidence that we are engaging God in the midst of our changing world. One day I walked outside our Family Life Center and saw a church member talking to a neighbor across the street. The church member approached him—not to invite him to an event but to check on his health and to ask how his kids were doing in school. I believe that previously there would have been an agenda, but now there is genuine relationship. Also, members have told me that they have gotten to know people who live close by them. One member told me, “I used to avoid the people living in the trailer at the end of our road. Honestly, I was afraid of them and told myself that I was better than them in order to protect myself. When we’ve talked about church these days, I have seen myself and them differently.” We obviously continue to have unresolved issues. Administrative activities still prevent many adults from deeper engagement in study, conversations, and learning. We have scheduling challenges—our Praise Team lost their practice time and the planning committee is often too tired to meet after the program to do more debriefing and detail planning. On Wednesday evenings, adults still need to learn new ways to engage church and neighborhood youth and decide what socialization is important for this complex evening to work well. But mainly we have new energy to address those issues, and we are aware that genuine evangelism and discipleship occur during these times—which further adds to a sense of purpose and hope for the congregation as we continue to engage the challenges of our context. Each time we have engaged in an AI process, we have seen specific, concrete results in our relationships and behaviors. Sometimes these outcomes have been intended—like a new program emerging. Sometimes they have been unintended—like new relationships with our scouting programs. As AI shaped conversations, imaginations, and innovations, new work needed to be done. In each case, this approach to learning and discerning has always surfaced the energy to engage in that work.

C h e s tn u t L e v e l P r e s byt e rian C h u rch — Q u arryvill e , P e nn s ylvania



215

During this project, Appreciative Inquiry was an important part of unlocking the imagination of the congregation to move from building a facility that would simply meet our own internal needs and dreams to one that is designed for activities that serve and engage the community. The role of leaders was not about knowing what to do and getting people to do it; rather, the task of leadership was to listen to people, draw out God’s work in them, and then participate in articulating new imaginative options. Because of this process, we had significant learning as a congregation, and we developed important new relationships in the community. LEARNING AS A LEADER

I have previously learned various ways to engage church work—by explaining, planning, recruiting, leading Bible studies, and knowing the answers about what we would do next. As we adopted Appreciative Inquiry, I saw that my job was to help draw attention to what God was doing in other people and situations. I have learned that I need to listen very carefully to what people are saying and what their dreams might be. As a pastor, I want to help people consider God’s presence and initiatives. I want to help them attend not just to their own dreams, but to listen for the call of the Spirit of God. Appreciative Inquiry is a natural way to introduce God into the conversation. It is also a wonderful way to draw upon the imaginations of the people. In using Appreciative Inquiry, I learned ways to engage people in thinking about the future that do not shame them or turn scripture into a club—it invites people to renarrate their story with scripture and to bring the two together. As we help people to dream and innovate, the concrete steps that must come with programs and decisions can be engaged with energy toward the work and the new possibilities that are being created. I also learned the necessity of managing my own anxieties about what might happen, particularly if the innovations aren’t my own ideas. This process is also risky—it doesn’t always work and it is possible to get derailed. Rural areas may not have obvious ways to enter the community. We do not have coffee shops, sidewalks, and street corners where people congregate and socialize. But an extensive social life is here, just in different forms. Rural life is hidden down farm lanes and inside barns. Church members offer their time to a volunteer fire department. Our local diners have people who regularly gather for breakfast, lunch, and even a mid-afternoon snack. Our schools

216

C hapt e r 1 0

have parent/teacher associations, and they welcome volunteers. We have a vibrant annual fair where our congregation learns an extraordinary amount about our community as we mingle around our church’s food stand. Each time we venture into community activities and relationships, we discover additional networks and opportunities. Behind the bucolic landscape of a rural area is a world alive with activity and with occasions for entering into the lives of our neighbors. I learned that if I were to take time away from my office and books in order to learn about our area, it would require courage, initiative, and the ability to ask questions. However, not only is it possible to learn about a context, I learned that I am often even welcomed by the people of the community. When church members are invited to shape their own insights and experiences into dreams for the church, those dreams connect with the community and become alive with energy. Pastoral leadership needs to be filled with a deep respect for the people rooted and grounded in the local community. Chestnut Level Presbyterian Church, formed in a rural ethos, gives more emphasis to the pastor’s ability to relate to the people of the area (church members and non–church members) and to understand and engage their lives. I realized that, because I was formed in a denominational heritage that gave priority to scholarship, I needed to rethink my own priorities and capacities. At times, I have used my education as a shield to avoid entering into real relationships with real people; my training could become an instrument of power, used to manipulate people into doing what I planned. As I speak with colleagues, we have realized that we need to, in a sense, get over ourselves and value the integrity of the people with whom we work and become aware of what God has done and continues to do in their lives. I have learned that this rural culture features its own style of intelligence and literacy. I am aware of some mutual misunderstandings between those of us with multiple degrees and rural cultures where formal education is less valued. One of the members of this congregation recently wrote a book on the history of this area.24 His insights into regional life, often connected with his own experiences, are deep. And his ability to write is extraordinary—because he notices what is going on around him. So I have learned to respect the intelligence present in this place and receive God’s wisdom through it. I have also learned new ways to embrace the past. Like other church leaders, I have been too prone to brace for the resistance voiced in, “we’ve never

C h e s tn u t L e v e l P r e s byt e rian C h u rch — Q u arryvill e , P e nn s ylvania



217

done it that way before”; it fit my bias that some people are unwilling to change because they are stuck in the past. Instead, I have learned that narratives from the past reveal how God has been at work; in those stories we can discover God’s missional identity for a congregation’s future. I was taught to “bless what is and add what isn’t,” but now I believe that “what is” might just be the place to enter and discover God’s future for a particular congregation! Finally, I learned through all of this that the outer edges of a society may be the place where God is most at work. Sometimes rural America seems far away from the hustle and bustle and center of American life. Politicians don’t court us, we aren’t involved in fancy campaigns to change America, and we don’t live in places like New York, Washington, or Los Angeles—where politicians or entertainers or business people congregate and make important decisions. Because of this, I notice a tendency in this area to believe that what we do and who we are just doesn’t matter. To this, the gospel says a resounding “No.” And following that no is the yes of the gospel. Yes, every person matters and yes, God uses all kinds of places—major crossroads of the world and small rural places. So the joy of learning to lead through Appreciative Inquiry has included a reframing of my attitude toward people and place. I’ve learned to have a different perspective toward those around me—a delight in what God is doing in and through them. And I’ve seen this make a difference in a concrete way as God’s Spirit gives us new ideas that bring fresh energy and hope to the church and community. One of the most interesting (and concrete) shifts for me is that I am now spending more time out in the community and less time in the new building. That’s right—we built a building. But in it I learned to attend more closely to the stories of the community. So I am much more likely to have lunch at the diner up the street than at my desk. There I see church members and people from the local community. There I hear from the wait staff and kitchen staff. I hear their stories. I connect them to other stories and other people. Sometimes I offer help (like a phone number to call for rent assistance). Sometimes they want advice. (What does one do when your teenage daughter is thinking about moving in with a heroin addict?) Mostly, they need their stories heard. So—yes—building a building has caused me to spend less time in the building. And—yes—the people who helped build the building think this is a good idea. Why? Because they and we are more connected to the God of Scripture—who is at work in the world.

III

SCRIPTS AND SCHEDULES Mark Lau Branson and Nina Lau-Branson

Churches, judicatories, and other organizations have their own unique vocations, organizational structures, and contexts. Part III contains resources intended to make Appreciative Inquiry accessible and adaptable for various situations. Chapter 11 features mini-lectures for instructing participants along the journey. Chapter 12 provides alternative schedules that feature some variations on the implementation of chapters 4 and 5. These chapters refer to various sections of the book and to tables and figures. The Detailed Contents (ix) can provide assistance in finding sections and a complete List of Tables and Figures is in the front of the book (xvi). Nina Lau-Branson is coauthor of these chapters.

219

11

Scripts

The following introductory scripts are connected to the suggested schedules that follow. In each case, earlier chapters provide significant material for lectures, so rereading that material will provide support for the meetings. These scripts are inadequate in themselves; they are intended to be used in conjunction with the earlier chapters. Also, as noted previously, there is added clarity and encouragement when more leaders read major parts of this book. In these brief presentations, we only demonstrate how to set a tone and choose topics for comments. Anyone who leads these sessions will need to adapt these scripts to each specific group, add personal illustrations, and modify personal references. Each meeting also provides an opportunity for leaders to use the biblical materials noted in chapter 3. Here is a list of the mini-lectures and the associated visuals (which can be located using the List of Tables and Figures in the front of the book): ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

Introducing AI Introductory Exercise Comparing AI to Problem Solving—Table 2.1 and Table 2.4 Core Processes—Table 2.2 Four Steps—Table 2.3 221

222

■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

C hapt e r 1 1

Imagine—Table 2.3 and Table 5.1 Reminders from Assumptions and Guidelines—Table 2.4 and Table 2.5 Imagination: Interpreting the Data—Table 2.3 and Table 5.1 Imagination: Provocative Proposals—Table 5.4 and Table 5.3 Innovation: Experiments—Table 5.6 and Figure 2.3

