nourishing grass roots: cogenerative vision cultivation for missional ministry

Huntley

1

NOURISHING GRASS ROOTS:

COGENERATIVE VISION CULTIVATION FOR MISSIONAL MINISTRY

by

MICHAEL J. HUNTLEY

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

Luther Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment of

The Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF MINISTRY

ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

2011

Huntley

2

© 2011 by Michael J. Huntley

All rights reserved

Huntley

ii

ABSTRACT

Nourishing Grass Roots:

Cogenerative Vision Cultivation for Missional Ministry

By

Michael J. Huntley

Examines impact of cultivating missional vision in a newly developed

congregation using Participatory Action Research. Encouraged cogenerative dialog in

shaping the process and the resultant shared vision for missional ministry. Used

qualitative/quantitative assessment. Theoretical insights: sociological dynamics of

community, vision for leading change, cultivating shared vision. Theological insights:

vision inspiring missional activity, components of missional vision, cultivating missional

vision. Cogeneratively cultivated and mutually discerned shared missional vision.

Congregants appropriated new perspectives for interacting with others within the

congregation and daily life, recognized need for shared vision in ministry, and discerned

ministry and vocational shared purpose and guiding principles.

Huntley

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To the congregations that I currently serve, who wholeheartedly participated in

this research and who both graciously and sacrificially granted me the time and financial

assistance to complete this research and thesis, I humbly and sincerely thank you. For

your willingness to share personal thoughts and perspectives, and for your honest and

wholehearted participation, I am also indebted to the individuals who agreed to

participate in the individual and group interviews. For her many hours transcribing

interviews, I thank my sister, Michelle Happel.

For your keen insights and helpful remarks in writing this thesis, I am grateful for

the wisdom and editorial perspectives from my professors, Dr. Gary Simpson and Dr.

Alvin Luedke, as well as to my editor, Dr. Joy Blaylock. To my D.Min. cohort, I thank

you for your insights and accompaniment on this journey of learning and growth. More

specifically, to Brian Ballard, Brian Ford, and Jason Korthauer, my Accountabilibuddies

and good friends, I thank you for your edits, your humor, your ideas for deeper thinking,

your inspiration, and your companionship on this shared adventure in liminality.

Finally and most importantly, to my wife, Kim, and to my children, Adam and

Rachel, without whose loving support, understanding, and encouragement this thesis

would not have been possible, I declare my highest amount of appreciation. I am indebted

to you. I love you deeply!

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................. ix

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... xii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION TO THESIS ...................................................................................1

Introduction ..............................................................................................................3

Overview ............................................................................................................3

Research Question .............................................................................................4

Research Components ........................................................................................5

Outcome .......................................................................................................5

Intervention Influencing the Outcome .........................................................6

Outside Influences .......................................................................................7

Importance of Research .....................................................................................8

Other Questions Related to the Research Question ...........................................9

Literatures and Key Theories .................................................................................11

Sociological Dynamics of Community ............................................................11

The Efficacy of Vision for Leading and Bringing Change ..............................14

Cultivating Shared Vision ................................................................................15

Practical Considerations...................................................................................16

Biblical and Theological Perspectives ...................................................................16

Vision Inspiring Missional Activity.................................................................17

Components of Missional Vision ....................................................................20

Cultivating Missional Vision ...........................................................................22

Other Matters .........................................................................................................24

Ethical Concerns ..............................................................................................24

Definitions of Key Terms ................................................................................27

Summary ................................................................................................................30

2. LITERATURES AND KEY THEORIES ..................................................................31

Sociological Dynamics of Community ..................................................................33

Organizational Structures and Vision ..............................................................34

Organizational Life Cycle Theory ...................................................................38

Self-Forming, Bottom-Up Communities .........................................................41

Specific Organizational Considerations for Research .....................................43

Partial Ethnography and Congregational Background ..............................44

Transitioning From Top-Down to Bottom-Up Organizational

Structures .............................................................................................47

iv

v

Small versus Large Group Process ............................................................48

Increasing Need for Intimacy in Society .............................................48

Group Size ...........................................................................................50

The Efficacy of Vision for Leading and Bringing Change ....................................51

Vision and the Field Effect ..............................................................................52

Vision, Lovingly Shared, as a Uniting and Motivating Force .........................53

Cultivating Shared Vision ......................................................................................56

Components of a Vision Cultivation Process ..................................................56

Shared Vision ...................................................................................................57

Cultivating Vision: A Community Garden ......................................................59

Practical Considerations.........................................................................................61

Promise ............................................................................................................62

Tools ................................................................................................................63

Bargain .............................................................................................................64

Conclusion .............................................................................................................65

3. BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ..............................................67

Casting versus Cultivating Missional Vision .........................................................68

Vision Casting in Exodus.................................................................................69

Aspects of Vision Casting in Exodus...............................................................72

Moving From Vision Casting to Vision Cultivation........................................75

Cultivating Missional Vision in Acts ...............................................................77

Aspects of Missional Vision in Acts ................................................................80

Components of Missional Vision ..........................................................................83

Trinitarian Facets of Missional Vision ............................................................83

The Social Trinitarian Model .....................................................................83

The Social Trinity in Missional Vision ......................................................88

Missio Dei and the Kingdom of God Aspects of Missional Vision .................89

The Missio Dei in God‘s Reign .................................................................89

The Missio Dei and the Reign of God in Missional Vision .......................93

Aspects of the Holy Spirit in the Church, Working in the

Vocation of Believers with Missional Vision ............................................94

Gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Vocation of Believers ................................94

Vocation and the Holy Spirit in Missional Vision .....................................97

Cultivating Missional Vision .................................................................................98

Vision in Scripture ...........................................................................................98

Peter and Paul ............................................................................................98

The Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ in God‘s Reign..........................100

Theology of Cultivating Missional Vision ....................................................103

Moving Beyond Community to Communitas ..........................................103

Missional, Cogenerative Leadership ........................................................105

A Practical Vision Cultivation Process ..........................................................107

Considerations for Christian Community in Cultivating Missional

Vision .......................................................................................................109

Jesus‘ Participation in Small and Large Groups ......................................109

Relationship Building through Small Groups ..........................................112

v

vi

Summary ..............................................................................................................113

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN ....................................................114

Overview of Research Methodology ...................................................................115

Specific Research Methodologies ........................................................................116

Participatory Action Research .......................................................................116

Intervention ....................................................................................................119

Metrics for Observing Changes in Congregational Practices and

Perspectives..............................................................................................124

Quantitative Research Data Gathering ...........................................................126

Faith Maturity Scale .................................................................................126

Rationale for Breakdown of Survey Statements into Subgroups for

Analysis..............................................................................................127

Data Analysis ...........................................................................................129

Qualitative Research Data Gathering .............................................................130

Qualitative Interviews ..............................................................................130

Research Areas and Questions for Qualitative Interviews ......................133

Data Analysis ...........................................................................................138

Summary ..............................................................................................................138

5. RESULTS OF STUDY AND INTERPRETATION ................................................140

Narrative of Intervention and Its Impact ..............................................................141

Pre-Intervention Preparations ........................................................................142

Impacts of Intervention ..................................................................................142

Damascus Travelers .................................................................................143

Congregation Retreat ...............................................................................144

Council Work on Vision Elements ..........................................................145

Congregation Forums and Meeting .........................................................146

Unforeseen Events and Results ......................................................................147

Quantitative Survey Results .................................................................................148

Analysis of Responses to Individual Questions .............................................150

Techniques used for Quantitative Analysis .............................................150

Intervention Perspectives from Baseline Quantitative Data ....................152

Personal Faith, Beliefs, and Practices ................................................152

Perspectives in Relating to Others beyond the Congregation ............155

t-Test Results .................................................................................................157

Qualitative Interview Results ...............................................................................159

Developing a Shared Vision ..........................................................................161

Data Relating to Lack of Shared Vision Prior to Intervention.................162

Data Relating to the Components of Shared Practices and Vision ..........163

Two Perspectives: Invitational and Vocational .............................................164

Invitational Perspective ............................................................................165

Vocational Perspective.............................................................................166

Invitational/Vocational Interaction in the Group Interview.....................167

Changes in Perspectives and Vision for Life and Missional Activity ...........169

vi

vii

Changes Evident in the Group Interview .................................................169

Changes Evident in the First Individual Interview ..................................170

Changes Evident in the Second Individual Interview ..............................171

Missional Praxis Bringing New Vision and Understanding ..........................173

Other Factors Influencing Research and the Outcome ..................................174

Mission Developer Perspectives ..............................................................175

Impact of Denominational Decisions Regarding Gay Clergy .................176

Financial Concerns...................................................................................177

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................177

6. CONCLUSIONS WITH THEOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL

REFLECTION .....................................................................................................178

Impact of Theoretical and Theological Foundations ...........................................180

A Grass-Roots Process that Invites Participation in Cultivating Shared

Vision .......................................................................................................180

Grass Roots Rather Than Top-Down Vision Cultivation ........................180

The Ability of Vision, Lovingly Shared, to Unite and Motivate .............183

Social Trinitarian and Perichoretic Foundations of Vision Cultivation.........185

Vision and the Field Effect ............................................................................187

Impact of the Cultivation Process ........................................................................188

Promise, Tools, and Bargain ..........................................................................188

Inviting the Council into the Vision Cultivation Process ........................191

Working with the Discipleship Commission and Damascus

Travelers ............................................................................................191

Inviting the Congregation into the Vision Cultivation Process ...............192

Liminality and Communitas ..........................................................................193

Missional Vocation, the Holy Spirit, the Missio Dei, and God‘s Reign ........195

Possibilities for Further Research ........................................................................197

Unexpected Research Findings ............................................................................200

Cultivating Vision for the Process and the Role of the Holy Spirit

Throughout ...............................................................................................200

New Praxis Yielding New Perspectives ........................................................201

Benefits of Planning, Acting, and Reflecting ................................................202

Personal Reflections on this Research and Missional Leadership .......................203

EPILOGUE ......................................................................................................................208

New Beginnings ...................................................................................................208

Realizing Dreams .................................................................................................210

Moving into the Future ........................................................................................211

