On #3, galvinizing for galvinizing is not worthy, and you are right to be concerned. The Natural Church Development folks have always said that you focus on your weakest area (of 8 criteria they define as healthy for every church).

What I like about Our Call is that I do believe it was birthed in prayer, asking God where we need to listen to him over the next 10 years. It was not meant to be a once-for-all-time essence of the church. If we perpetuate it as a permanent goal, that may be unbiblical, just as Nehemiah continually building a wall would miss the point. It was important for a season, but the covenant's renewal and subsequent reforms were the main work of Nehemiah's "building."

Blessings to you,

Jon

So I think you're righter than I was when you (if I am understanding you). . .

1) want not simply to generalize that decline has to be a shameful word,
2) suggest that that putting resources into weakly-gifted ares is not always a bad idea
3) propose that galvanizing itself may have some value apart from the instrument of galvanizing

I think that all three of those things are complicated, and the important thing about each is the spirit in which they are done or said.

About #1 I have no need to defend my generalization. You may be right.
About #2 I really don't know anything about the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if I am wrong.
About #3 the jury is still out for me when it comes to Our Call. I do think that most any random project can galvanize. I worry, though, because I think that some resonate with a people more naturally and joyfully than others, and some require large amounts of denial to keep going.

Let me think about the criteria thing. Will put some in this blog when I've got a little list.

Josh

I wonder what other criteria you have in mind to define us as a denomination not in decline. It might be a fun exercise on these blogs to come up with other criteria.

While decline maybe a shame word, I don't think it needs to be, and it isn't my intent to do so. I am not afraid of looking at numbers and realizing there are fewer people in our pews, fewer dollars for missions, fewer people coming to faith in Christ. Nehemiah himself uses the word "shame" to describe the condition of the exiles.

Nehemiah's genious, in my opinion, was not so much the building of the wall as it was the restoration of the covenant and the later reforms. However, the building of the wall was an immediate, physical reality that galvinized the people. And it was done, arguably, by expending the people's resources on something they weren't good at.

Our Call does, I believe, serve as a galvinizing instrument. With the addition of "Multiracial" as another goal, it further gives us some tangible footholds in forward momentum. In our context - 90% homogenous - that goal has been helpful in focusing my eyes where I may not have done so before. It is paying dividends in our congregation and, I trust, the kingdom.

Have a blessed week.

Thanks for your Nehemiah reference. It reminds me that in the research on shame the only way to heal it is through griefwork, which begins and ends with living in reality (in some new, transformed way). Griefwork ends in increased social cohesiveness and vitality. What if our denomination had found a way to do griefwork. . .maybe our paranoid polarizations and lethargy would even lift some. We'd certainly be a model for the American civilization nowadays suffering the same shame malady.

Another thing I've been thinking about is our use of the word "decline." It seems loaded to me. By certain criteria the denomination has been in decline. But perhaps by other criteria it has not. James Hillman says somewhere that shedding is a kind of growth. There are lots of kinds of growth.

The problem with the potential shaming power of the missional language, it seems to me, is that it is significantly inept at blessing the strengths of the church. I can see two problems with that. First, we waste our resources on our weakest gifts. Second, people are far more motivated and inspired by blessing than by shame.

I wonder if Our Call has missed an opportunity to inspire more constructively, is all.

Josh

Our previous pastor, Rev. Don DeGlopper (now in Oskaloosa, Iowa), began one or two groups in the Serendipty model. One gave birth to two, two to four, and so on. It didn't happen overnight, but Don kept faithfully tilling the soil. They really took off when the elders agreed to end the traditional evening service and give people the option of going to small group instead of going to evening worship first and then to small groups.

It is likely that our adult participation is less than 50% this fall. We have not been able keep up the growth of the groups while the church has grown over the last 12 months.

Rev. Jon Nelson, on our staff, does an excellent job of beginning new groups and new ways of doing small groups. Small groups have now become part of the culture of the church. We may never be a church "of small groups" but we will continue to pursue being a church "with small groups."

(For our Herald bloggers: I'll be sending out a note soon about some technicalities with our software.)