INTRODUCTION: OPENING EXERCISES, AGENDA, DESIRED OUTCOMES

This presentation should be very brief, allowing participants to quickly enter into the experience of the interviews. These comments can include official reasons for the process, such as a planning project or the arrival of a new pastor. Attention should be given to introductions of participants and leaders. If participants do not know each other, time should be allowed for introductions. Comments on the schedule for the meeting will help everyone know what to expect, including breaks and the plans for ending the meeting. All participants will need supplies for conducting the interviews. The facilitators will need projection equipment (for schedules and perhaps for the questions) and newsprint (for gathering responses). The experience at First Presbyterian Church, Altadena, is narrated in chapter 1. Any meeting benefits from practices that help participants become present, attuned to each other’s voices, and more capable of discerning the Holy Spirit’s presence and guidance. Biblical materials from chapter 3 might help this formative process. Practices of silent or verbal prayer, singing, lighting candles, or sharing food can help move participants toward each other and toward the spiritual formation needed if congregational faithfulness is the goal. We have not scripted such activities since each church walks in its own tradition. Here is a suggested script for introducing the meeting: Introducing AI We are beginning a series of conversations and activities that will help us talk about and build on the most life-giving forces in our church. There are numerous stories that tell of God’s grace in our church’s founding and in the many years of ministry. It is very common for churches to do evaluation and planning. Sometimes we are well served by activities like reviewing our goals, analyzing what we’ve been doing, evaluating the results, and so forth. But often, in that kind of committee work and in parking lot conversations, we express discouragement and criticalness. It is too easy for us to continue

Script s



223

old conversations that have not previously created new life. And we too easily place our hopes in one more new program or some new tasks for staff or other leaders. We are going to do something different in these conversations. Everyone here has stories—how you have experienced God’s grace, the love of others, the excitement of ministry, the presence of the Holy Spirit. We all remember occasions when the congregation was at its best— when we were especially responsive to God’s love and when we embodied that love in unique and profound ways. Here are our goals for this session: We will introduce Appreciative Inquiry. You will have a brief experience of an “appreciative interview.” Then I will provide some comments about how change occurs in an organization. We will also study biblical materials related to the kind of conversations we will be having. Later we will build on these conversations toward a more thorough process that engages our imaginations and includes more voices.

The presenter will adjust these comments to the items being included in the meeting schedule. If a lectio divina exercise is being engaged, this is an appropriate time. We have frequently reflected on Philippians 4:8, using the procedure explained in the section “Engaging Scripture During AI” from chapter 3. Introductory Exercise I want to emphasize how these interviews will be different from the conversations we often have. In my own conversations with members, I have heard some fairly remarkable stories of God’s initiatives and of the church’s faithfulness. Whatever we envision for our future must be grounded in what we know about the most important, life-giving stories of our past. I used to ask people, “What should we do about this or that?” I usually hear lots of advice, some of it good, but I’m learning that we need something more substantial than a few more personal opinions. So I want to try something. For now, find a conversation partner near you, and try to connect with someone you do not know especially well. You will interview each other using three questions. First, one person will ask the questions, one at a time, and record the responses. Then the other partner will conduct the interview and make notes. You will have twenty minutes apiece, and I will give you time prompts as we go. Take notes that will help you report to us the answers you receive. Here are the questions (handouts should available for each person):

224

C hapt e r 1 1

1. Remembering your entire experience at our church, when were you most alive, most motivated and excited about your involvement? What made it exciting? Who else was involved? What happened? What was your part? Describe what you felt. 2. What do you value most about the church? What activities or ingredients or ways of life are most important? What are the best features of this church? 3. Make three wishes for the future of the church.

If the group is pursuing something that is more focused (like intergenerational life or connecting with the neighborhood), the questions can be modified for that purpose. ORIENTATION: ASSUMPTIONS, STEPS, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

These presentations are the most content heavy of the mini-lectures. All of these items are explained in chapter 2, but the sequence here is different. This material is for the guiding team and, perhaps with less detail, for the board. Some elements can be used in other settings. The leader can provide illustrations and take questions as the presentation continues. Here is an introduction: Comparing AI to Problem Solving Before we proceed with further work, I want you to understand some of the reasons and guidelines for Appreciative Inquiry. All of our church activities are built on assumptions. First, let’s look at how we frequently discuss church activities, whether we are in meetings or in the parking lot (table 2.1) I want you to notice something: the first column, because it begins with noticing a problem, means that we frequently focus on problems. We develop habits that shape our attention to negative situations. Notice that the second column has a different approach. We will explore the comparison more as we proceed. Now, the assumptions behind Appreciative Inquiry explain what we just saw. For example, when you meet with a committee, you have some assumptions about what you are doing, why you believe it is important, and what results you expect. Also, whenever we come to worship, or participate in Bible study, or ask God’s guidance, we have assumptions. Sometimes there is a disconnect— we claim certain assumptions, but we have lost confidence in those assumptions. In that case, we participate with a group of people that might be on its way to becoming dysfunctional. Our assumptions are no longer

Script s



225

really true and active—and we become discouraged, our words lose their plain meanings, and we have trouble working effectively together. Appreciative Inquiry is based on some very specific assumptions. As I list and illustrate these, I want you to ask questions, maybe provide your own illustrations, and see if we have enough agreement to proceed. Some of the assumptions will actually become clearer as we continue our work, but I want you to know enough about the assumptions for you to be encouraged and hopeful in your own participation. (Present table 2.4.)

The leader then continues through the four assumptions, providing explanations and illustrations, stopping occasionally to ask if participants are understanding. With that basic review of assumptions, the group is ready for a sense of the process. Core Processes Now I want you to see how we will proceed. There are five key processes in Appreciative Inquiry. It is important that we work through each process. You will see that they make sense as each process builds on what went before. I will explain the processes first—later I will show you what steps we will take. (Present table 2.2.)

There is usually no need for much detail on the five processes because clarity will increase when you present the four steps. This mini-lecture moves the group from the theoretical back to practical steps. Four Steps Earlier I compared Appreciative Inquiry with problem solving. The steps here are called the “4-I method.” There are other ways to set up the steps so that all five processes are covered. The other methods emphasize the steps differently. We are currently in step 1—and this step continues until we are ready to begin a larger interview process. We will need to design just how we approach each step. (Present table 2.3.) We will go into more details on each step when we gather the persons who are actually doing that step. For now I just wanted you to understand the overall structure.

When the guiding team draws in additional interviewers, the training session can include some of the items above under Introducing AI and Introductory

226

C hapt e r 1 1

Exercise. All interviewees need to have had an experience with an interview, so the training session needs to include such an experience if there are new participants. Also, listening to scripture and to each other in a lectio exercise is a good way to begin the training. Consider Philippians 4:8 or perhaps 1 Thessalonians 1:2–3. Because table 4.6, if used with an experience of AI, is sufficient information for the training, there is no additional script. INQUIRY, INTERPRETATION, AND EXPERIMENTS

This final set of mini-lectures covers meetings after the interviews are completed. The Imagine and Innovate steps include reflecting on the data, naming themes, developing provocative proposals, and shaping initial experiments. Step 3, “Imagine,” is described in chapter 5. This is interpretive work with the interview responses. The data has been collated and prepared for distribution. This gathering includes leaders and interviewers, and many others might be included. The session could open with a general question that prompts some interaction, such as, “What have you been hearing in the interviews?” “What do people appreciate about the church?” “What was your experience like as you listened to others?” or “Did you learn anything?” This is a playful time. The leaders can spark interaction among participants, ask questions, encourage enthusiasm. After this opening (and following an orientation, if needed) the leader explains the overall work of “Imagine” and the goals for the meeting. Imagine We have already completed the first two steps of Appreciative Inquiry. (Use table 2.3.) We began by orienting ourselves to the basic assumptions and committing ourselves to look for the most life-giving narratives in our church. We want to discern God’s initiatives among us and around us. Then we accomplished the inquiry—by forming questions, deciding whom to interview, and conducting those interviews. This third step, “Imagine,” is described in the table: “Imagine what might be by interpreting the interviews, taking the risk of imagination, and building toward consensus concerning what should be.” We have already completed the first activity of Imagine—collate the data. Our work now is for all of us to receive the data (which is our word for the notes you took during interviews) and to begin looking for the most important themes. Sometimes I will give you time on your own so you can begin to become familiar with all of the information we have gathered. Sometimes

Script s



227

we will be in small groups to talk about what you are discovering; sometimes we will work as a large group. These different settings— individuals, small groups, large group—help us learn from each other in order to gain the eyes and ears of everyone as we become conversant with all of the data. So far, each of us is familiar with just a few interviews—now we need to become aware of and engaged with the whole. Notice the other activities involved in this Imagine step. (Present table 5.1.) After we share the data with you, we will work together to find the life-giving themes. We will spend time with each question, finding responses that are compelling. After we take time with all of the questions, we will need to decide what themes will receive our initial focus for some experiment. At that time, I will explain what a “provocative proposal” is and how we create them from this data.

The next script is intended as a reminder of some assumptions. If this meeting has already included an orientation to assumptions and theories, most of the following paragraph can be omitted: Reminders from Assumptions and Guidelines Each of these activities will lead us toward imagining a new future. When we began, we looked at some assumptions behind Appreciative Inquiry. (Show table 2.4.) For example, assumption number 1 says, “What we focus on becomes our reality.” As we designed the questions, we intentionally pursued the most life giving, the most important formative stories of the church. And assumptions 4 shows how the interviews will construct the bridge to the future: “People have more confidence in the journey to the future when they carry forward parts of the past—and those facets should be what is best about the past.” That is what we are doing in this Imagine step. Here are two more clues to our work in groups (show table 2.5)—first guiding principle number 1, “It is important to value differences.” There is no need to take various responses and oppose them as if one must be lost if another is valued. We have found diverse values and plenty of stories. That approach and our work today then demonstrates guiding principle number 2, “All steps are collaborative.” We will be listening carefully and respectfully to all these voices and we also continue to invite the Holy Spirit’s promptings as we work.