Appendix

A. PAR Intervention Timetable ................................................................................213

B. Quantitative Instrument; Faith Maturity Scale ....................................................216

C. Faith Maturity Scale participation Thank You Letter ..........................................219

vii

viii

D. Quantitative Survey Results .................................................................................220

E. Qualitative Interview Research Topics and Questions ........................................253

F. Sunday School Missional Church Lesson Plan ...................................................255

G. Retreat/Wednesday Night Agenda and Session Plans .........................................259

H. Transitioning From Traditional to Missional Handout ........................................264

I. Damascus Travelers Information .........................................................................268

J. Prayer Labyrinth Handout....................................................................................277

K. June 14, 2010 Council Meeting Liminality/Communitas Handout .....................280

L. Handout Distributed at August 8, 2010 Congregational Forum ..........................282

M. Purpose Statement and Guiding Principles ..........................................................283

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................285

viii

Huntley

ix

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

5.1 Histogram for Question 2. 153

5.2 Histogram for Question 26 (reverse scored). 154

5.3 Histogram for Question 28. 156

Appendix A.1 PAR Intervention Timeline, February 14-August 29, 2010. 213

Appendix E.1 Response Count Histograms, Questions 1-6 (all ages). 232







Appendix E.8 Response Count Histograms, Questions 1-6 (18-59). 239







Appendix E.15 Response Count Histograms, Questions 1-6 (60+). 246



x





x

Huntley

xi

LIST OF TABLES

5.1 Count, Mean, and Standard Deviation Data by IOC (All Ages) 157

5.2 t-Test Results, by IOC Categories (Ages 18-59) 158

5.3 t-Test Results, Question 1 (All Ages) 159

5.4 t-Test Results, Questions 3 and 24 (Ages 18-59) 159

Appendix E.1 t-Test Results, Responses Averaged by Participant 220

Appendix E.2 t-Test Results, by IOC Categories (All ages) 220

Appendix E.3 t-Test Results, by IOC Categories (Ages 18-59) 220

Appendix E.4 t-Test Results, by IOC Categories (Ages 60+) 221

Appendix E.5 t-Test Results, by Question (All Ages) 221

Appendix E.6 t-Test Results, by Question (Ages 18-59) 222

Appendix E.7 t-Test Results, by Question (Ages 60+) 223

Appendix E.8 Count, Mean, and Standard Deviation Data by Age 224

Appendix E.9 Count, Mean, and Standard Deviation Data by IOC (All Ages) 224

Appendix E.10 Count, Mean, and Standard Deviation Data by IOC (18-59) 225

Appendix E.11 Count, Mean, and Standard Deviation Data by IOC (60+) 225

Appendix E.12 Interpretive Key 226

Appendix E.13 Baseline Data (All Ages) 226

Appendix E.14 Baseline Data (Ages 18-59) 227

Appendix E.15 Baseline Data (Ages 60+) 228

Appendix E.16 Endline Data (All Ages) 229

Appendix E.17 Endline Data (Ages 18-59) 230

Appendix E.18 Endline Data (Ages 60+) 231

Huntley

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AR Action Research

D.Min. CML Doctorate in Ministry Congregational Mission and Leadership program at

Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota

DT Damascus Travelers

ELCA Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

ELW Evangelical Lutheran Worship (Pew ed.). This is the current hymnal in

use by congregations of the ELCA.

FMS Faith Maturity Scale

IOC (I)nner, (O)uter and (C)onnecting faith orientations, used as FMS analysis

categories

IRB Institutional Review Board

LCMS Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

n.d. No date

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

PAR Participatory Action Research

PDF Adobe Portable Document File format

QUAL Qualitative Research Methods

QUAN Quantitative Research Methods

Huntley

xiii

DEDICATION

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in

heaven and on earth takes its name. I pray that, according to the riches of his

glory, he may grant that you may be strengthened in your inner being with power

through his Spirit, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, as you

are being rooted and grounded in love. I pray that you may have the power to

comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and

depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may

be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to him who by the power at work within

us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to

him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and

ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:14-21, NRSV)

To my wife, Kim, and my children, Adam and Rachel. Your love, support, and

understanding inspire me and reflect God‘s grace and love.

Huntley

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THESIS

What the [Central Pacific construction] crews did … [when they constructed an

unequaled ten miles of railroad and telegraph in one day] will be remembered as

long as this Republic lasts. White men born in America were there, along with

former slaves whose ancestors came from Africa, plus emigrants from all across

Europe, and more than three thousand [Chinese]. There were some Mexicans

with at least a touch of Native American blood in them, as well as French Indians

and at least a few Native Americans. Everyone was excited, ready to work, eager

to show what he could do. Even the Chinese, usually methodical and a bit

scornful of the American way of doing things, were stirred to a fever pitch. They

and all the others. We are the world, they said. They had come together at this

desolate place in the middle of Western North America to do what had never been

done before [or since].1

Within the incredible story of the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad

are numerous episodes that are truly amazing and seemingly impossible. Some would be

extremely difficult even with the best technology available today. One such story is the

feat that the Central Pacific accomplished, to win a $10,000 bet against the Union Pacific.

To win the bet, crews laid more than ten miles of track in the Transcontinental Railroad

in only one day.

On that day, working from sunup to sundown, 1,200 workers labored together

with a shared commitment to lay around 10.1 miles of track in a single day. The only task

they had completed before the beginning of the day was the survey work. Every other

task—grading, laying ties and rails, bending rails, affixing striker plates, spiking the rails,

1 Stephen E. Ambrose, Nothing Like It in the World: the Men Who Built the Transcontinental

Railroad, 1863-1869 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 349.

2

tapping ties and rails, filling dirt between the ties, and setting the poles and wiring the

telegraph—was accomplished that one day for the 10.1 mile section of track. Each

worker had one specific part to play within the highly structured plan of attack. For

example, four workers labored tirelessly to lay rail after rail into place (totaling 125 tons)

at a continuous pace. The railroad advanced at a rate of one mile per hour. Each person

worked to do their singular task without stopping, as supplies were ferried forward from

five different supply trains using horses, carts, and hand tools. At lunchtime, when the

work crew had the opportunity to be replaced by a fresh labor force of an additional

1,200 workers, every single worker refused. They were steadfastly focused on setting a

new record. The record stands to this day.2

If they had done this simply to win a bet, it is unlikely that the 1,200 men from a

wide diversity of backgrounds would have worked as hard as they did to accomplish this

feat. If they were just working for a paycheck, it is also unlikely that they would have

accomplished this. After all, their pay was the same whether they did it in one day for

quadruple pay or in four days for the standard wage. No, there was something else at

work here. There was something personal and deeply important that inspired and brought

this incredibly diverse group of people, only a few years after the end of the Civil War, to

accomplish something that remains unequaled in history.

What is it that inspires 1,200 men from around the world to come together and

accomplish what everyone else at the time said was impossible? It was a shared vision

that they held passionately. They knew, could see, and believed to the core of their beings

2 Ibid., 349ff.

3

that as they worked together, each with their own special contributions, that they could

do it.

What, on the other hand, keeps congregations from incarnating the grace-filled

hands, eyes, ears, mouth, and heart of Christ to one another and the world? What is

preventing this life-changing Good News of reconciliation between the Creator and

created human beings from reaching all of creation? Seemingly, it is a lack of shared

vision. Too often, we settle for a pale and incomplete version of community that falls

woefully short of the fullness of the community in Christ that God wants us to

experience. With this in mind, the research of this thesis sought to cultivate shared

missional vision in a newly developed congregation with a hope that people would

increasingly experience the true unity of community in Christ that Jesus died to create.

Introduction

Overview

This thesis describes research that utilized a process of mixed-methods

Participatory Action Research (PAR) to study the impact of cultivating missional vision

in the life of a newly developed congregation. In starting a mission congregation, there is

a strong emphasis on growth in numbers to achieve a critical mass to sustain it long term.

Living Water Lutheran Church,3 a congregation founded approximately nine years before

the beginning of the study, was the site for this research. They have been in permanent

facilities for around four years. As the pastor of this congregation, the researcher worked

to cultivate and foster missional vision in the congregation. This led to lives of personal

3 This is a pseudonym.

4

and communal growth in faith that led people to live in service and witness to others in

daily life and vocation. The Researcher worked to foster this understanding and provide

motivation for action by working with congregation leaders, in Sunday School classes, at

a congregational retreat, in various meetings and forums, and in small groups to cultivate

shared missional vision with the congregation in and through specific events. This thesis

describes the research and the impact of these efforts.4

Research Question

The primary research question for this thesis is, ―How does cultivating shared

missional vision in a newly developed congregation impact the lives of congregants and

how they relate to others in the community?‖ In asking this question, the researcher used

concurrent quantitative and qualitative methods to establish a baseline for the

congregation in its understanding and activity of faith and mission. The researcher then

worked with the congregation and its leaders, in Sunday School classes, at a congregation

retreat in various meetings and forums, and in small groups, to cultivate missional vision

that inspires, encourages, and actively initiates spiritual growth with a missional view of

life and vocation. The researcher then gathered further quantitative and qualitative

endline data that, when compared with the baseline data, helped answer the research

question.

4 See appendix A, ―PAR Intervention Timetable,‖ for a full description of the intervention

timeline.

5

Research Components

Outcome

The action taken in this research sought to shape a deeper understanding of

missional faith practices that members of the congregation would understand and embody

in daily life. The intent was that participants would discover new perspectives that that

they might live with a deeper understanding and personal practice of faith. This change in

perspectives would also yield a more missional approach to vocation and daily life

outside of the church, which would have an impact on persons that congregants interact

with on a daily basis. This research used concurrent mixed-methods quantitative and

other qualitative techniques to gather general and specific data about congregants‘ views

and practices of faith, mission, and evangelism.

The researcher utilized quantitative and qualitative methods before and after the

intervention to gather baseline and endline data to use in evaluating the effects of the

intervention. For the quantitative research, the congregation completed a survey via two

convenience samples.5 The researcher also conducted qualitative interviews with persons

randomly selected from two demographics within the congregation—one person who

participated in the initial quantitative survey, and one who participated in the Damascus

Travelers small groups. The researcher conducted a third interview with the congregation

council as a group. The intent of the qualitative interviews was to gain deeper and richer

data for analysis.

5 The researcher gathered the convenience sample from willing participants after worship on a

Sunday, both at the baseline and at the endline.

6

Intervention Influencing the Outcome

The PAR intervention sought to cultivate missional vision through a series of

directed conversations, prayer, and Scripture study to discern and describe specific

statements of purpose and guiding principles that, over time, can continue to shape the

congregation‘s vision for ministry.6 The PAR intervention attempting to influence the

outcome and answer the research question was the cultivation and understanding of

missional vision for life and ministry in the congregation.

The context for the research is a congregation that began as a mission start ten or

more years prior to the research. The congregation signed the charter and officially

incorporated in 2001. As the congregation grew, they built a million-dollar facility and

completed construction in 2006. In 2008 the founding pastor retired, and the first pastor

called by the congregation after the departure of the mission developer took office in

early 2009.

In getting to know the congregation, the pastor found that there was a prevailing

view of mission and evangelism with a Church Growth7 mindset of gathering and feeding

people. In this key adolescent phase of development for the congregation, this

Participatory Action Research project sought to help the congregation move from

understanding evangelism and mission from a Christendom gather and feed mentality to

a more missional perspective to equip and send the priesthood of all believers in daily

6 Dave Daubert, Living Lutheran: Renewing Your Congregation, Lutheran voices (Minneapolis:

Augsburg Fortress, 2007), 46ff.

7 The Church Growth, for purposes of this discussion, is a movement that reached its zenith in the

1990‘s and focused on church growth through contemporary forms of worship and preaching targeted to

the ―unchurched‖ and demographics of persons desired to become new congregation members.

7

vocations. This work occurred during the intervention, while observing changes in the

congregation to assess the outcome.

Outside Influences

Prior to research, there was a potential for other outside influences to have an

unintentional impact on the outcome. The first influence is a lack of congregational

finances. The economy, along with an increase in expenses due to staff costs, worked

together to bring a state of financial difficulty for the congregation during the

intervention. Finances can derail a congregation from actively cultivating and working

toward articulating faithful, missional vision for ministry. Financial difficulties may have

had an impact on the outcome by providing motivation to embrace change and the vision

cultivation process more fully.