The schedules will suggest ways for participants to read and discuss the data in search of themes. Each church will need to adapt the schedules to their own

228

C hapt e r 1 1

context, including the number of questions and the quantity of data for each question. This mini-lecture provides orientation for this interpretive work. Imagination: Interpreting the Data You already know that we have lots of rich and valuable stories and memories. (Show table 2.3.) We have completed the first two steps of Appreciative Inquiry, and we are now ready for step 3—Imagine. This step has several activities. (Show table 5.1.) We have collated the data and will give each table a set of these interview answers. Our work now is to help us all begin to grasp the most important, life-giving themes that arise throughout the interviews. After we have decided on some themes, we will craft provocative proposals that provide pictures of how we, together, imagine our own preferred future. (Provide instructions on how to distribute the data to each participant.) As you read the interview responses, please pay attention to a couple of things: Are there repeated images, stories, threads, or themes in what you are reading? Also, is there a compelling story or answer that in itself gets your attention. Write notes to yourself or mark on your papers. When it is time, we will have you talk at your tables and record (on newsprint) two to three of the most compelling or repeated themes that you are discovering. Remember, there are exceptional moments, or perhaps a series of faithful practices, or some story that indicates God’s life among and around us. What do we hear that gives life to our church? What shows us how God is engaging us? After your table has a list of several of these themes, each group will share what you are seeing and we will also find threads among the groups. These will lead us to the primary themes that lead us forward.

Remember that this is not just about the number of times some topic arises, or what some individual person may wish to push—rather, you (as a group) are listening for the most promising, generative, synergistic themes in the data. You will follow a schedule through all of your questions with some sequence of personal reading time, small group conversations, then whole group work. After you have completed these sequences, you will have some initial themes to carry forward. It is possible, at a later time or with a specially assigned group, to pursue additional work on other themes that are arising, but for now we will continue with four to six themes. For this work, each theme will be assigned to one or more tables, depending on the number of themes

Script s



229

and the number of participants. If several tables have the same theme, participants will work around their own table first, then they will merge their work into an agreed-on provocative proposal. When this work is done, these are shared with the whole room. In preparation, the room should have lots of newsprint from previous interpretive sessions. There are sets of reports on what was found in the responses to each question, and you probably also have some sheets that show the work that led to the shared themes. These papers surround the tables for this work session. Imagination: Provocative Proposals We are continuing a process of imagination. We are not working on favorite strategic plans or programs. We don’t yet know how these imagined futures will take place. Rather, each table is working with one theme in order to place themselves five years into the future and describe what it looks like if that theme is an energized, faithful, and generative reality in our lives. Let me describe how we are going to proceed. (Show table 5.4.) With your theme in mind, walk around the room, maybe in pairs, and look for any story or memory that is related to your theme. Make notes, talk about what you remember or what is compelling to you. Then return to your table and write a series of phrases that capture how this theme would be embodied or enacted if, five years from now, we were at our best in displaying this theme in our lives. Don’t worry about writing a literary piece—just use phrases, describe images, express possibilities of what this would look like. Use language in the present tense—not “we will,” or “we should,” but “we are.” Use active verbs and paint pictures. Also, consider drawing what you imagine—preferred images of the future are often shaped with artistic approaches. These are important things to keep in mind, so here is a summary of what is important for a provocative proposal. (Present table 5.3.) We assume that the Bible studies are helping us see and imagine. We know that that the interviews have provided lots of inspiring pictures. Now you get to describe a promising and attractive future.

Your work on provocative proposals may end the session, or you might proceed directly to the work of innovation. As noted earlier, the pursuit here is of small, doable experiments. Churches learn new ways of being through actionreflection, and small experiments increase learning while lessening the risk.

230

C hapt e r 1 1

Innovation: Experiments Your table group is now gathered around a particular provocative proposal—you are an action team. Read these proposals—take some time to connect stories you have heard with biblical passages and the conversations we have been having. As you place yourself into this fiveyears-in-the-future description, what does it feel like? Are you seeing certain activities and practices? What do you hear, see, smell? After a brief conversation, list some initial experiments that are doable now or over the next few weeks. Since we don’t want to pursue large, complicated plans, let me instead give you a list of important qualities regarding these experiments. (Present table 5.6.) After lots of experimenting and learning, we may decide that we want to grow some of these innovations in regard to the extent of their reach or the frequency of activities. But for now we are only engaging what we call action-reflection. (Present figure 2.3.) Our experiments shape our awareness and learning so we can gain competencies in discerning what God is doing among and around us. We can use appreciative questions when we evaluate. That new learning will alter our experiments, or we will try something else. Some of the action teams will grow as more participants become involved. Some teams may split into several working groups. When appropriate, some experiments may become integrated with other church groups. For now, we want to travel light, to encourage innovations, and to ask the Holy Spirit to guide, prod, and encourage us.

These mini-lectures can be used in any of the following schedules (chapter 12). Also, the five chapters of part II provided numerous approaches to sequencing the work.

12

Schedules

The initiation and training of leaders, the interpretive work, and steps to innovation can take place either on retreats, in daylong meetings, or during a sequence of shorter meetings. All sessions include relevant theory and procedures, instructions for group activities, time for those activities, a briefing time, and, we recommend, time in scripture. A congregation’s time requirements will vary depending on (1) the size of the groups, (2) the complexity of the subject matter being pursued, and (3) choices concerning what will be done in larger groups and what can be worked on in smaller groups.

231

232

C hapt e r 1 2

The work at First Presbyterian, Altadena, was similar to schedule format A (table 12.1). This schedule works through all four steps, using a series of two-hour meetings. The other tables in this chapter focus on other formats and schedules. Table 12.1.  Timetable Format A Timetable Format A • • • • •

Appreciative Inquiry only (no missional church frameworks) Board orientation separated Series of two hour meetings Assumes 4–6 questions with 80–100 respondents Assume 24 participants in interpreting session working in 4 groups of 6 participants each (see chapter 5 under “Managing the Data” for more information)

INITIATE Guiding Team Session #1 30 20

30 10 20

Lectio Select initial 2 questions (like 1 and 4 in Table 4.2) and interview each other in dyads Debrief (partner reports, gather themes) Consider sample questions (Table 4.2) Craft new value question(s) or select from Table 4.3 or Table 4.4—either whole room or divide among groups then whole room finalizes

Guiding Team Session #2 30 30

15 15 30

Lectio Mini-lectures: Problem solving versus AI, Core Processes, 4-I Model (Tables 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) Dyads test new question (or split questions among dyads) Debrief (partner reports, gather responses) Mini-lectures: Assumptions, Guiding Principles (Tables 2.4 and 2.5)

Board 30 20 30 30

Lectio Interview in dyads (that mix guiding team and board) two questions Debrief (partner reports, gather themes) Mini-lectures: Problem solving versus AI, 4-I Model, Assumptions, Guiding Principles (Tables 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5)

This first session will provide orientation through experience, information, discussion, and some initial tasks. The final step (craft new questions or select from tables) is an initial task toward deciding questions that will be used in future interviews.

The focus of session #2 is the continuing work of crafting/selecting questions for future use plus some additional information about AI. Usually there is an increasing sense of expectancy that provides energy.

This orientation, also providing experiences and information, is intended to give the board confidence in the process. Depending on the situation, board members might be invited to participate as interviewers.

Sch e d u l e s

10



233

Debrief, explore board’s interest in doing interviews, note Tables 4.1 and 4.5 for next steps

INQUIRE Guiding Team Session #3 30 15 45

30

Lectio Debrief meeting with board From previous meetings, decide key theme(s), and craft questions. Plan how to test any new questions 2–3 times with people not on guiding team Plan protocols (interviewers, interviewees, training, data collection, schedule)

Guiding Team Session #4 (if needed) 60

Discuss reports from testing then finalize questions

Training Interviewers 30 20 10 30 30

Lectio Select 2 questions, interview in dyads Debrief experience—what was this like? Read and discuss Interview Instructions (Table 4.6) Explain process, schedule, and data gathering, including plans for follow-up with interviewers

The guiding team has two major tasks: craft final questions and plan the protocols, training for interviewers, and data collection. Any of this work can be delegated to smaller teams.

This session is scheduled only if additional work is needed to finalize questions. The training can be done by the whole guiding team or by a smaller team. Invitations should have been personal, finding persons who would be good at the tasks of listening, following instructions, and transcribing notes.

IMAGINE AND INNOVATE Interpret and Imagine Session #1 20 10 20 40 30

Lectio—Phil. 4:8 Mini-lectures: Action-Reflection and Imagine (Figure 2.3 and Table 5.1) Individuals read data on question 1 Small groups of 6 compile themes and write on newsprint Whole group highlights, clarifies, and combines themes

Interpret and Imagine Session #2 15 5

Lectio New instructions because two questions will be studied by different individuals/groups. Data from question 2 is distributed to half of the room, and data from question 3 is distributed to the remaining half of the room for individuals to read

When individuals and groups review data, they are looking for repeated stories and values plus anything that seems especially compelling. This is not a search for best ideas or programs but more about life-giving forces. These conversations about powerful forces are as important as any specifics that arise. Remind participants to look for threads and compelling stories and memories. What moves them as they read? Obviously some themes will be more quickly focused on because these questions were more defined than the first question.