Another potential outside influence on the outcome was in the form of

denominational politics. After some denominational decisions prior to the start of

research, persons withdrew their membership from the congregation or actively visited

and sought other congregations to join. Worship attendance was down roughly 10-20% in

the immediate aftermath, and then it stabilized. Three families withdrew from the

congregation membership over the course of the intervention. This outside influence was

not only related to the impact of financial influences, but there was also a potential for it

to have an impact on the effectiveness of the intervention in changing the missional

mindset and activity of the congregation. Even so, its impact was also negligible on the

outcome.

During the course of research, an additional outside influence surfaced. The

mission developer had not completely terminated his relationship with the congregation

8

when he retired from full-time ministry. Instead, he held out the option of returning to the

congregation as a member with the permission of the successor pastor in the timeframe of

a year or so. During the course of the intervention, the mission developer realized that

this arrangement kept the congregation connected to the mission developer in a way that

hindered connection with the successor. Midway through the intervention, the mission

developer wrote a letter severing the relationship and removing the possibility of

returning soon, which quickly strengthened the congregations‘ ties to the successor

pastor. This allowed the intervention to have a stronger impact.

Importance of Research

Currently, a significant amount of research exists that discusses considerations in

starting or planting a new congregation. In addition, there is a growing body of work that

wrestles with concepts and implications of the missional church movement. These

writings discuss general theory, and there are even some resources for helping a

well-established congregation to cultivate missional vision and to become more

missional. There is scant work (if any) that has been done, however, on how a

congregation in the adolescent phase8 of development makes a turn in understanding

mission as being outwardly directed through the lives of congregants. This missional,

outward direction runs counter to the inward direction and connectivity with the mission

developer pastor that a fledgling congregation often experiences as it grows to become

financially independent.

8 In congregational life-cycle theory, this is the phase between birth/infancy and maturity; see

chapter 2, ―Organizational Life Cycle Theory.‖

9

Unfortunately, some congregations do not make this turn from inward to outward

focus in ministry. It may be that this inward focus in the congregation‘s inception and

formative years sows the seeds for an established congregation who eventually declines

and struggles in a survival mode. The missional church movement has many who find the

Christendom model of planting congregations as inwardly focused franchises of the

denomination to be inadequate as we enter into this post-modern, post-Christendom era.

Infants and young children require a significant effort to nurture and sustain them

at a young age. This may or may not be true of mission-start congregations. It is true,

however, that an adolescent person needs to learn how to turn focus from one of

receiving care to one of living for others and contributing to society. This research

assumes that this is also true of a young congregation. The PAR intervention and

reflection seeks to contribute some insights into how that may happen in a newly

developed congregation. The intent is for this research to give benefit from information

derived from this study to the researcher, the congregation, and perhaps even other

congregations in a similar phase of organizational life. Another intention is to improve

the ministry of both the researcher and the congregation at Living Water by means of the

PAR intervention and research itself.

Other Questions Related to the Research Question

There are some questions to address related to conducting this research. The first

question is, ―How does one cultivate inspiring missional vision?‖ Some think it best that

a leader such as the pastor, supported by prayer and the community, ought to discern the

vision alone, and then cast it in the midst of the congregation. Others advocate a mutual

10

process of discernment and agreement, through cogenerative, mutual conversation. This

research used a mutual cogenerative cultivation process.

Another question, following the determination of sound missional vision, asks,

―How do we inspire others to embrace the vision?‖ This research utilized a model that

cultivates vision in the midst of the congregation. This has the best chance, in the long

term, of inspiring more congregants to take ownership and make decisions using the

cultivated vision in a broader, shared leadership structure.

This raises another question; ―How do we train and equip congregational leaders

to participate cogeneratively with the pastor and congregation in embracing the vision

cultivation process?‖ Again, the effectiveness of the intervention relied, in large part,

upon the ability of the pastor and council to involve as much of the congregation as

possible in the vision cultivation and discernment. The desire was for as many people as

possible to invest in the process to increase the likelihood of the vision‘s applicability to

the congregation and encourage its widespread acceptance. Using Dave Daubert‘s Living

Lutheran9 as a rough outline, leaders received training on how to do this. Even so, the

researcher discovered that it is also important to cultivate vision for the process itself

among the congregants and leaders.

The final question is one relating to the broader applicability of the findings;

―How can others use what we learned in this research?‖ The hope is that others in similar

contexts can access and utilize some of the lessons learned in the course of this research

to make a turn toward more fulfilling and missional ministry.

9 Daubert, Living Lutheran: Renewing Your Congregation.

11

Literatures and Key Theories

Four insights yield helpful considerations in answering the research question. In

considering literature and disciplines from non-ecclesial sources, it is helpful to consider

concepts and insights in the areas of communal social dynamics, the use of vision in

leading and bringing change, cultivating shared vision, and practical considerations for

planning and implementing the intervention.

Sociological Dynamics of Community

Dynamics of community are helpful in considering the impact of this process on

the congregation‘s communal structures. One perspective for looking at the congregation

and shaping the intervention is organizational theory.

A key insight into congregational organization is, ―The church is. The church

does what it is. The church organizes what it does.‖10

This theory was an important

concept to remember in facilitating missional conversation during the intervention phase.

When planting a new congregation, the denominational authorities dictate that the

organization must use structures contained in the mandated Model Constitution for

Congregations.11

Using this approach, however, completely bypasses important

discernment as the congregation wrestles with identity (the church is) and ministry

activity (the church does what it is).

10

Craig Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: a Community Led by the Spirit (Grand

Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 17.

11 ―Model Constitution for Congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America‖

(Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), 2009), http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-

Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Office-of-the-Secretary/Congregation-Administration/Model-

Constitution-for-Congregations.aspx, (accessed June 29, 2010).

12

With this top-down model, congregations are given the organizational structure

(the church organizes what it does), which then shapes ministry activity and

congregational identity. In bypassing key discernment about the congregation‘s identity

and activity, this can prevent the congregation and its members from discerning and

accepting God‘s call for ministry and mission. The structures can shape and drive

ministry apart from the congregation‘s identity and God‘s call to mission. When this

happens, a congregation settles for something less than the fullness of its true potential.

When organizational leaders use similar top-down methods in vision casting, they

can discover or create problems in properly discerning vision for ministry. This lack of

cogenerative discernment can lead to problems in generating enthusiasm within the

congregation for embracing the vision. Instead, by cultivating missional vision using

cogenerative or bottom-up methods, congregants can take greater ownership in the

visioning process. Cultivating, rather than casting vision is more likely to yield vision

that better fits the congregation and the wider community.

In considering a grass-roots mission cultivation process, it was necessary to

consider local congregational characteristics. Living Water is a newly established

congregation, and from a life-cycle perspective, it seems to be transitioning from infancy

to adolescence. Living Water is transitioning from inward-directed initial growth to

outward-directed missional activity. Therefore, it was important to consider components

of community awareness and ways to help congregants discover how to share personal

faith in everyday conversations in cultivating missional vision.

Another aspect to consider about communal structures in contemporary society is

a trend toward communal self-forming in bottom-up structures. With the growing

13

influence of the Internet and social networks in society, our notions of community and

means for community formation are changing. With Wikipedia, blogs, social networking

sites, email, and other technological forms of connectivity, communal structures are

increasingly forming in a bottom-up fashion. This differs from traditional ways of

forming community through top-down organizational design. In this research, it was

important to provide ways for community to self-form in defining vision through a

grass-roots style of vision cultivation.

The specific characteristics and aspects of congregational life at Living Water

were important to consider in answering the research question. Living Water is a

relatively new congregation. It began through the ministry of a gifted and engaging

mission-developer pastor who canvassed the community and brought the congregation to

a point of construction, after which he retired from ministry. Living Water is an

extremely healthy congregation. They are now moving from initial mission development

to a sustained and established ministry presence in the community. In saying goodbye to

the mission developer, they are beginning to move from a communal structure that is

pastor-centered to a community of interwoven relationships. This movement in

communal structure and organization is essential for them to make as they intentionally

transition from a top-down pastor-centered structure to one that is egalitarian, making

decisions in a bottom-up fashion.

Making this transition helps nurture more intimacy in communal structures at

Living Water. In today‘s Internet-connected society, people are experiencing increasing

numbers of superficial relationships with fewer intimate relationships. This characteristic

is opposed to a desire for a congregation to have deeper, more perichoretic relationships

14

patterned after relationships Christians share through baptism into the triune God. This

desire for deeper and more personal relationships undergirds the rationale for forming

small groups in the vision cultivation process. In forming these groups and enhancing

personal, intimate relationships, congregants are already partially realizing the goal of

missional vision. It also helps create deeper relationships that nurture grass-roots

cultivated vision.

The Efficacy of Vision for Leading and Bringing Change

Without a shared concept, understanding and commitment for each person to

focus on their part of the construction process, and without a strong desire to complete

over ten miles of railroad and telegraph, it is doubtful that 1,200 people would have ever

worked together to accomplish this amazing feat. It was a shared vision and passion to do

so that united this sizable and diverse group of people to do what seemed impossible.

They even did it with carts, horses, and a few steam locomotives. Like an unseen force

that brings two magnets together with a common bond that is difficult to break apart,

vision can unite a diverse group of people in common purpose to accomplish things that

would otherwise be impossible.

In society, people have a variety of talents, gifts, dreams, and desires. Persons

seek to use their talents to bring their dreams to fruition or satisfy their desires. At times,

this can lead people to engage in destructive behavior as they seek their own ends. At

other times, with the appropriate methods of governance, people can come together to

accomplish beneficial goals. As diverse persons or groups of people describe and

appropriate shared vision, it is possible for groups to work together for the common good.

As vision is discerned and articulated, then lovingly embraced, community can form that

15

works for the benefit of individuals and society. Shared vision, cultivated in the midst of

the gathered group, is essential for this to happen.

Cultivating Shared Vision

This type of shared vision does not happen by accident; it comes through

intentionally relating with one another, sharing perspectives, and wrestling with questions

of faith and life. Four concepts help in cultivating a vision that individuals can share to

unite a diverse group of people. First, the process should be egalitarian, minimizing the

influence of those who would seek to subvert, control, or overshadow the contributions of

others. Second, the process should increase the relationships and interconnectedness of

the group. Third, the process should cogeneratively cultivate a shared vision, through

prayer, Bible study, and mutual conversation. Finally, the process must be open to

everyone in the organization, providing numerous opportunities for people to enter into

the conversation.

The PAR intervention utilized a vision cultivation process that sought to help

congregants discern and describe God‘s purpose for life and ministry, along with

principles that guide the congregants in making decisions in life and ministry. As these

two things—purpose and guiding principles—are lived with over time, the congregation

begins to appreciate God‘s vision for ministry.12

This vision gives the congregation

perspectives—vision—for making decisions and moving forward in ministry together.

The process of cultivation is similar to that of a community garden. In commercial

farming, a paid farmer works the land with other hired hands to maximize yield and

12

Daubert, Living Lutheran: Renewing Your Congregation, 46.

16

corporate profit. The farmer uses the plants and the land to maximize personal gain. In a

community garden, on the other hand, a community forms around the shared vision of

cultivating a garden, which provides food for the community. The relationship between

community and garden is one of mutual nurturing and benefit, as community forms in the

act of tending and lovingly caring for the garden as it bears food for the community.

Practical Considerations

In order for an effort to organize people to be effective, it must capture the interest

of the people in the group, it must have structures that facilitate the health and growth of

the organization, and it must inspire the group‘s members to participate energetically in

it. In seeking to organize a group, leaders can hold out promise to the members that will

encourage them to participate in the organization. Leaders also provide tools that

effectively facilitate participation and interaction as the members engage the organization

and receive the promised benefits. Finally, leaders inspire members to give of themselves

through a bargain that defines what they bring to the group and give to others in sharing

the promised benefits.13

The intervention, the PAR intervention contained these three

components in its planning stages to maximize the impact on Living Water and

encourage the widest participation by the members.

Biblical and Theological Perspectives

In addition to theoretical insights, Scripture along with theological constructs, also

yields helpful insights into implementing a strategy for answering the research question.

Specifically, biblical and theological perspectives yield insights into perspectives on

13 Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (New

York: Penguin Press, 2008), 260ff.

17

shared vision inspiring missional activity, constitutive components of missional vision,

and means for cultivating vision for mission.

Vision Inspiring Missional Activity

In considering what impact vision can have on communal action, it is helpful to

remember that vision is a way for an organization to view and perceive life from a shared

perspective. It is a way of viewing the world that allows people to make decisions

together in ways that take shape in a community as they live with God‘s mission in daily

life. In addition, the process of discerning vision—whether it is cast or cultivated—can

impact missional activity, even as shared vision can direct it.

In Exodus, God calls Moses to climb Mt. Sinai to receive God‘s vision for the

Hebrew people, whom God has recently freed from slavery in Egypt. With awesome and

fearsome displays of power, God commands Moses to order the people to stay away from

the mountain under penalty of death. Over the course of 40 days and nights, God gives

Moses the vision for the Hebrew people as they relate to one another and to God on their

journey to and occupancy of the land God promised to Abraham. Moses casts this vision,

and the people are to accept unquestioningly. It contains precepts that seemingly intend to

help God‘s people to continue to live peaceably and freely on their journey to the

promised land and after they occupy the land.

Meanwhile, as Moses receives the Law from God on Mt. Sinai, the people avert

their attention due to fear of other, immediate concerns. As a result, they convince Aaron

to take over as their leader, and they cast their gold into the form of a golden calf that

they may worship. Near the end of Moses‘ 40 days with God, the Lord commands Moses

to return to his people and exact a punishment for failing to wait to receive the vision for

18

communal life that Moses is to cast. As a result of their decision to reject God,

3,000 people are put to death and God sends a plague upon them.

Six aspects of the mission casting process are evident in this story in Exodus.

First, the success of the vision casting endeavor requires that the leader, Moses, be an

extremely talented and charismatic leader. Moses is to discern the vision from God and

bring it to the people in a hierarchical manner, and the people are to fearfully accept the

vision that their leader casts. This fear is necessary to motivate them to accept and

embody the vision even though fear is a short-term and fickle motivator. Although the

vision itself is missional, it is cast in such a manner that it objectifies and inherently

dehumanizes the people as they are forced to accept it.

In the person of Jesus Christ and in his ministry, however, God takes on human

flesh to walk among God‘s people mutually as they bear one another‘s burdens. In this,

Jesus cultivates missional vision mutually with the disciples. In the Sermon on the

Mount, for example, Jesus raises and affirms the Law while applying it anew to the

contemporary context. He then comes down from the mount to cultivate vision for God‘s

kingdom through conversations and daily life with the disciples and God‘s people.

Ultimately, instead of forcing God‘s people to bear the results of their rejection of God

and God‘s vision for daily life as God did through Moses, Jesus as God enfleshed bears

the worst of humanity‘s rejection by personally and physically bearing humanity‘s

rejection on the cross and overcoming it in the resurrection. This forms the foundation for

God to further bear the burdens of life and to cultivate missional vision mutually through

the Holy Spirit in the ministry of the disciples and beyond.

19

In the book of Acts, the apostles wrestled with questions about whether the

fledgling Christian movement would be one confined primarily within the Hebrew

community, or if it would be one that is universally inclusive of Jews and Gentiles. Peter,

for example, had a vision from God as he visited a Gentile centurion who later believed

the Gospel and entered the Christian community through baptism with his household.

Paul and Barnabas intentionally went out into Gentile communities proclaiming the

Gospel and baptizing converts. As the question came to the forefront among the early

Christian community, people gathered in Jerusalem to decide if this movement would

ultimately require converts to be subject to the specific provisions of the Law through

circumcision and a decision to follow the Mosaic Law, or if baptism and faith in Christ

were the sole criterion for admission to the Christian community. As they discussed this

together, God cultivated vision within the community for people to reach out in mission

to all. According to this new, shared, and missional vision, the Christian movement

would be universally welcoming and would extend beyond the Hebrew community.

Six aspects of missional vision are contained in this story in Acts. It is a new way

of looking at communal life. God reveals it and the community, together, discerns it. The

vision that God reveals is one that embraces the surrounding community, as the Christian

community listens to Scripture, tradition, voices in the community, and the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit leads a process that includes people in the entire community, both lay

and apostles. The process is missional, as God awakens new perspectives in the

community and sends it forth to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

20

Components of Missional Vision

With roots in the Gospel in our Culture Network, the missional church movement

has particular theological emphases. In cultivating missional vision, these theological

concepts served as an initial framework in research for participants to use in

conversation. This helped bring forth concepts that are consistent with biblical principles

and that are theologically sound.

There were three components relevant to this research. The first is trinitarian

theology with emphasis on the perichoretic union of the three divine persons. The second

is an understanding of the missio Dei14

as a call to mission that invites everyone into

God‘s reconciling reign of care and redemption. The third is an understanding that Jesus

Christ is the center of this mission of reconciliation, which flows out through time and

space as the Holy Spirit works in and through the Church.

The first and foundational component of missional vision is from the social model

of the triune God. The three persons of God exist in a perfect, mutual, loving, and

interdwelling union. God‘s unity of three persons comes largely from a perfect and loving

union wherein God is one God, as the three persons act in concert with one another in one

divine will. As the three persons of the Trinity relate to one another and act with one will,

they do so in embracing creation, including humanity, in a gracious, caring, and

redeeming invitation to join the perichoretic15

fellowship. This restores a relationship of

mutual accompaniment between God and creation. The Father sends the Son and Spirit to

invite, gather, and draw us into this amazing fellowship as the Spirit unites us to the

14

Missio Dei is Latin for ―God‘s mission.‖

15 See chapter 3 for more on the concept of perichoresis.

21

humanity of Christ through baptism and faith. With this in mind, a missional vision

contains a call to go forth and connect with others to form relationships that embody

trinitarian fellowship, care, redemption and accompaniment that Christians graciously

experience through faith as the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ.

This sending is part of the missio Dei wherein God sends the Church into all of

creation. It includes God‘s loving action to redeem relationships and people broken by

sin. In doing this, God assaults the powers and principalities of darkness, sin, and

brokenness as God‘s Kingdom enters creation to reconcile us to our creator. The

reconciling reign of God is Good News, it is already breaking into history even as its

fullness has not come fully, it changes everything, it centers in Christ as King, and people

enter into it through the Spirit‘s work in the Church.

Finally, through the daily vocation and faithful activity of God‘s people, the Holy

Spirit does the work of Christ to reconcile the world to God. The Spirit gifts all of God‘s

people to do this work. As the people of God use their gifts and talents in ways shaped by

God‘s vision for life, God works in the world. God accomplishes the mission of care,

redemption, and reconciliation in and through these relationships. Just as the two natures

of Christ—humanity and divinity—dwell in a mutually interdwelling, perichoretic and

hypostatic union, so too the Holy Spirit and the Church dwell in a mutual, perichoretic,

and hypostatic union. In this way, the mutuality of God‘s kenotic self-giving lifts up a

fallen humanity to enter God‘s kingdom in the person of Jesus Christ. God‘s people then

go forth, embodying the mutuality of the ministry of the Spirit as the Church that

proclaims and brings God‘s kingdom into a world otherwise ruled by power and

darkness.

22

Cultivating Missional Vision

Having considered some aspects of the missional church movement that are

important aspects of missional vision, it is then helpful to consider some biblical and

theological considerations in cultivating this vision among God‘s people. This concept of

cultivating missional vision also necessitates a look at three practical considerations in

the light of Scripture.

An example of God cultivating vision for mission is in Jesus‘ ministry with

Simon Peter. Throughout Jesus‘ ministry, Peter was one of the first disciples to step

forward as a leader. On one such occasion, Peter made a startling confession that Jesus is

the ―Messiah, the Son of the living God‖ (Matthew 16:16). This confession earned him

praise from Jesus even as Jesus renamed Simon as Peter, calling him the Petra, or

foundation rock for Christ to build the Church. Sometimes, this leadership led Peter to

being embarrassed. For example, immediately after being named Peter,16

he showed the

incompleteness of his understanding of God‘s vision as he rebuked Jesus who said that he

must be betrayed and die in Jerusalem. Over time, however, God worked with Peter until

finally after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Peter could boldly proclaim the

Good News of Christ‘s death and resurrection. Even beyond that, however, God

continued to cultivate vision for mission in Peter.

God worked in this way with other apostles, such as Saul of Tarsus, whom Jesus

also renames as Paul. According to Paul, the Holy Spirit draws people together as one

Body of Christ. In gifting people for a variety of work and capabilities, the Spirit works

16

Cf. Matthew 16:21-23. All future Scripture citations are from the New Revised Standard

Version (NRSV).

23

through the diversity of God‘s people to accomplish the one missio Dei of realizing the

fullness of God‘s reconciling and redeeming reign. This means that it is important to

remember that the Spirit, not just shared vision, unites and works through the breadth of

Christ‘s Body of believers.

From a theological perspective, it is important to consider ways that God draws

persons together into community with shared vision. As members of Christ‘s Body

release control over circumstances and enter into the unsettling reign of God, they often

leave comfort zones to enter into wilderness experiences. As people leave comfort zones

of safety and self-control, God often creates a sense within community of comradery,

unity of vision, and shared purpose. Missional leaders encourage members of the

congregation to enter these moments and shape structures that cultivate and foster

missional vision and activity through shared, cogenerative experiences.

Another theological perspective that is important to consider in answering the

research question is the understanding of vision itself. For purposes of this PAR

intervention, vision is understood as being composed of a communal understanding of

God‘s purpose for the congregation, that they work to accomplish according to specific,

biblical guiding principles over time. In this way, congregants make decisions and act in

accordance with perspectives gleaned from God‘s vision for daily life. The fullness of

God‘s future becomes clear as people live and act with their understandings of this shared

vision.

A final practical consideration in cultivating missional vision is appropriate

congregational participation in large and small groups. During his ministry, Jesus

alternated between utilizing large groups for teaching and sharing information that

24

occasionally was confusing to the hearers, and utilizing small groups wherein he nurtured

deeper relationships and explained teachings that were confusing to the larger groups. It

is important to note that this movement between large and small groups was an important

part of Jesus‘ strategy for nurturing intimate and closer relationships in small groups as

he equipped the Apostles for future ministry. He did this even as he healed people,

taught, and embodied God‘s in-breaking Kingdom with larger groups. With this in mind,

the PAR intervention contained a mix of small and large group components. The

Damascus Travelers small groups, the congregational retreat, and the four Wednesday

night vision cultivation sessions acted to create and nurture close relationships for

conversation and the unleashing of missional imagination and cogenerative discernment.