(continued)

234

C hapt e r 1 2

Table 12.1.  Continued 20 40

15 15 20

Individuals read data on their set Small groups of 6 gather around their respective question and write on newsprint Whole room hears reports on question 2, naming themes Whole room hears reports on question 3, naming themes Whole group highlights, clarifies and combines some themes from Interpret and Imagine Sessions #1 and #2

Interpret and Imagine Session #3 15 5

20 40

15 15 20

Lectio Data from question 4 is distributed to half the room and data from question 5 is distributed to the remaining half of the room for individuals to read Individuals read data on their set Small groups of 6 gather around their respective question and write on newsprint Whole room hears reports on question 4, naming themes Whole room hears reports on question 5, naming themes Whole group highlights, clarifies, and combines some themes from Interpret and Imagine Sessions #1, #2, and #3

Imagine & Innovate 20 5 40

5 5 40 5

Lectio (maybe Jer. 29:4–7 or Acts 2:42–47) Mini-lecture: Provocative Proposals (Tables 5.3 and 5.4) Assign one theme to each table; individuals choose a table and work on a cluster of descriptive phrases as a provocative proposal (use newsprint) Each table reads its provocative proposal Mini-lecture: Experiments (Table 5.6 and Figure 2.3) Table groups continue, with focus on possible experiments Each table gives 1 minute summary of work

This session will continue with new data. Then, as the conversation continues, you will seek to focus on a handful of themes that will receive some focused attention in the next session, which will imagine a positive, shared future and then frame experiments.

The two steps of this session are (1) write clusters of phrases as provocative proposals, and (2) begin naming initial experiments. The action teams can continue meeting on their own, or the guiding team can schedule some subsequent meetings.

Sch e d u l e s



235

When a church conducts interviews and wants to gain wide participation in the interpretive work, a Sunday format can work with the worship time as a way to frame the process and then some following hours to begin the step of Imagination (table 12.2). Table 12.2   Timetable Format B Timetable Format B—Sunday schedule including worship—Imagine and Innovate • • • • •

Appreciative Inquiry only (no missional church frameworks) Board orientation separated Congregational worship service with 3½-hour session following Assumes 2 questions with 50–60 responses Assumes 32 participants working in 4 groups of 8 participants each

IMAGINE Congregational Worship Service 10 45 5 15

Welcome, singing Dwelling in the Word Conclusion Break

Post–Worship Service Session 30

Mini-lectures: Assumptions, 4-I Model, Imagine (Tables 2.3, 2.4, and 5.1)

Question 1 (35 min.) 5 10 20

Individuals read data on question 1 Small groups of 8 compile themes and write on newsprint Whole group highlights, clarifies, and combines themes

Question 2 (35 min.) 5 10 20 15

Individuals read data on question 2 Small groups of 8 compile themes and write on newsprint Whole group highlights, clarifies, and combines themes Break and get lunch

Embedding the first part of the Interpret step in the congregation’s weekly worship service affirms that AI is inherently the testimony about a God who is active, present, and worthy to be praised. It also allows congregants who have not been part of the process to get a small taste of the heart of AI. The focus of this Imagine session is to listen to the data from the interviews, discern what God might be doing, and invite the congregation to participate. The data was compiled into a set of pages for each question; all of the answers to question 1 fit onto about 8 pages. A full set of pages (60 interviews) was placed on every table, and participants divided the pages for reading. This process was also followed for question 2. For most people, this is an unfamiliar practice, and they will need specific instruction, examples, and encouragement.

(continued)

236

C hapt e r 1 2

Table 12.2.  Continued Common Themes in Data (45 min.) 10

10 10 15

Individuals read, pray, and reflect on all the notes and observations around the room written on newsprint Small groups of 8 compile themes and write on newsprint Table groups share with room Large group reflects together and chooses 3 themes to take to Imagine and Innovate step today. Others are saved for another day.

Whole group highlights, clarifies, and combines some themes from questions 1 and 2.

IMAGINE AND INNOVATE Divide into Theme Teams (50 min.) 10

20

15 5

Mini-lecture: Provocative Proposals and Experiments (Tables 5.3, 5.4, and 5.6) Working in teams to create provocative proposals and experiments Teams reporting to large group Next steps and conclude

The object here is to free and encourage people to “draw outside the lines” with one eye on the data and to get to a point of naming experiments. This is not about commitments or implementation— but imagination and potential experiments. Follow-up (around individual themes or several action teams together, perhaps with new people) needs to be arranged.

Sch e d u l e s



237

A guiding team can work on Initiate and Inquire, in this case with an online coach. Then a weekend is used for training and wider participation in Imagine plus some initial steps toward Innovate (table 12.3). Table 12.3 Timetable Format C Timetable Format C—Mix online coaching and onsite weekend—Imagine and initial Innovate • Guiding team reads Memories, Hopes, and Conversations • Online video coach for orientation session and 2–3 sessions for crafting interview questions • Interviews completed by guiding team • Two-hour onsite Friday evening meeting with guiding team and others who will be Saturday table group leaders. Six-hour Saturday session for all interested congregants to Imagine and begin Innovate stage • Assumes 4 questions with 70–80 responses • Assumes 40 participants in the Imagine session, working in 5 groups of 8 people each IMAGINE Friday Evening 30 45 45

Lectio Reflect on process thus far Orientation to Saturday schedule and training table group leaders

Saturday (starting at 8:30 a.m. with optional gathering around breakfast; 6-hour session begins at 9 a.m.) 5 30 25

Welcome, introduce day Lectio Mini-lectures: Assumptions, 4-I Model, Imagine (Tables 2.3, 2.4, and 5.1)

This session focuses on two things: (1) helping the guiding team see the work that has been done thus far, what they have learned and how that will provide guidance for the work on Saturday; (2) training table group leaders for the important task of leading the listening and conversations during the Saturday session. This beginning session is to help people have a sense of anticipation of the work they are participating in today.

IMAGINE Question 1 (30 min.) 5 10 15 15 5 10 15 15

Individuals read data on question 1 Small groups of 8 compile themes and write on newsprint Whole group highlights, clarifies, and combines themes Break Individuals read data on question 1 Small groups of 8 compile themes and write on newsprint Whole group highlights, clarifies, and combines themes Break

The focus of this session is on listening to the data from the interviews, discerning what God might be doing, and inviting the congregation to participate. For most people this is an unfamiliar practice, and they will need specific instruction, examples, and encouragement. Half the tables will read the data for half the interviews, and the remaining tables will read the data for the other half of the interviews. Each table will have the data divided into sheets with 6–8 responses on each sheet. (continued)

238

C hapt e r 1 2

Table 12.3.  Continued Question 2 (30 min.) 5 10 15

Individuals read data on question 2 Small groups of 8 compile themes and write on newsprint Whole group highlights, clarifies, and combines themes

Question 3 (30 min.) 5 10 15

Individuals read data on question 3 Small groups of 8 compile themes and write on newsprint Whole group highlights, clarifies, and combines themes

Question 4 (30 min.) 5 10 15 45

Individuals read data on question 4 Small groups of 8 compile themes and write on newsprint Whole group highlights, clarifies, and combines themes Lunch Break

Common Themes in Data (60 min.) 10

15 10 25

Individuals read, pray, and reflect on all the notes and observations around the room written on newsprint Small groups of 8 compile themes and write on newsprint Table groups share with room Large group reflects together and chooses 3 themes to take to Imagine and Innovate stage today. Others are saved for another day

Divide into Theme Teams (60 min.) 10

25

20 5

Mini-lecture: Provocative Proposals and Experiments (Tables 5.3, 5.4, and 5.6) Working in teams to create provocative proposals and experiments Teams reporting to large group Next steps and conclude

Encourage people to walk around and look at the observations and notes on the large sheets of paper This is a continuation of the earlier sessions of listening to the data from the interviews, except the scope of the listening is now the whole body of data from today. So rather than listening to one question at a time, you listen to all the questions together. Is there a harmony you hear, a melody line, rhythms that are unexpected?

The object here is to free and encourage people to “draw outside the lines” with one eye on the data and to get to a point of naming experiments. This is usually an exciting point as people see that the process is leading to some exciting possibilities that have germinated from their own stories about God’s presence among them.

Sch e d u l e s



239

Rooted in both Appreciative Inquiry and missional church frameworks, a weekend process (Friday evening, six-hour Saturday) provides an introductory process for a large group of church leaders. Even though this is introductory, it can still lead to innovations and significant new energy in the church (table 12.4). Table 12.4.  Timetable Format D Timetable Format D—Weekend format with more emphasis on leadership and neighborhoods • Appreciative Inquiry with missional church frameworks. Assumes no prior exposure to AI or missional church • Two-hour Friday evening session and six-hour Saturday session for leadership council plus broader congregational leadership Assumes three interview questions with all interviewing, imagining, and innovation done by and with people present Friday evening and Saturday Friday Evening 45 30

Lectio Mini-lectures: Problem solving versus AI, Core Processes, 4-I Model and Assumptions (Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4)

Question 1 (45 min.) 10 15

10 10

Dyads interview, 5 minutes per person In table groups, each person shares what they heard, then group reflects on what they are hearing, summarizes on newsprint Table group shares with large group Large group reflects

Saturday (starting at 8:30 with optional gathering around breakfast; session begins at 9 a.m.) 15 45 30

15

Welcome, introduce day, worship and prayer Lectio—Luke 10:1–12 Church Formation: spiritual, congregational and missional (see chapter 2—Leading the Process) with emphasis on missional life Break

Question 2 (45 min.) 10 15

Dyads interview, 5 minutes per person In table groups, each person shares what they heard, then group reflects on what they are hearing, summarizes on newsprint

This session focuses primarily on introducing the participants to AI. The interview question is around relationships within the congregation, a question most people can answer with ease (see Table 4.3). Often people leave this session excited by having new conversations and hearing encouraging stories that were in their congregational life story but had never been told before.

This session is to help people have a sense of the larger context of missional church within which AI can be a tool.

The interview question is around leadership experiences within the congregation.

(continued)

240

C hapt e r 1 2

Table 12.4.  Continued 10 10

Table group shares with large group Large group reflects

30

Adaptive Leadership (in chapter 2—“Leading the Process”)

Break, Question 3 work during lunch (60 min.) 15 20 15 10

15

10 25

Individuals read, pray, and reflect on all the notes and observations posted around the room Small groups of 6–8 compile themes and write their key reflections (themes) on newsprint Table groups share with room Large group reflects together and chooses 3 themes to take to Imagine and Innovate stage today. Others are saved for another day.

Divide into Theme Teams (60 min.) 10

25

20 5

Question around loving God and loving neighbor (see Table 4.3).

Dyads interview, 5 minutes per person Share interviews and reflect in table groups, summarizes on newsprint Table group shares with large group Large group reflects

Common Themes from Interviews (60 min.) 10

This session introduces people to a key topic for effective leadership in today’s rapidly changing environment.

Mini-lecture: Provocative Proposals and Experiments (Tables 5.3, 5.4, and 5.6) Participants chose a table based on the themes for the work of creating provocative proposals and experiments Teams reporting to large group Next steps and conclude

This is a continuation of the earlier sessions of listening to the data from the interviews except the scope of the listening is now the whole body of data from today. As they listen to all the questions together, they look for threads, compelling insights, notable rhythms that are unexpected.

The object here is to free and encourage people to “draw outside the lines” with one eye on the data and to get to a point of naming experiments. Table (theme) groups will have options to follow up with experiments.

Notes

PREFACE

1.  Suresh Srivastva and David L. Cooperrider, eds., Appreciative Management and Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations, rev. ed. (Euclid, OH: Williams Custom Publishing, 1999), see especially David L. Cooperrider, “Positive Image, Positive Action: The Affirmative Basis of Organizing” (91–125) and Suresh Srivastva and David L. Cooperrider, “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life” (401–41). For a more recent major publication, see David Cooperrider, Diana Whitney, and Jacqueline Stavros, Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: For Leaders of Change, 2nd ed. (Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing, 2008). 2.  Jane Magruder Watkins, Berhard Mohr, and Ralph Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination (San Francisco: Wiley, 2011). CHAPTER 1: BEGINNING CHANGE

1.  Except for direct excerpts in the research data, quotations have been reconstructed from my notes. Those quoted and others present have confirmed the general accuracy of these citations and how they have been placed in the overall narrative. 2.  I have seen attributions to Albert Einstein and Wally “Famous” Amos. 241

242

Notes

3.  Ted Tajima, “Church History: The first 75 years, from 1913 to 1988,” in church archives. Ted Tajima (1922–2011) was the son of Rev. Kengo Tajima, who served as pastor of the church, 1928–1944. 4.  The churches that formed the sponsoring “Federated Missions” were First Baptist Church, First Congregational Church, Central Christian Church, Church of the Brethren, Pasadena Presbyterian Church, First Friends Church, and Lake Avenue Congregational Church. Information concerning the church’s history is from the archives at First Presbyterian Church, Altadena. The name was changed from “Japanese Union Church” to “Pasadena Union Church” one week after the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor. 5.  By 2000, the membership of PCUSA churches of Pasadena-Altadena had declined 77 percent since 1970 (from about 6,900 to about 1,600), and the membership of First Presbyterian, Altadena, had declined 67 percent (from 605 to 262). In California, the number of members in Presbyterian churches had dropped from over 250,000 in 1970 to nearly 181,000 in 2000, a drop of 28 percent. The 1970 information is from Minutes of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Part III: The Statistical Tables and Presbytery Rolls, January 1–December 31, 1970 (Philadelphia: Office of the General Assembly, 1971); the year 2000 information is from the Research Services program area, General Assembly Council, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and is published on the Internet at http://www.pcusa.org/research. 6.  Community statistics are from the U.S. Census at http://www.census.gov. 7.  The church’s experiences parallel much of what Alan Roxburgh writes in The Missionary Congregation, Leadership, and Liminality (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997). I have seen churches enter this kind of leadership transition with many organizational pieces in place—clear congregational identity, a functioning mission statement, broadly developed leadership competencies, and effective ministry strategies. Whenever a preceding pastor formed and equipped congregational leaders, the congregation benefited from having a well-trained team that could guide the research and offer skills for interpreting data. This should be the goal of any congregation’s leaders. Also, in some settings, I have observed judicatory staff, experienced in renewing congregations, as they come alongside a congregation with expertise and vision. The transition time offers unique access for judicatories that want to develop such expertise. It did not appear that such strengths were available to this church.

Notes



243

8.  Stan Inouye is the president of IWA, a Christian organization that provides ministry and discipleship resources for Japanese American and Asian American churches. See http://www.iwarock.org. 9.  We were well served during these initial stages by Sue Annis Hammond, The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry, 2nd ed. (Plano, TX: Thin Book Publishing, 1998); and Dennis Campbell, Congregations as Learning Communities (Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute, 2000). We reworked Campbell’s generic questions; see his page 33. 10.  See chapter 2 for an understanding of these spheres of leadership. 11.  In the context of these difficulties, the session had taken some significant steps. In attempting to face the attrition of younger families, they had hired two new staff persons to work with youth and families. More recently they had also approved a new children’s curriculum, leaving behind familiar curriculum for a Montessori-style approach to biblical narratives called “Godly Play” (see Jerome Berryman, Godly Play: An Imaginative Approach to Religious Education [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1991]; also http://www.godlyplay.org). As we began the assessment process, the pastoral staff was composed of four women—a European American interim, a Japanese American pastoral associate, an African American minister for children and their families, and a retired European American woman who had been a missionary in Japan for over thirty years. Even though there was neither theological cohesion nor shared vision concerning church, discipleship, and mission, these decisions pointed to some underlying strengths. 12.  We had decided to work with separately scheduled interviews. Frequently, AI interviews are done at a summit or larger gathering during which numerous interviews are being done simultaneously (as we had done during the session meeting). In part III, we will provide various options. CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND THEORY

1.  Jane Magruder Watkins, Bernard Mohr, and Ralph Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Wiley, 2011), 22. 2.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 22. 3.  I originally adapted the chart from Sue Annis Hammond, The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry, 2nd ed. (Plano, TX: Thin Book Publishing, 1998), 24, who cited David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva, “Appreciative Inquiry into Organizational Life,” in Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol.

244

Notes

1, ed. W. A. Pasmore, R. W. Woodman (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987). Later AI texts note that this comparison is not especially accurate because problem solving is a method, a series of mechanistic steps, but AI is a more comprehensive mode of organizational life. Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly’s Appreciative Inquiry provides a similar chart on page 17. I have inserted four of the five core processes of AI, omitting the set-up stage, “choose the positive as the focus of inquiry,” from Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 83. 4.  Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, introduction to The Sage Handbook of Action Research, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: Sage, 2008), 3–5. 5.  Reason and Bradbury, Sage Handbook, 4. 6.  Cooperrider and Srivastva understood that they were working in the context of earlier approaches to Action Research; see David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva, “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life,” in Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 1, ed. William Pasmore and Richard Woodman (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987). In what they call “paradigm 1” of Action Research, participatory research and change was initiated in a defined problematic situation then proceeded as noted in table 2.1. Each such cycle provides new opportunities for observation, learning, and organizational improvement. Cooperrider and Srivastva call Appreciative Inquiry “paradigm 2” of Action Research, beginning with “appreciating what is” and moving through what are now the established five core processes (table 2.2). 7.  I have taken these directly from Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 83. 8.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 91; see their chapter 3 for various models that follow the specific steps of AI. 9.  In his massive study on innovations, Everett Rogers noted the role of key influencers. These studies indicate that if such influencers (like pastors) are themselves innovators, then the diffusion of innovations from elsewhere (like congregants and neighbors) will not happen. See Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free Press, 1995), 294–304. 10.  Alan Roxburgh, Missional Map-Making (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010), 168; see also Dwight Zscheile, The Agile Church (New York: Morehouse, 2014). 11. Roxburgh, Missional Map-Making, 170; see also Alan Roxburgh, Joining God, Remaking Church, Changing the World (New York: Morehouse, 2014), 56–73; and

Notes



245

Alan Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2006), 31–35. 12.  I explain and illustrate church formation and elements of leadership in Mark Lau Branson “Ecclesiology and Leadership for the Missional Church,” in The Missional Church in Context, ed. Craig Van Gelder (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 94– 125; see also Mark Lau Branson and Juan Martínez, Churches, Cultures and Leadership (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), especially chapters 1 and 10. 13.  See Alan Roxburgh on the “language house” of a congregation in Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011) 57–62. 14.  For further expansion on the leadership triad, see Mark Lau Branson, “Forming God’s People,” in Leadership in Congregations, ed. Richard Bass (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006); and Mark Lau Branson and Juan Martinez, Churches, Cultures and Leadership, 54–57 and chapter 10. 15.  This concept of a holding environment was first conceived by Donald Winnicott in terms of psychology and human development, see The Maturational Process (New York: International Universities, 1965), and has more recently been configured in regard to organizations—see Ronald Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 104–13; see also Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky, Leadership on the Line (Boston: Harvard Business School, 2002), 102–22. 16.  Heifetz and Linsky, Leadership on the Line; see also Mark Lau Branson and Juan Martinez, Churches, Cultures and Leadership, ch. 10. 17.  These and other key tasks for adaptive leadership are presented in Heifetz and Linsky, Leadership on the Line. 18.  I borrowed from Hammond, Thin Book, 13–21; David L. Cooperrider, “Positive Image, Positive Action,” in Appreciative Management and Leadership, rev. ed., ed. Suresh Srivastva and David L. Cooperrider (Euclid, OH: Williams Custom Publishing, 1999), 117; and Dennis G. Campbell, Congregations as Learning Communities: Tools for Shaping Your Future (Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute, 2000), ch. 3. 19.  I am not working here with metaphysics—arguments about the physical reality of the cosmos—but with the social reality in which organizations actually live and change. This concerns social construct theory, which will receive further attention later in the chapter.