Larger group discussions, such as the ones in forums and a congregational meeting, along

with material shared in sermons and Bible Studies, allowed for sharing information and

for decision-making in a forum appropriate to a larger group.

Other Matters

Ethical Concerns

With any social science research, the potential exists for harm to the participants

of the study. An Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Luther Seminary reviewed proposed

questionnaires and methods to ensure that risk to participants was low. Even so, there are

some things to consider with this type of research.

There are a number of ethical considerations in relating to people and

interviewing them for a research project. First, there is the issue of confidentiality. In

order to describe the data and give some explanation about the researcher‘s conclusions,

it is necessary to share a few details about the participants‘ responses. In the interests of

25

supporting categories and observation, it was necessary to share some of the participants‘

comments without attribution. This is because results without supporting data could be

suspect. It is necessary to support conclusions so that the reader can verify that they are

reasonable. On the other hand, if the researcher were to publish a transcript of the

interviews and show a full documentation of data supporting the conclusions and results,

then there would be no confidentiality at all. This could have precluded the ability to

gather data from a willing participant. Reporting of results in connection with this

research sought to find a balance between verifying the reliability of conclusions and

protecting the confidentiality of research participants.

Another problem is the fact that it may be possible to trace specific remarks or

results back to the originator, considering the size and field of research. In balancing a

need to provide enough information to give an idea of how reliable the data may be, and

in protecting the anonymity of the participants, the researcher kept the specific results as

minimal, general, and unattributable as possible.

A third ethical concern relates to the relationship between the interviewees and

the researcher. As a member of the PAR research community, the researcher needed to

take care not to damage or negatively influence relationships that existed before, during,

and after the research.

An additional concern is the fact that the researcher is a pastor, and as researcher,

community member, and pastor, there are a number of roles that enter into any specific

interview and the research in general. With that in mind, the researcher composed and

selected qualitative and quantitative questions with an attempt to be general and to avoid

unnecessary risk.

26

The researcher was sensitive to considerations of power that the researcher holds

as a pastor in the congregation. The researcher exercised great care to avoid problems

with issues relating to power. The final data had to be viewed questioning what

information came from the relationship as pastor with the interviewee. The researcher

will destroy all specific, attributable data, including interview recordings and transcripts,

three years after approval of the thesis.

Finally, there is also an ethical concern or consideration relating to any interview

itself. In the actual interview process, there are questions. Some of these questions may

even be probing questions. Any time one asks a question of another, their relationship

changes forever. There are degrees to this, of course, varying with the intensity or

intimacy of the question. For example, asking if one prefers paper or plastic bags at the

grocery store will alter the relationship (e.g., ―Aha, she likes plastic bags … not very

friendly to the environment!‖) but not in a way that would likely be noticeable or drastic.

On the other hand, asking questions that are more intimate in nature (e.g., asking about

past indiscretions, or asking if one has ever lied to the questioner) has the potential to

alter the relationship radically between the two parties. These questions will even alter

the relationship if the interviewee never answers them, because they have broached

subject and one cannot retreat from that fact. Furthermore, a question may not only alter

the relationship between the two parties involved, but it may also alter relationships with

external third parties. A married person asking another person on a date, for example, not

only alters the relationship between the two parties, but also alters the relationship

between one or both of the parties and their spouse(s). This ethical concern constantly

27

needed to be in the forefront of the researcher‘s mind, both in developing the questions

and in conducting the interviews.

Definitions of Key Terms

Communal/vocational ministry—is ministry of daily life, primarily outside of the

congregational or familial setting. Vocation, from the Latin word vocatio or call,

speaks to the fact that, as a member of the priesthood of believers, God calls all

baptized children to live and share faith and the Gospel in all aspects of daily life.

This relates to missional aspects of the Social Trinity concept.

Communitas—is an experience of ―communality and comradeship‖17

that forms a group

as it mutually experiences a shared incident and/or overcomes a common problem

or adversary. Communitas implies a depth of relationship and comradery that is

only forged through a shared experience of liminality.

Cultivating a missional vision—is work done to plant the Word and encourage leaders

and other members to listen together in discerning God‘s vision for life and

mission. When done properly, it utilizes a grass-roots process wherein the Spirit

speaks broadly and vision emerges from the wider group.

Dechurched persons—are those who have, for whatever reason, walked away from

organized religion for a significant period.

Liminality—derives from the Latin word limen, or threshold. A liminal experience is one

that requires a person or group to depart from the confines of safe and familiar

environs to enter into a more dangerous and uncertain experience of wilderness,

17

Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church (Grand Rapids: Brazos

Press, 2006), 218.

28

transition or uncertainty. Often times, it refers to an unexpected experience that

draws one out of the comfort zone with others, who can respond by working

together in the period of change or transition to form bonds of comradery found in

communitas.18

Missional—is a school of thinking, with foundations in the Gospel in Our Culture

Network, which seeks to ground ecclesiology, theology, and life in a

trinitarian-based worldview. This worldview sees Christians as gathered,

nurtured, and sent as a priesthood of believers to bear the ministry of God‘s

caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign.

Newly developed congregation—is a congregation that is less than five years into its new

building with the first post-mission developer pastor, who is making the next step

with the congregation in life and ministry beyond initial formation. Using the

language of life-cycle theory, it is a congregation transitioning from infancy to

adolescence.

Participatory Action Research (PAR)—is a form of the social science Action Research

method performed by a researcher who is part of the community under research.

Action Research includes an intervention or action within the researched

community, with intent ―to improve the participants‘ situation.‖19

The researcher

studies the community and reports the results and conclusions regarding the

impact of the intervention.

18

Cf. Ibid., 220-21.

19 Davydd J. Greenwood and Morten Levin, Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for

Social Change, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2007), 3.

29

Perichoresis—With respect to the Trinity, perichoresis refers to the mutual and reciprocal

interdwelling of the persons of the Trinity with one another. In a community

setting, perichoresis can be a form of circulating around the neighborhood, or

mutual conversation with an experience of mutually bearing one another‘s

burdens.

Qualitative research—―is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning

individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. The process of

research involves emerging questions and procedures; collecting data in the

participants‘ setting; analyzing the data inductively, building from particulars to

general themes; and making interpretations of the meaning of the data.‖20

Quantitative research—―is a means for testing objective theories by examining the

relationship among variables. These variables can be measured, typically on

instruments, so that numbered data can be analyzed using statistical

procedures.‖21

While quantitative research is normally used in research methods

that posit a hypothesis that is evaluated using a number of variables, this PAR

research used quantitative techniques to evaluate the impact of the intervention on

the practices and perspectives of the congregation in answering the research

question. The researcher also used baseline quantitative data to gain perspectives

in evaluating overall congregation members‘ perspectives and attitudes to assist in

designing and conducting the PAR intervention.

20

John W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2009), 232.

21 Ibid., 233.

30

Social Trinity—is an understanding of the triune God that emphasizes the relationality of

the three persons of God who unite perpetually in a single, perichoretic, mutual,

interdwelling, sending, inviting, caring, and redeeming relationship of love.

Unchurched persons—are normally adults who have never been active in organized

religion or congregations.

Vocation—With roots in the Latin word vocatio, or calling, vocation is the embodiment

and daily living of the Priesthood of Believers as the Holy Spirit works in daily

life to gift believers and help them to share the love of Christ as a catalyst in the

fulfillment of God‘s caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign in the world.

Summary

The participatory action research that this thesis describes sought to answer the

question, ―How can cultivating missional vision in a newly developed congregation

impact the lives of congregants and how they relate to others in the community?‖ In

answering this question, the researcher intervened in a newly developed congregation to

cultivate missional vision. The researcher then reflected on the results gathered through

quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews.

This research relies upon theoretical and theological concepts both in designing

and conducting the research, and in drawing conclusions from the data. There are four

general areas for theoretical design and reflection in this research. The key theories

pertain to sociological dynamics of community, the efficacy of vision for leading and

bringing change, cultivating shared vision, and other practical considerations for

designing, conducting, and reflecting upon the research.

Huntley

31

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURES AND KEY THEORIES

Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if

they fall, one will lift up the other; but woe to one who is alone and falls and does

not have another to help. Again, if two lie together, they keep warm; but how can

one keep warm alone? And though one might prevail against another, two will

withstand one. A threefold cord is not quickly broken. (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12)

Royal, Illinois is a small town that consists of a couple of grain elevators at the

intersection of a railroad and County Road 20. With only a few dozen houses, the town

boasts a minimal population of around 300 people. Nonetheless, this small, rural

community quietly shares a heritage of a community that can accomplish great things

with shared vision.

Nearly a hundred years ago, the people of St. John Lutheran Church decided to

move their church building into town, to serve current and future generations of people in

the village of Royal better.1 Not everyone initially wanted to move the church building;

the vote to move prevailed by a narrow margin.2 Nonetheless, having made the decision,

the congregation came together and embraced the vision for a ministry within the village

of Royal. The people worked together for many long, hard hours to move their church

home. Carefully and lovingly, the men and boys of the congregation deconstructed the

church, brick by brick, and transported the bricks from the rural country church into the

1 Cf. St. John‘s official website, ―St. John Lutheran Church History‖, n.d.,

http://www.stjohnroyal.org/history.html, (accessed March 31, 2011).

2 Ibid.

32

village of Royal. There, the congregation‘s women and older men painstakingly cleaned

the mortar from the bricks, one by one, to provide the building blocks for a new St. John

Lutheran Church to serve the people of Royal. It was a shared labor of love. The church

still stands today, with 827 members and an average attendance of 195 people.3

Furthermore, this embodied example of people working together with shared

vision in a labor of love made an impact on the wider community of Royal. Several years

later, around the time of the town‘s centennial anniversary in 1982, people began to talk

to one another about the need for a larger community building that they could use for

special events. Royal is isolated on the Illinois prairie, and the town needed a large

building for public use. Through mutual conversation among the townspeople, vision of a

community building that they could use for special occasions emerged. United with

common vision and purpose, they worked together to construct a Community Building to

benefit the current and future people of Royal.

Yet how could this small, rural village of common farmers and townspeople

afford to build a structure large enough to meet their needs? Fortunately, for the people of

Royal, a brick apartment building an hour away in Champaign, Illinois needed to be

demolished. The owner promised to give the bricks to them for use in constructing a

community building. Inspired by the memories and example of the people of St. John

Lutheran, the community gathered the bricks from the demolished building, transported

them, and worked together to accomplish the arduous task of cleaning the mortar from

each individual brick. The people then built the new community building with these

3 This is from the official website of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ―Find a

Congregation - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America‖, n.d., http://www.elca.org, (accessed March 31,

2011).

33

bricks, completing it within a year after the centennial. The building still stands today and

the people of Royal use it routinely for personal and public events at little or no cost.