246

Notes

20.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 11. 21.  Gary Stern, The Drucker Foundation Self-Assessment Tool: Participant Workbook, rev. ed., and The Drucker Foundation Self-Assessment Tool: Process Guide, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). Other than the “customer” language used in these books, I have appreciated how accessible and focused they are when churches appropriately develop programs. 22.  For a helpful and provocative book that challenges the marketing approach of churches, see Philip Kenneson and James Street, Selling Out the Church (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003). For an insightful critique of strategic planning for churches, see Alan Roxburgh, Missional Map-making, especially chapter 5. Concerning recent conversations on missio Dei and congregational life in Western society, especially the UK and North America, Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984); Roxburgh, Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood; Roxburgh, Joining God, Remaking Church, Changing the World; and Craig Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007). Also of great help on the biblical narrative concerning God’s initiatives and ecclesiology: Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus and Community: The Social Dimension of Christian Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) and Christopher Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006). 23.  For a clear and thoughtful account, see chapter 8 of Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1983). 24.  One of the earlier, more readable books about new science and organizations is Margaret Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: BerrettKoehler, 2006). 25.  See Ervin Laszlo, The Systems View of the World (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 1996); organizational attentiveness and understanding based on general systems theory is provided by Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline, rev. ed. (New York: Doubleday, 2006); for general systems regarding churches, see Norman Shawchuck and Alvin J. Lindren, Management for Your Church: A Systems Approach (Nashville: Abingdon, 1977). For another approach, rooted in psychological studies and family systems, see George Parsons and Speed B. Leas, Understanding Your Congregation as a System (Bethesda, MD: Alban, 1994). 26.  Eddie Gibbs, The Journey of Ministry: Insights from a Life of Practice (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012).

Notes



247

27.  Cooperrider and Srivastva understood that they were working in the context of earlier approaches to Action Research; see David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva, “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life,” in Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 1, ed. William Pasmore and Richard Woodman (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987). In what they call “paradigm 1” of Action Research, participatory research and change were initiated in a defined problematic situation then proceeds as noted in table 2.1. Each such cycle provided new opportunities for observation, learning, and organizational improvement. Cooperrider and Srivastva call Appreciative Inquiry “paradigm 2” of Action Research, beginning with “appreciating what is” and moving through what are now the established five steps (see table 2.2). 28.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 14. 29.  Taos Institute website: taosinstitute.net/theoretical-background, cited in Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 38–40. 30.  In an earlier edition, Watkins and Mohr, Appreciative Inquiry (2001), 27–28, summarized the work of Vivian Burr, An Introduction to Social Constructionism (London: Routledge, 1995). 31.  Determinism teaches that one does not have choice, but that one’s cultural setting, psychological makeup, and/or historical forces determine what is possible. 32.  David Cooperrider, “Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry,” in Organization Development, 5th ed. (New York: Prentice Hall, 1995); cited in Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 41. 33.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 43. 34.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 46–47. 35.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 15. 36.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 48. CHAPTER 3: ENGAGING SCRIPTURE

1.  Henri Nouwen, The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 85–86. Thanks to Randy Working, From Rebellion to Redemption: A Journey through the Great Themes of Christian Faith (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001). 2.  Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984).

248

Notes

3.  See Walter Brueggemann, Israel’s Praise (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Praying the Psalms (Winona, MN: St. Mary’s Press, 1993); and Eugene Peterson, Answering God (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989). 4. Brueggemann, Message of the Psalms, 56–58. 5.  Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 4, pt. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), 41–42. 6.  On the role of “interpretive leadership” alongside other roles of leaders, see Mark Lau Branson, “Forming God’s People,” in Leadership in Congregations, ed. Richard Bass (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006). 7.  Darrell Guder, The Continuing Conversion of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999). 8.  See especially Alan Roxburgh, Missional Map-Making (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2010), and Joining God, Remaking Church, Changing the World (New York: Morehouse, 2015). 9.  These questions of ecclesiology (What does it mean to be “church”?) are important in various conversations in the United States. For suggested resources, see chapter 2, note 22. 10.  Also see Gregory Banaga Jr., “A Spiritual Path to Organizational Renewal,” in Lessons from the Field: Applying Appreciative Inquiry, ed. Sue Annis Hammond and Cathy Royal (Plano, TX: Thin Book Publishing, 2001), 261–71. 11.  In addition to the word kingdom, the choice of ekklesia (translated “church”) indicates a decision to avoid other words that were acceptable for religious gatherings in favor of a word most commonly used for civic gatherings. Other provocative words include citizenship, armor, and even fellowship (koinonia), which usually described the relational patterns of civic life. See Barry Harvey, Another City: An Ecclesial Primer for a Post-Christian World (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999) and Gerhard Lohfink, Does God Need the Church? (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999). 12.  For more on lectio divina, Fr. Luke Designer, “The Process of Lectio Divina,” available online: valyermo.com/ld-art.html; and Pat Taylor Ellison and Patrick Keifert, Dwelling in the Word (St. Paul, MN: Church Innovations Institute, 2011). 13.  For an insightful read of this passage, see Alan Roxburgh, Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 115–62; this book also engages other Lukan texts.

Notes



249

14.  I work with this text in Mark Lau Branson and Nicholas Warnes, Starting Missional Churches (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014), 42–46. CHAPTER 4: SHAPING A PEOPLE THROUGH APPRECIATIVE QUESTIONS

1.  In our church reports on this project, we specified the 4-D model (Discover, Dream, Design, Delivery), but in reviewing our process, it became clear that we had more closely followed the 4-I Model used in these chapters. 2.  The table function in a word processor or a standard spreadsheet can be used. The questions can be listed down the left side (with each one defining a row) and names across the top (defining each column). Note that some spreadsheets often have a limit on the size of each entry, so word processors have more flexibility. A guiding team could also use a web-based form so they can see the accumulating data. During the Imagine step, you will want the option of printing responses to each question separately, so use a format that allows separating each question into a printout. 3.  As the Mission Assessment Committee was beginning its work and new energy was being generated, there was synergism with two other initiatives. A group of parents and staff had decided to adopt a new children’s curriculum called “Godly Play,” which is a Montessori-style approach to biblical narratives (information available at http://www.godlyplay.org). Another group was developing what would be a significant series on leadership for fall adult education. Both of these efforts doubled the number of participants when compared with recent years. CHAPTER 5: PROVOKING CREATIVE CHANGE

1.  We had already begun the third process of locating themes when we looked for common topics in the earliest interviews and when we reworked our interview questions around those themes. This indicates how AI is not just a straight line of steps but a somewhat circular, ongoing process in which themes from interviews become part of new inquiries. See Jane Magruder Watkins, Bernard Mohr, and Ralph Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Wiley, 2011), ch. 6. 2.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 192. 3.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 192 4.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 193. 5.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 114.

250

Notes

6.  A national, ecumenical event sponsored by Church World Service; see the website cropwalk.org. 7.  Stan Inouye notes the Japanese American proclivity to side-by-side, rather than face-to face, relationships. 8.  Again, Stan Inouye offered this insight. 9.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 218–21. 10.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 214–15; they also emphasize forms of creative expression like songs, skits, and collages that are important steps toward provocative proposals; see 216–18. 11.  Based on Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 221. 12.  Cited in Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 218–19. 13.  Stephen Brookfield, Teaching for Critical Thinking (New York: John Wiley & Sons), 56. 14.  I work with such questions in Mark Lau Branson and Nicholas Warnes, eds., Starting Missional Churches: Life with God in the Neighborhood (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014), chapter 2; see also Craig Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Community Led by the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), and Alan Roxburgh, Joining God, Remaking Church, Changing the World (New York: Morehouse, 2015). 15.  See Roxburgh, Joining God, 83–87 16.  Watkins, Mohr, and Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry, 277 (italics removed). PART II: FIVE CHURCH NARRATIVES

1.  The godfather of this conversation was Lesslie Newbigin; see especially The Open Secret (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978); Foolishness to the Greeks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986); and The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989). For a savvy overview and commentary on these books, see Alan Roxburgh, Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 34–45. 2.  Lois Barrett (ed.), Treasure in Clay Jars (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); the diverse narratives and reflections are valuable, but I believe the underlying research methods that predetermined important markers were a misdirection in this project; also see Mark Lau Branson, “Forming Church, Forming Mission,” International Review of Mission 92(365) (April 2003): 153–68.

Notes



251

3.  In a series of “The Gospel in Our Culture” books published by Eerdmans, several key authors provided a valuable collection of chapters in Darrell Guder (ed.), Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). In addition to Guder, the authors were Lois Barrett, Inagrace Dietterich (who provided the foreword to my earlier AI book), George Hunsberger, Alan Roxburgh, and Craig Van Gelder. A recent book provides a helpful look back on that early work, shows some of the complexities that have fragmented the conversation, and suggests work to be done: Craig Van Gelder and Dwight Zscheile, The Missional Church in Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011). 4.  The lectures from these consultations are being edited and published as the “Missional Church Series” by Eerdmans. 5.  Alan Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2006), 4. 6.  See especially Alan Roxburgh, Missional Map-Making (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2010), 73–85 and 108–10. 7.  Roxburgh and Romanuk, Missional Leader, 26. 8.  See especially Craig Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Community Led by the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007); Alan Roxburgh, Missional, and Joining God, Remaking Church, Changing the World (New York: Morehouse, 2015); also Dwight Zscheile, “A Missional Theology of Spiritual Formation” in Cultivating Sent Communities, ed. Dwight Zscheile (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 1–28; and Craig Van Gelder and Dwight Zscheile, Missional Church in Perspective, chapter 4. CHAPTER 6: NEW COVENANT UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

1.  Richard Jewell and Christopher Gobrecht, “Statistical Reports to the Annual Conference” (Cumberland, MD: New Covenant United Methodist Church, 2001– 2007). 2.  Robert Munn, “The Latest Rediscovery of Appalachia,” in Appalachia: Social Context Past and Present, ed. J. D. Photiadis (Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, 1978) 37. Munn develops this concept much further, likening Appalachia to a colony of eastern-based industry. Such analysis is beyond the scope of this work. 3.  Mark Lau Branson, Memories, Hopes and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change, 1st ed. (Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2004).