In cultivating missional vision, it is important for a community to gather and unite

around a shared vision for life together. In order for the community to articulate and

embrace a shared way of viewing life and making decisions, it is important for them to

share a common vision or outlook that can unite the members of the community and

guide their journey together. A community will most fully embrace and embody this

vision when it is cogeneratively cultivated in the community, to reflect the breadth of

wisdom of the entire group, and to ensure that members of the community share and live

it in daily life.

Sociological Dynamics of Community

Society contains overlapping groups and sub-groups in community. These groups

have numerous dynamics in how they react to the environment they are in, how they

collectively function in acting and making decisions, and in the characteristics they share

in living together. In contemplating the effect of cultivating missional vision in a

congregation, it is important to consider sociological characteristics of organizations and

communities.

Being unique, all organizations act differently. Even so, organizations still bear

similarities in characteristics or attributes by virtue of being organizations.

Organizational theory is helpful in considering traits that most organized groups share.

Once formed, organizations can even take on human life-cycle traits as corporate entities.

Organizations form, they mature, and they can die. As a newly developed congregation

matures beyond inwardly-focused infancy, it is important to foster habits of cultivating

34

missional vision that encourage broad-based community participation, moving from an

inwardly-directed communal motion to an outwardly-directed one. Means of shaping

community that focus in a bottom-up structure, are more egalitarian, and contain

participative aspects are currently evolving from technology and the Internet. This is

important to consider in forming community and cultivating shared missional vision.

Organizational Structures and Vision

In order for a group to become an organization, it must form structures and

relationships for making decisions and working together as a cohesive group. In

organizational theory, as applied to congregations, the group functions in a healthy

manner to the extent that members work together with a clear understanding of whom

they are and why they exist. In working together, a congregation lives this identity and

acts cohesively to the extent that they share vision for ministry.

In other words, ―The church is. The church does what it is. The church organizes

what it does.‖4 This means that, as an organization, a congregation forms with a shared

and agreed-upon concept of identity and purpose. A congregation may perceive itself as a

Spirit-led perichoretic communion of believers that embodies Christ‘s presence5 through

which the caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign of God breaks into our world. A

congregation that understands itself in this way will act differently than one that

understands itself to be a place for believers to come for spiritual nourishment within a

Christian community. Both of these congregations will act and form organizational

structures differently, in line with actions that are based upon their understandings of

4 Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: a Community Led by the Spirit, 17.

5 These concepts will be discussed in Chapter 3.

35

their individual identities. Put differently, the church has a specific identity, will act based

upon that shared understanding of its identity, and will create organizational structures to

support its shared action.

This is an important insight for work at Living Water. When planting a new

congregation, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) requires the

organization to contain structures outlined in the mandated Model Constitution for

Congregations.6 Using this approach, however, completely bypasses conversation and

communal discernment with respect to the first two statements—―The church is, the

church does what it is.‖7 By constitutionally mandating church structures regardless of

congregational identity and action, denominations circumvent key communal

discernment of a congregation‘s identity, vision, activity, and mission. This can inhibit

the congregation from shaping missional structures. Instead, the Model Constitution

proscribes ecclesiological structures in a one-size-fits-all mentality, thereby forcing the

congregation, with varying degrees of success, to work within this generic structure.

In this top-down model, leadership within the organization often brings vision to

the organization in the form of vision casting. In this form of visioning, congregational

ministry may or may not flow from God‘s call for ministry and mission. With traditional

vision casting, a visionary or charismatic leader discerns and describes a future, then

brings that vision to the congregation. The leader then expends sizable effort to motivate

the congregation to work together to achieve the vision. In this model, the leader is under

significant pressure to be the expert who brings the full, complete, and inspiring vision to

6 ―Model Constitution for Congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.‖

7 Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: a Community Led by the Spirit, 17.

36

the congregation. The leader then expects the congregation to provide the resources, to

follow the person in charge, and to work together to accomplish the cast vision.

Another, perhaps better way, is to start first with methods that discern identity and

activity in mission with a bottom-up method of visioning in a congregation.8 With these

methods, a congregation utilizes this grass-roots method through shared vision

cultivation. With a grass-roots communal vision-cultivation model, the congregation

engages in dialog to mutually discern and define a shared vision for making sense of

events and for deciding how to act together. Instead of having the leader cast a future

vision for everyone to accomplish, a congregation can prayerfully work together to

discern and articulate a shared understanding of God‘s vision for ministry. Leadership in

this model nurtures relationships, facilitates healthy dialog, and fosters trust in the

congregation, as members work together to discern and embody the shared vision. Again,

instead of casting a vision and enticing people to invest in it and work for it, the Spirit-led

community mutually discerns and owns the vision. After vesting in the discernment

process, the community is more likely to embrace the shared vision and work together in

it. Vision discernment has the greatest likelihood of motivating congregants to change

behaviors and to begin to align behavior with the cultivated missional vision personally.9

The way an organization visions and organizes how it does, therefore, impacts its

identity. A top-down organization will begin to understand itself in terms of authority,

8 Dave Daubert, ―Vision Discerning vs. Vision Casting: How Shared Vision Can Raise Up

Communities of Leaders Rather Than Mere Leaders of Communities,‖ in The Missional Church and

Leadership Formation: Helping Congregations Develop Leadership Capacity, ed. Craig Van Gelder

(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2009), 148ff.

9 Ibid., 149ff.

37

operating from a position of power. Bottom-up organizations will begin to understand

themselves in terms that are more egalitarian.

This change in direction for visioning processes from top-down to bottom-up is

becoming increasingly necessary for twenty-first century congregations ostensibly

entering the post-Christendom era.10

At times, the one-size-fits-all organizational

structures of Christendom are hindering churches living in contemporary society.

Increasingly, post-Christendom congregations are realizing that they need to articulate

new understandings of church life and ecclesiology. Instead of forcing the Gospel into a

culture and focusing on survival, many congregations are working to form church

structures that are missional and that faithfully embody cultural tendencies according to

biblical principles. It is hard work to engage local contexts in grass-roots dialog, so that

church structures authentically embody biblical principles to serve the local community

better. It is far easier to take ecclesiastically approved organizational structures and force

local congregations to fit the mold in top-down fashion.

With this in mind, it is clear that congregations and church organizations would

do well to spend time considering their organization‘s call to ministry and their activity,

and then define how they will structure their organizations to support that ministry. In

order to do that, congregations and churches may need to reshape their understandings of

identity and ecclesiology. For a church or congregation to be truly missional, it is best to

10

For a fuller discussion of this insight, see Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the

Missional Church. Hirsch compares various characteristics of the apostolic, Christendom, and emergent

church ecclesiologies. He contends that the reformation sowed seeds to separate the Constantinian church

and state marriage that are coming to fruition today. He advocates a grass-roots ecclesiology that allows

community to form biologically, without rigid, hierarchical structures. This research contends that

something in the middle—a flexible, bottom-up congregational structure—would be a helpful improvement

in supporting congregational ministry and mission.

38

base organizational structures and ecclesiology upon theological constructs, and to

consider theoretical insights, so that activity can most effectively flow from the

congregation‘s identity. Once this happens, the congregation can live together,

corporately, and can begin to take on characteristics of a coherent and healthy living

organism.

Organizational Life Cycle Theory

Life Cycle Theory likens the behavior of organizations to that of living

organisms.11

In this theory, an organization lives together and adopts characteristics

similar to those of individual persons, moving over time through individual biological life

stages—birth, infancy, adolescence, prime, maturity, aristocracy, bureaucracy, and death.

This theory holds that congregations tend to follow this trajectory from birth, upward to

maturity, then downward toward death unless rebirth occurs. This happens by ―tapping

again the life sources inherent in the birth story of the congregation … or in discovering a

new sense of mission in a changed context.‖12

This means that all congregations are in

various phases of life, with varying phase-dependent gene structures of energizing (E),

programs (P), administration (A), and inclusion (I).13

A newly established congregation, like Living Water, will need to make

adjustments as it advances through these life stages in moving beyond mission status and

11

Martin F. Saarinen, The Life Cycle of a Congregation (Bethesda: The Alban Institute, 2001

1986), 3.

12 Ibid., 7.

13 Ibid., 4-5.

39

becoming an established congregation. As it grows and becomes more firmly established,

the congregation advances from infancy through adolescence and beyond.

Infant congregations on mission status receive support in large part from the

wider church. ―The Infant congregation inherits a high level of enthusiasm but develops a

strong need for survival. This contributes to a ‗y‘all come‘ attitude (high I), which is open

and inclusive.‖14

The infant congregation focuses primarily on gaining new members and

growing in numbers to reach a size that is large enough to be self-sustaining and

financially independent.

As with a human growing from infancy through adolescence to maturity, it is

important to begin to turn a strong inward focus to more of an outward focus. Some

congregations, for example, never move beyond the inwardly focused growth phase, and

end up in perpetual survival mode. Healthy, thriving congregations, on the other hand,

have a stronger outward focus. A congregation successfully moves from infancy through

adolescence and beyond as it shifts its focus from inwardly directed growth or survival to

outwardly directed ministry and service to the wider community.15

Helping a congregation to begin to move from infancy to adolescence and from

inward focus to outward focus can happen by ―building a sense of community among its

members, a consensus on mission, and an outline of functions, goals, and programs.‖16

In

other words, leadership in this phase needs to help a congregation to discover its own

personality, much as one would do with an adolescent person. In doing this, it is

14

Ibid., 9.

15 Ibid., 10.

16 Ibid., 16.

40

important ―to build a conscious intentionality out of the undifferentiated energy of the

congregation.‖ 17

In helping a congregation move from infancy to adolescence and beyond, a leader

may encounter the phenomenon of the founder’s dilemma. Successful mission starts

require strong leadership, ability, and high energy from the mission developer. Later,

however, the same personal attributes that were helpful to a mission developer in forming

and establishing the congregation become a problem. ―The aura of the [founding]

pastor‘s presence surrounds all that the congregation is and does.‖18

To move to

adolescence, the congregation needs to discover its own identity beyond the mission

developer intentionally.19

Then, the congregation can move to adjust its vision to behold

the local community and beyond. This requires leadership to work with the congregation

to help members discover their gifts and to provide opportunities to serve and minister

collectively. To do this, leadership must intentionally work to decentralize planning and

implementations of ministry to equip, train, and allow members to work together in

shared ministry.

In other words, reshaping the organization and its structures is necessary for a

congregation that moves from the top-down, pastor-centered and pastor-dependent phase

of infancy. As it moves toward adolescence and maturity, it is critical for a newly formed

congregation to become more independent and inclusive in making decisions. In order to

do this effectively, a congregation can adopt structures that are more egalitarian and

17

Ibid.

18 Ibid., 17.

19 Ibid., 18.

41

bottom-up in an effort to encourage greater participation in the congregation‘s action and

decision-making. Recent technological innovations with the Internet and information

technologies are creating and shaping new, more egalitarian ways for community to form

and do this.

Self-Forming, Bottom-Up Communities

The growing influence of the Internet and social networks in society is changing

notions of what community is and how it forms. Social networks, such as Facebook and

MySpace, give people the ability to post and publish written material for the world to

read instantly. These networks, along with universally collaborative academic ventures

such as Wikipedia, are radically altering the scope and manner of social interactions. The

ways that community forms apart from concrete, traditional modern organizations is

changing society and societal structures in many ways.

The widespread use of weblogs, or blogs, for example, is one technological

development that is altering how people communicate and influencing forms of

communal structures. With blogs, the art of public communication is moving toward

mass amateurization.

This kind of thing has happened before, with scribes and the advent of the

printing press in the 1500‘s. Prior to the invention of the printing press, professional

scribes wrote every publication by hand. These thoroughly trained monastic scribes

developed writing into an art form. The specialization and time requirements of

reproducing books drew sizable compensation for the scribes, and they penned the few,

costly books primarily for the richest citizens. After the invention of the printing press,

however, the expertise of the scribes in making copies was not required. Instead, one

42

capable person without theological training could set the type and churn out many more

copies in a day than the meticulous scribes could by hand. With the printing press, many

more people could now write and publish to a much wider audience.20

The Internet has had the same effect to a greater degree. Whereas modern

publishing had expenses in publishing printed material (even though they were

significantly less than costs for the scribes‘ copies), sharing written material via the

Internet costs almost nothing. This means that anyone with a computer and Internet

connection—a condition that is increasingly becoming ubiquitous—can write and publish

anything to a potential audience of billions of people. This has had the effect of

democratizing communication—publishing and reading—and is moving us toward a

complete equality of access to global communication for everyone. Freedom of speech is

becoming universal. This is changing the nature of community and communal

structures.21

Another aspect of these new communal structures is that collaboration can

become an almost open-ended process. As Internet users invert traditional publishing

steps by first publishing writings, then allowing the readers to filter and edit the material,

the Internet-based collaboration process becomes increasingly fluid. With the Internet,

the ability to publish any thought for dissemination to a wide audience also gives an

opportunity for a wide audience to respond and to edit the material in perpetuity. This

characteristic is the opposite of traditional publishing media conventions where editors

thoroughly pour over material before publishing it. With this so-called publish then filter

20

Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, 66-69.

21 Ibid., 61-66.

43

process, anyone can publish anything to an enormous audience of persons who could

simultaneously be readers and editors. 22

Blogs, for example, provide an opportunity for folks to reflect and receive

responses to what they publish. In collaborative writing endeavors such as Wikipedia, the

ability to edit is almost universal. Almost anyone can update or edit an article, post a new

article, delete sections of an established article, or restore previous editions of a

maliciously redacted article. This has the potential to bring more reliable results than the

traditional top-down method. With publish then filter, a person who knows about a topic

but cannot write well can still publish the information. Then a person who has no

knowledge of an article‘s topic but has an excellent grasp of language can edit and

strengthen the article, a talented speller can make spelling corrections, etc. This widening

of opportunity for people to collaborate without ever meeting or coordinating is a new

form of egalitarian, bottom-up, and self-forming community.23

Specific Organizational Considerations for Research

In designing a PAR intervention for the newly formed Living Water congregation,

therefore, it was necessary to consider these organizational concerns. First, the

intervention had to account for the needs of a newly developed congregation moving

beyond infancy, it needed to nurture egalitarian, grass-roots organizational structure, and

it sought to cultivate a Spirit-led, communally-discerned vision for ministry together. In

applying these concepts at Living Water, it is first necessary to consider the specific

context for the intervention.

22 Ibid., 81ff.

23 Ibid.

44

Partial Ethnography and Congregational Background

Living Water Lutheran Church formed several years ago when a layperson who

felt a passion for planting a congregation in a growing area contacted the bishop and

synod staff and asked to start a new congregation. After conversing with the bishop and

other synod staffers, he met with a bishop‘s assistant and several local pastors. Finding

considerable interest in forming a new congregation in the local area, the layperson found

other persons in the area who were interested in starting an ELCA congregation. They

canvased the local neighborhoods together, leaving flyers and inviting residents to be part

of this new congregation.

A few years later, having achieved numbers approaching two-dozen people, the

ELCA sent a highly gifted and experienced mission developer to plant a new

congregation. He invited the original core group to join with him, and they did. In

canvassing numerous area towns and neighborhoods and visiting tens of thousands of

people by going door to door, the congregation grew enough to sign a charter as an

official congregation in 2001. Construction on a million-dollar building began in 2004

and reached completion in 2006. The new members of the congregation were from varied

backgrounds. Several were disaffected members of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

(LCMS) congregations in two local towns. Others were transplanted former ELCA (or

predecessor bodies‘) members who had been part of other local congregations. Still

others were unchurched or dechurched24

persons. The mission developer, giving

opportunity to channel resources to growing the ministry, accepted payment below

24

Unchurched refers to persons, normally adult, who have never been active in organized religion

or congregations. Dechurched persons are those who have, for whatever reason, walked away from

organized religion for a significant period.

45

adjudicatory compensation guidelines and waived healthcare benefits due to Medicare

coverage for himself and for his wife. His wife also served in an unpaid position as the

full-time Parish Administrator.

The mission developer retired in early 2008, and when he and the Parish

Administrator left the congregation, they left a major void in the leadership of the

congregation. Whether it stemmed from a Christendom top-down leadership mindset or

from the practical need to establish a healthy congregation that many mission developers

experience, the perception of several members of Living Water is that the couple made

almost all congregational decisions, major and minor. They also did the majority of the

day-to-day chores. A highly gifted and capable Parish Administrator followed them and

they hired an additional Administrative Assistant. Following the retirement of the mission

developer, the congregation called an Interim Pastor, who was a significant source of

conflict and consternation among the congregation members. In early 2009, the

congregation called their first full-time post mission-developer pastor. This pastor is also

the researcher for this PAR effort and the author of this thesis.

After the mission developer and the Parish Administrator left, Living Water began

to have some problems. Some members left when the mission developer left, while others

left later due to concerns about the interim pastor. The congregation called the next pastor

quickly in an effort to get a new permanent pastor, possibly stemming from a desire to

restore equilibrium and a sense of security. The newly called pastor has sought to utilize a

more communally based form of decision-making and vision discernment. Even so, there

has still been a sense of unease for some because of the differences in ministry styles.

This is because it is a change from the mission developer‘s top-down method of vision

46

casting, which is common practice during the mission development phase. The newly

called pastor considers this change beneficial, because:

Vision, then, must emerge from this engagement with the context rather than be

foreseen and laid over it. Gadamer points out how significantly our ability to see

and articulate our vision is shaped by the limits of our experiences and the

worldview from which we have come. If we take this insight to its logical end, the

reality of vision is always shaped by the limits placed on vision by those charged

with seeing and articulating it. Traditional models of leadership often fail to

account for this: the result can be leaders who are effective in the short-term work

of advancing a cause but who struggle with long-term effectiveness.

When the driving force behind the vision departs from the scene—for whatever

reason—the community is at risk of losing the vision altogether. Within the

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America we often witness this in what we call the

―after pastor‖ effect in mission development and redevelopment: this is a system

that has had relatively good health and missional effectiveness on the surface but

suddenly goes into decline when the leader leaves. The sense of vision, the gifts

and ownership of ministry, and the ability to sustain it apart from the gifts of the

leader are inadequate to overcome the centrist approach to leadership that served

the system but did not equip it for ongoing work when the one who was the

keeper of the vision departed.25

As it stands today, the congregation is exceptionally healthy, with its strength of

community, lack of cliques, and depth of perichoretic mutual burden bearing and

ministry. Things have gone well with the newly called pastor in ministry and pastoral

relationships.

Other stressors, however, have been present in this first year of ministry. These

stressors come from several sources, including financial difficulties, anxiety over recent

denominational decisions, and the loss of a significant number of members because of

these decisions or the ministry of the interim minister. Even so, people are increasingly

ready to leave these things behind in order to move forward in ministry, with hope and

25

Daubert, ―Vision Discerning vs. Vision Casting: How Shared Vision Can Raise Up

Communities of Leaders Rather Than Mere Leaders of Communities,‖ 161.

47

excitement for potential in shared ministry, both within the congregation and in the wider

community.

Transitioning From Top-Down to Bottom-Up Organizational Structures

For a congregation, then, to move beyond infancy and pastor-directed ministry to

congregation-based shared ministry, it is important to find ways to help congregants to

examine their identity as members of the Body of Christ, and to move from

inward-focused building actions to outward-focused evangelical activity. In the

organizational theory of ―The church is, the church does what it is, the church organizes

what it does,‖26

there is a strong emphasis on considering congregational identity issues

with respect to the first element—the church is. It is necessary to discern the

congregation‘s identity before bringing change in what the church does and how it

organizes that activity, to move from inward-focused to outward-focused activity.

The process of discerning missional vision seeks to do that specifically, with an

emphasis on the missio or sent aspect of church life. The fact that community in the

Internet-era is formed through egalitarian, voluntary collaboration that originates from

the grass roots—as opposed to the top-down expert strategies of the modern era—also

provides opportunities, habits and tools to enhance and encourage this type of voluntary

participation. In the PAR intervention, various small group opportunities played an

important role in developing an interconnected web of congregant relationships, to help

transition from a top-down to a grass-roots organizational structure. It was also important

26

Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: a Community Led by the Spirit, 17.

48

to provide several opportunities and means for congregants to engage and connect with

the vision cultivation process.

Small versus Large Group Process

In order to begin to cultivate cohesive vision in a group such as a congregation, it

is essential to create space and an environment that will facilitate healthy and mutual

conversation in the context of caring and respectful relationships. It is impossible to

guarantee that people will form such relationships, since using force or rules to require

people to communicate mutually and freely would inherently curb or destroy the

opportunity for such free and mutual relationships. Even so, it should be possible to set a

stage that fosters healthy relationship building, both with guidelines that give healthy

boundaries shape, and space for this type of conversation, and by nurturing caring

relationships between participants as they fill that space.

Increasing Need for Intimacy in Society

A group must have a level of cohesiveness in order to build relationships capable

of healthy dialog about difficult issues. It is helpful to nurture and create such

relationships in an effort to discern and describe a shared vision, and to work together to

achieve it. Any work that seeks to cultivate a missional vision will have an effect on a

group only insofar as the group is cohesive with strong relationships. It will also only be

effective if the participants embrace the vision, appropriate it, and assimilate it into their

personal and communal lives.

In order for the PAR intervention for this thesis project to have the greatest

impact, therefore, it contained elements intended to function through strong interpersonal

relationships. The concept of cultivating missional vision has, in fact, an included goal of

49

strengthening and building relationships within the congregation and with the

community.

This fits a growing need in the United States, because research shows that

Americans are more lonely and disconnected now than they have been for decades.

According to recent research, Americans are growing increasingly more isolated socially.

More of us have fewer close friends or confidants with whom we may discuss personal

matters than Americans have had in the past. Even as communication via Internet and

cell phones increases, intimate social ties are shrinking, and are becoming nonexistent for

far too many people. In fact, in difficult times, many people have to suffer with their

problems alone.27

Research that relies upon the relationships and cohesiveness of a group cannot

take for granted the existence of a network that is strong enough to bring interest in

participation, as well as a desire to work together to engage one another in healthy dialog

in discerning a shared vision. In order to be effective and even as part of the ultimate

goal, this PAR intervention needed to encourage the growth and strengthening of

interpersonal relationships. This occurred both within larger groups, and through the

formation of small groups, both of which have different possibilities for shaping and

nurturing relationships and conversation.