252

Notes

4. Branson, Memories, Hopes and Conversations, chapter 2. 5.  I have added numbers to the questions as a reference for readers; these are different from numbers in our research documents. 6.  Carl Savage and William Presnell, Narrative Research in Ministry: A Postmodern Research Approach for Faith Communities (Louisville, KY: Wayne E. Oates Institute, 2008), 47. 7.  Additional details and theoretical materials are available in Christopher Gobrecht, “Appalachian Ministry: Advancing the Kingdom of God at New Covenant United Methodist Church” (DMin Project, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena. CA, 2009). 8. Branson, Memories, Hopes and Conversations, chapter 2 under “Basic Steps and Processes.” 9.  Robert Schnase, Just Say Yes! Unleashing People for Ministry (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2015), 29. 10.  Available at cokesbury.com/Disciple. 11.  These are the familiar vows, found in The United Methodist Hymnal (Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 1989), 38. 12.  Jaco Hamman, When Steeples Cry, Leading Congregations through Loss and Change (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2005), 152. 13.  Jewell and Gobrecht, “Statistical Reports;” all quantifiable statistics in this paragraph come from annual reports to the denomination. CHAPTER 7: AKRON MENNONITE CHURCH

1.  Kairos refers to an opportune time filled with possibility and meaning, as compared to chronos, ordinary, sequential time. 2.  Darrell L. Guder, ed., Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). 3.  Lois Barrett introduced us to the eight patterns of the missional church, which eventually became Treasure in Clay Jars: Patterns in Missional Faithfulness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); the Mennonite Church USA in 2011 adopted a new vision document incorporating these patterns. These stories served us well, even though I am not confident that we can prescribe a generic set of church activities that, when achieved, will create transformation. Our church’s story is more about a set of

Notes



253

practices that shaped us to be more aware of God’s initiatives and more engaged in experimenting our way forward. 4.  Alan Kreider, The Change of Conversion and the Origin of Christendom (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999). 5.  In addition to his contribution in Missional Church, see also Darrell Guder, The Incarnation and the Church’s Witness (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005), and The Continuing Conversion of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000). 6.  One of the congregations profiled in Treasure in Clay Jars (2004) is Rockridge United Methodist Church of Oakland, California, where Mark and his family were engaged; see also Mark Lau Branson, “Forming Church, Forming Mission,” International Review of Mission 92(365) (April 2003): 153–68. 7.  Wilbert R. Shenk, Write the Vision: The Church Renewed (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995). Shenk served as executive secretary of the Mennonite Board of Missions (Elkhart, Indiana) for two decades, worked with Lesslie Newbigin in his pioneering work on gospel and culture, then joined the faculty of the School of World Missions (now School of Intercultural Studies) at Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena, California) until his retirement. 8.  I have adopted a numbering system that can help readers track the sequence of AI questions in the church. 9.  Verbatim comments here and following are gleaned from the AI event with Charter Members at Akron Mennonite Church, April 17, 2005. 10.  Church council is the governance body of Akron Mennonite Church, chaired by a nominated lay person. Small groups as used here are also synonymous with house churches at AMC. Ministry teams are lay-initiated groups that focus on a specific missional engagement that requires personal involvement of team members. 11.  See table 4.3. 12.  “Dwelling” is our name for lectio divina, which is explained in chapter 2 under “Engaging Scripture During AI.” 13.  One of these projects became the focus of my final doctoral research and integration project at Fuller Seminary. A shorter version can be found in James F. S. Amstutz, “A View from the Porch: A Case Study in Liminality and Local Theology” in Peace Be With You: Christ’s Benediction Amid Violent Empires, ed. Sharon L. Baker and Michael Hardin (Telford, PA: Cascadia Publishing, 2010).

254

Notes

14.  We learned about this through the Mountain States Mennonite Conference of Mennonite Church USA. See their By-Laws Section 5, Ministry Groups. For information: http://mountainstatesmc.org/Home. 15.  Alan J. Roxburgh, Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), 133. 16.  For an articulate rendering of how congregations can engage Luke 10 in their local context see Roxburgh, Missional. 17.  Inagrace Dietterich, “Foreword,” in the first edition of Branson, Memories, Hopes and Conversations, ix. 18.  Robert E. Quinn, Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996), 193. 19.  Patrick R. Keifert, We Are Here Now: A New Missional Era (Eagle, ID: Allelon Publishing), 75. 20. Keifert, We Are Here Now, 79. Insertion mine. 21.  See chapter 2 under “Leading the Process.” 22.  Alan J. Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren, Introducing the Missional Church: What It Is, Why It Matters, How to Become One (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), 133–46. CHAPTER 8: COMMUNITY BIBLE CHURCH

1.  The gangs in Pasadena are linked with those in Los Angeles. For stories on both the challenges and hopes, see Gregory Boyle, Tattoos on the Heart (New York: Free Press, 2010). 2.  John Block, Community: The Structure of Belonging (San Francisco: BerrettKoehler, 2008), 14. 3.  Jane Magruder Watkins, Bernard Mohr, and Ralph Kelly, Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2011), 69. 4.  Regarding missional life, because of our connections with our neighbors, Mark had invited me to speak in a DMin course he taught with Alan Roxburgh, and I came to appreciate articles they were using that were background for Alan’s books. For example, see Alan Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006), and Alan Roxburgh, Missional Map-Making (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010).

Notes



255

5.  These are based on Mark Lau Branson, Memories, Hopes and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change, 1st ed. (Herndon, VA: Alban Institute, 2004). 6. Branson, Memories, Hopes and Conversations, chapter 4. 7.  The shift from managing good activities to discerning and participating in God’s initiatives continues to be a challenge. More recently, this emphasis was informed by Alan Roxburgh, Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011). 8.  John Block differentiates and links two kinds of social capital—bonding and bridging. The first concerns our life together as a church, and the second emphasizes the deepening relationships with neighbors; Block, Community, 18. 9.  Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004), 11. 10.  This work of shaping generative, learning environments is the focus of Roxburgh and Romanuk, The Missional Leader. 11.  Ray Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 142. 12.  See Greg Ogden, The New Reformation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); chapter 6 focuses on these elements of equipping. 13.  On the importance of and approaches to forgiveness, see David Augsburger, Helping People Forgive (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996). CHAPTER 9: CAMBERWELL BAPTIST CHURCH

1.  Ronald A. Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 22. 2.  Ronald A. Heifetz, Marty Linsky, and Alexander Grashow, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2009), 74. 3.  Alan Roxburgh, Missional Map-Making (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010), 87–110. For further reading, see Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005); Martin Robinson, The Faith of the Unbeliever: Building Innovative Relationships with the Unchurched (Crowborough, UK: Monarch, 1994), Lesslie

256

Notes

Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), and Alan Roxburgh, Reaching a New Generation: Strategies for Tomorrow’s Church, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993); for an update on Roxburgh’s narrative and perspectives, see vimeo.com/5705409. 4.  Alan Roxburgh explores the limits of strategic planning in Missional MapMaking, 73–85. 5. Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers, 69. 6.  Jane M. Watkins and Bernard J. Mohr, Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2001), 14. 7.  Sue Annis Hammond, The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry (Bend, OR: Thin Book, 1998), 3. 8.  Susan Star Paddock, Appreciative Inquiry in the Catholic Church (Plano, TX: Thin Book, 2003), 2. 9.  Mark Lau Branson, Memories, Hopes and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change, 1st ed. (Herndon, VA: Alban Institute, 2004); throughout my chapter, all references have been updated to this new edition. 10.  See chapter 2 under the section “Assumptions, Theories, and Change.” 11.  See the materials on both assumptions and guidelines in chapter 2. 12.  Adapted from table 4.2. 13.  Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. (New York: Free Press, 2003), 281. Rogers explains the pace of adoption of new concepts in organizations. Innovators and Early Adopters are first to try new things while Laggards are last. 14.  Table 4.2. 15.  Further details about how these teams were constituted can be found in Alan J. Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren, Introducing the Missional Church (Grand Rapids, Baker: 2009), 151–54 . 16.  Lesslie Newbigin, A Word in Season (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 60–63, and The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 136. CHAPTER 10: CHESTNUT LEVEL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

1.  James Webb, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America (New York: Broadway Books, 2004), 135–38.

Notes



257

2.  Robert Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia (New York: Basic Books, 1987), 4. 3.  There has been excellent work done on helping churches engage their surrounding community, such as Alan Roxburgh, Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011). Much of this literature involves using the word “neighborhood” to describe the geographic community that the congregation is working to engage (or re-engage). For two reasons, I don’t use that language here. The first is that these conversations happened before that language was prevalent. The second is that, in a rural area, the word “neighborhood” doesn’t connect to the lived experiences of those who are doing this work. People don’t think of themselves as living in a neighborhood. The geography of farms and homes along a road and the occasional (very small) subdivision lends itself to people talking more broadly. In our case, we often talk about our school district. Or people say, “I really like living in this community.” For this writing, I’ve tried to differentiate between “church community” and “geographic community.” 4.  Diane Whitney and Amanda Trosten-Bloom, The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2003), 6. 5.  Whitney and Trosten-Bloom, The Power of Appreciative Inquiry, 66. 6.  See chapter 2 under “Appreciative Inquiry Assumptions and Guidelines.” 7.  See chapter 2 under “Appreciative Inquiry Assumptions and Guidelines.” 8.  Juanita Brown and David Isaacs, The World Café: Shaping Our Future through Conversations That Matter (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2005). 9.  Brown and Isaacs, The World Café, 65. 10.  Brown and Isaacs, The World Café, 91. 11.  Brown and Isaacs, The World Café, 99. 12.  Brown and Isaacs, The World Café, 114. 13.  Brown and Isaacs, The World Café, 128. 14.  Brown and Isaacs, The World Café, 145. 15.  See chapter 4, under “Initiate.” 16.  See chapter 5, under “Provocative Proposals.” 17.  See chapter 3, “Engaging Scripture During AI.”

258

Notes

18.  James V. Browning, Speaking the Truth in Love: New Testament Resources for a Missional Hermeneutic (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998), 14, italics in original. 19.  See Alan Roxburgh. Missional Map-Making: Skills for Leading in Times of Transition (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010), especially pages 3–19 where Roxburgh writes about understanding of the world that has shaped modernity and how that is shifting profoundly. 20.  See Ronald Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1994), 104–5. 21.  See Craig Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Church Led by the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Press, 2007), especially 119–20 where he writes about decision making. 22.  See chapter 5 under “Provocative Proposals.” 23.  Bill Ehlig and Ruby K. Payne, What Every Church Member Should Know about Poverty (Highlands, TX: aha!Process, 1999). 24.  Tom Smith, Liberty Square: Observed and Noted. Baltimore: Xlibris Press, 2007.

Resources

BOOKS AND WEBSITES: SELECTED RESOURCES

Endnotes provide access to resources for specific concepts noted in various chapters. This bibliography will highlight what I have found to be the most helpful of those and other resources. Many of these books have thorough lists of additional resources. For a more complete access to the reading, frameworks, and processes of the DMin program that resourced some of the contributors, see my “Missional Church Processes: Post-Intervention Research,” noted below. APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY

Cooperrider, David L., Diana Whitney, and Jacqueline M. Stavros. Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: The First in a Series of AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change, 2nd ed. Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing, 2008. Hammond, Sue Annis. The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry, 3rd ed. Bend, OR: Thin Book, 2013. Paddock, Susan. Appreciative Inquiry in the Catholic Church. Bend, OR: Thin Book, 2003. Srivastva, Suresh, and David L. Cooperrider, eds. Appreciative Management and Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations. Revised edition. Euclid, OH: Williams Custom Publishing, 1999. See especially “Positive 259

260

R e s o u rc e s

Image, Positive Action: The Affirmative Basis of Organizing” by David L. Cooperrider (pp. 91–125) and “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life” by Suresh Srivastva and David L. Cooperrider (pp. 401–41). Watkins, Jane Magruder, Bernard J. Mohr, and Ralph Kelly. Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2011. Whitney, Diana, and Amanda Trosten-Bloom. The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2010. Whitney, Diana, Amanda Trosten-Bloom, Jay Cherney, and Ron Fry. Appreciative Team Building. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2004. Websites

Case Western Reserve University AI site: appreciativeinquiry.case.edu Clergy Leadership Institute: clergyleadership.com The Taos Institute: taosinstitute.net. See especially under “Manuscripts for Downloading”: Cooperrider, David L., and Diana Whitney, “A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry.” MISSIONAL CHURCH

Branson, Mark Lau, “Missional Church Processes: Post-Intervention Research.” Journal of Religious Leadership 13 (Spring 2014): 99–132. Branson, Mark Lau and Juan F. Martínez. Churches, Cultures and Leadership: A Practical Theology of Congregations and Ethnicities. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Branson, Mark Lau, and Nicholas Warnes, eds. Starting Missional Churches: Life with God in the Neighborhood. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014. Drier, Dehmlow Drier, ed. Created and Led by the Spirit: Planting Missional Congregations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Guder, Darrell, ed. The Missional Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Newbigin, Lesslie. Foolishness to the Greeks. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

R e s o u rc e s



261

Robinson, Martin, and Dwight Smith. Invading Secular Space. London: Monarch, 2003. Roxburgh, Alan. Missional Map-Making: Skills for Leading in Times of Transition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Roxburgh, Alan. Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011. Roxburgh, Alan. Joining God, Remaking Church, Changing the World. New York: Morehouse, 2015. Roxburgh, Alan. Structured for Mission: Renewing the Culture of the Church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015. Roxburgh, Alan, and M. Scott Boren. Introducing the Missional Church. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. Roxburgh, Alan, and Fred Romanuk. The Missional Leader. San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2006. Sparks, Paul, Tim Soerens, and Dwight Friesen. The New Parish: How Neighborhood Churches Are Transforming Mission, Discipleship and Community. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014. Van Gelder, Craig. The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Community Led by the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Van Gelder, Craig, ed. The Missional Church in Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Van Gelder, Craig, ed. The Missional Church and Denominations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Van Gelder, Craig, and Dwight Zscheile. The Missional Church in Perspective: Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011. Zscheile, Dwight. People of the Way: Renewing Episcopal Identity. New York: Morehouse, 2012. Zscheile, Dwight, ed. Cultivating Sent Communities: Missional Spirituality Formation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Zscheile, Dwight. The Agile Church: Spirit Led Innovation in an Uncertain Age. New York: Morehouse, 2014.

About the Author and Contributors

AUTHOR

Mark Lau Branson is Homer Goddard Professor of Ministry of the Laity at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, where he teaches courses in congregational leadership and community engagement. He was ordained at San Francisco Christian Center, an African American Pentecostal church, has served on the pastoral teams in United Methodist and Presbyterian churches, and has worked with several Christian agencies active in education, campus ministry, consulting, community development, cultural diversity, and community organizing. Mark is a senior consultant with The Missional Network, and is the vice president of the Institute for Urban Initiatives, which works on homelessness, job training, and other faith-based initiatives. He has graduate degrees from Claremont School of Theology and the University of San Francisco. Recent books include Starting Missional Churches: Life with God in the Neighborhood (coedited with Nicholas Warnes) and Churches, Cultures and Leadership: A Practical Theology of Congregations and Ethnicities (coauthored with Juan Martínez). Mark enjoys hiking, vegetable gardening, and black-and-white film photography. Mark and Nina Lau-Branson are on the leadership team of The Table, a new Free Methodist church initiative in Altadena, California. 263

264

A b o u t th e A u th o r and C o ntrib u t o r s

CONTRIBUTORS

Jim S. Amstutz was lead pastor of Akron Mennonite Church from 2001 to 2015. He is currently the executive director of the Lancaster County Council of Churches in Lancaster City, which provides food, clothing, transportation, and assistance to those in need. He is the co-chair of the Lancaster County Coalition to End Homelessness and serves on the board of Hunger Free Lancaster. Jim received a master of divinity from Anabaptist Biblical Seminary and a doctor of ministry degree in missional leadership from Fuller Theological Seminary. Jim is married to Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz, restorative justice coordinator for Mennonite Central Committee, US. They have three adult children. Jean Burch is the senior pastor at Community Bible Church of Greater Pasadena in Altadena, California, where she has served since 2000. Prior to becoming the senior pastor of CBC, she spent the last six years of a twenty-year career in the legal profession as the director of continuing legal education for the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She is the president and CEO of the Community Bible Community Development Corporation, which owns and operates 446 units of affordable housing. Jean holds a bachelor of science in organizational leadership from Biola University and a master of arts in global leadership (MAGL) from Fuller Theological Seminary. She is a founding member and past president of the Clergy Community Coalition. She has one adult daughter, a son-in-law, and two beautiful grandchildren. Chris Gobrecht is the senior pastor at New Covenant United Methodist Church in Cumberland, Maryland, where he has served since 2006. After being honorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps, Chris graduated summa cum laude from Ohio State in international studies and continues to serve as a chaplain for retired and honorably discharged marines. He holds a masters of divinity from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and earned a doctor of ministry in missional leadership from Fuller Seminary in 2009. He has served as the chair of the Evangelism Committee for the Baltimore-Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church. He enjoys hiking and chess. He is married to the lovely and supportive Rebeca, and they have two daughters.

A b o u t th e A u th o r and C o ntrib u t o r s



265

Nina Lau-Branson currently works with The Missional Network in coaching and consulting, at Fuller Seminary in mentoring and leading small groups in the integration of theology and practice, and as a spiritual director. Nina’s coaching and consulting work is rooted in years of experience in organizational leadership, in for-profit and nonprofit organizations, including work on boards and in senior management. Her credentials include an MBA in finance and a CPA, which opened up opportunities to work with innovative, messy, and growing corporations. During the past fifteen years, she has pursued a particular passion for communion with God, especially listening for the voice of God, and engaged spiritual practices that enable availability to the Holy. She is married to Mark Lau Branson, and they live with two adult sons in Pasadena, California. Andrew Menzies was senior pastor at Camberwell Baptist Church in Melbourne, Australia, from 2005 to 2010. He has bachelor degrees from Victoria University and Australian College of Theology, a master of ministry from Charles Sturt University, and a doctor of ministry in missional leadership from Fuller Theological Seminary. Andrew is currently principal at Stirling Theological College: University of Divinity. Andrew also serves as deputy chancellor of the University of Divinity and chair of Urban Neighbours of Hope, a Christian missionary order committed to service in poor, local communities. He is married to Kimberley, and they have two children. Michael Wilson pastored Chestnut Level Presbyterian Church from 2001 to 2015. He is presently a PhD student at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. He also teaches at Lancaster Theological Seminary. Michael has served as moderator of Donegal Presbytery (PCUSA) and is presently associate stated clerk for that presbytery. He has a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, a master of theology (ThM) from Columbia Theological Seminary, and a doctor of ministry in missional leadership from Fuller Theological Seminary. Michael has been married for twenty years to Tricia Wilson, a college administrator. They have three children, plus two or three cats, depending on the day.