27

Shankar Vedantam, ―Social Isolation Growing in U.S., Study Says The Number of People Who

Say They Have No One to Confide In Has Risen,‖ Washington Post (Washington, DC, 2006). The

newspaper article references an article published by Duke University researchers: Miller McPherson, Lynn

Smith-Lovin, , and , Matthew E. Brashears, ―Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion

Networks Over Two Decades,‖ American Sociological Review 71, no. 3 (2006): 353-375.

50

Group Size

The size of a group can foster or hinder healthy dialog. Groups of varying sizes

have differing strengths and weaknesses, and can provide opportunities for various kinds

of conversation. Small groups are better suited for fostering relationships, and for more

intimate conversation and deliberation. Small group leaders, then, need training to

facilitate conversation and help group members to participate authentically and fully in

conversation. Small groups encourage intimate, heart-felt conversation.28

Large groups, on the other hand, are better suited for conveying information,

drawing expert opinion from group members, or for experts to share information with a

wide audience efficiently.29

Thus, for sharing information, teaching, and other activities

that aim at increasing knowledge, it is better to use a lecture format with a larger group.

For example, if the goal of a Bible study is primarily to foster relationships and to

draw forth perspectives from everyone involved, it is better to have a small group that

encourages participants to discuss and share feelings and matters of the heart. If, on the

other hand, the goal of the Bible study is to impart information and to teach biblical

stories and theological concepts, then it is much more desirable to pool resources and

bring in a talented scholar who can teach a large group of people.30

It is also important to note that leadership within any group is a key element to

nurturing healthy interactions. Within small groups especially, the leader is an important

part of nurturing a healthy and enriching small-group experience. For purposes of the

28

Richard P. Schowalter, Igniting a New Generation of Believers, Ministry for the Third

Millennium (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 100.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid., 103ff.

51

PAR research, therefore, it was important to spend time at the beginning of the small

group experience to train persons to facilitate conversation within the clusters. Training

participants to lead discussion and facilitate conversation among small-group participants

was essential to ensure healthy and successful small-group interaction.

In both large and small groups, there must be a force of vision and purpose to

unite the group and foster unity in purpose and meaning. One way for this to happen is

through communal, shared vision for ministry.

The Efficacy of Vision for Leading and Bringing Change

A shared purpose or vision unites an organization, whether it consists of large or

small groups. Having this shared vision unites a group as an organization. Specifically, a

group is ―an assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an

aggregation.‖31

An organization, on the other hand, is ―something that has been

organized or made into an ordered whole,‖ or ―a group of persons organized for a

particular purpose; an association.‖32

In other words, a group consists of individuals that may not have any other

association or shared purpose aside from being members of the same group. This differs

from an organization, which is a group with a shared purpose which orders and organizes

it. The organization‘s vision draws people together to work in an organized fashion,

accomplish goals, etc. An organization without shared purpose or vision often times will

deteriorate into a disorganized group that may fragment or disintegrate.

31

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,

2004).

32 Ibid.

52

This understanding of the necessity for a congregation to share missional vision

and perspectives is a key component of the rationale for carrying out the PAR

intervention at Living Water. The shared vision, constituted by articulating purpose and

guiding principles that the group can use in making decisions and in living out a shared

faith, is essential for organizing the congregation with a shared ministry. Vision can be

considered from at least two perspectives; comparing the effect of vision on an

organization to the electromagnetic effect, and the effect of bringing a group together in

an act of love as a uniting force.

Vision and the Field Effect

Margaret Wheatley uses a metaphor for the effect of vision on an organization by

pointing to the field effect, such as that caused by an electromagnetic force.33

According

to electromagnetic theory, a changing magnetic field near a conductor causes electrons in

the wire to move. Moving a magnet along a wire will induce an electronic current within

the wire. This is how a generator works; a length of looped wire spins in close proximity

to a set of magnets, which generates an electric current. The converse of this is also

true—current moving in a wire induces a magnetic field. A motor works like a generator,

but in reverse; an electrical current applied to a length of looped wire in close proximity

to a set of magnets causes the spindle to react by turning.

Wheatley contends that shared vision acts upon a group of people in similar

fashion. Shared vision organizes a group invisibly to accomplish a shared purpose.

33

Margaret J Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World,

2nd ed. (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1999), 49ff.

53

We would start by recognizing that in creating a vision, we are creating a power,

not a place, an influence, not a destination. This field metaphor would help us

understand that we need congruency in the air, visionary messages matched by

visionary behaviors.34

The shared vision and purpose unites the group to form an organization. As it

permeates the organization, the unseen force of vision has the effect of bringing various,

seemingly disconnected actions into concert to accomplish the shared purpose and

vocation of the organization.35

Shared vision, therefore, is essential to a group being able

to organize, to answer God‘s call to ministry, and to achieve a shared purpose with love.

Vision, Lovingly Shared, as a Uniting and Motivating Force

While it is important for a group united with shared purpose to have an interest in

working together to achieve the shared purpose, it also needs an additional component.

The group must share motivation to accomplish the purpose. They must have a stake in

the success of the group. That interest must also be stronger than personal concerns in

order for the individuals to be motivated to sacrifice personal desires in furthering the

purposes of the larger organization.

Biologist Garrett Hardin describes the Tragedy of the Commons,36

which is a

tendency that groups have against pursuing shared goals through collective action. This

occurs when people have a stronger incentive to damage the public good for personal

gain than they have to nurture it through personal discipline.

34

Ibid., 55-56.

35 Ibid.

36 Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, 51-53.

54

An example of the Tragedy of the Commons is that of a group of shepherds who

utilize a shared pasture. The individual shepherds have competing interests; feed your

own sheep versus preserving the pasture for everyone. The self-serving interest is for

each to overgraze one‘s sheep secretly in order to maximize profit by selling the fattest

sheep at the market. On the other hand, the shepherds share a communal interest to

observe restraint, lest they all overgraze the pasture and destroy it. In this example,

everyone benefits communally and individually by sharing the pasture fairly, thereby

maximizing the community‘s profits as a whole.

This only happens, however, if everyone exercises discipline and restraint in

grazing the sheep. Everyone suffers if even one shepherd selfishly overgrazes the shared

pasture. When one or two shepherds decide to let their sheep greedily eat more than they

should, they are increasing their own profits considerably. They do so, however, at the

expense of the other shepherds and their flocks. This means that the disciplined,

benevolent actions of the conscientious shepherds will cause them to suffer as they fund

the profits of the greedy ones who decide to act selfishly. This creates a pressure or

incentive for everyone, through greed, suspicion, and mistrust, to destroy the shared

pasture or public sphere selfishly, in furtherance of each person‘s own individual

interests. This is the Tragedy of the Commons.37

Two of the ways that governance has sought to mitigate this tendency is through

dividing resources, and mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.38

Using the former

method with the shepherd example, the shepherds could divide the pasture into equally

37

Ibid.

38 Ibid. This phrase originated with Hardin along with the Tragedy of the Commons concept.

55

sized and equally resourced properties that each shepherd individually owns. Now, each

shepherd has an incentive to care properly for his or her own piece of the pasture, while

defending it from illicit use by the others.

Using the mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon method, the shepherds give

authority to a mutually selected third party to arbitrate and regulate individual shepherds‘

use of the shared land in furthering the greater public interest. Again, in the shepherd

example, this would be like electing a government who would fairly enforce mutuality

and sharing to prevent the shepherds from overgrazing their flocks within the shared

pasture.

Put differently, this means that collective action by an organization requires

sacrifice or loss by some of the members of the organization. To avoid the Tragedy of the

Commons, individuals must agree to forsake a personal gain for the betterment of the

larger organization or society. When individual members or a sub-group makes decisions

that benefit the larger organization, some members will lose. As the size of the group

increases, it becomes increasingly likely that the group will make decisions that cause

larger numbers of members not to get what they want. ―For a group to take collective

action, it must have some shared vision strong enough to bind the group together, despite

periodic decisions that will inevitably displease at least some members.‖39

Either this

vision can be enforced through power (as in the previous examples of dividing resources

or binding oversight) or it can be accepted willingly through mutual agreement and love.

This is a goal of the vision cultivation process. Vision unites a group to form an

organization, but it will only do so to the point that the group willingly adopts the vision

39

Ibid., 53.

56

as a means for shared discernment, decision-making, and action. Unlike the business

world, which uses compensation to motivate employees to embrace a shared vision,

congregations do not have the power to require members to work together in shared

ministry. Instead, individuals must decide to embrace a shared missional vision willingly

and work together with it. This means that love, in a decision to sacrifice personal

ambitions willingly in favor of the shared missional vision, is the only practical means to

achieve congregational unity and shared ministry. A vision cultivation process that seeks

to draw people together to discern and define a shared organizational vision is, therefore,

preferable to one that casts a vision in a top-down fashion that commands the

organization to adopt it. The cultivation process must seek to involve people in an act of

love that, together, brings forth missional vision that inspires as many people as possible

to share it.

Cultivating Shared Vision

Components of a Vision Cultivation Process

In seeking to embark upon a process of living with a shared missional vision in a

congregation, it is important to utilize a process that includes the following

characteristics:

1. The process must be egalitarian in nature. It must foster a shared process of

discerning and describing the vision so that the congregation will embrace it

widely.

2. It should increase interconnectedness, fostering community and a relational

network that can work together with a shared vision.

57

3. The process must cogeneratively cultivate a shared vision. In order for the

congregation to embrace the vision, it must grow from the members together

through prayer, Bible study, and mutual conversation. Cultivated shared vision

normally contains unexpected and unforeseen elements that emerge from the

collective effort and conversation of the participants.

4. The cultivation process needs to have multiple entry points and opportunities for

people to form community that allow for a variety of personalities and means of

joining and forming community. This allows for maximum participation and

helps build community.

Shared Vision

The Participatory Action Research (PAR) intervention utilized a form of the

visioning process Dave Daubert describes in Living Lutheran: Renewing Your

Congregation.40

This process did not to use the conventional top-down, leader-dominated

method of casting a vision for the future of the organization. In fact, it used a different

understanding of vision.

For many, vision has been like a picture of a place that is far away and in the

future which the organization works to enter into and achieve. This understanding of

vision requires a few—or even one—gifted and perceptive individual(s) to accurately

perceive and articulate the future vision to the organization. With this understanding, the

task of leadership is to cast the vision and then motivate the organization to achieve it.

40

Daubert, Living Lutheran: Renewing Your Congregation, 91-95.

58

This can have the effect of making the vision something that seems unachievable in the

short term and even somewhat unlikely in the long term.

Alternatively, with a grass-roots method of vision cultivation, vision becomes a

way for the organization to interpret events and make decisions in the present. Instead of

understanding vision in terms of a picture of a future reality, shared vision becomes a

shared way of currently viewing reality and making decisions together. This type of

vision cultivation is more like helping an organization to discover a new and shared set of

eyeballs or lenses through which the organization and its members perceive reality and

choose how to act in the present. This has the effect of making an immediate impact on

the organization as they live into an unforeseen future through living with the shared

vision.41

The process for an organization to discern a shared vision is, in a sense, never

complete. Even so, the vision contains specific elements. In grass-roots vision cultivation:

Vision = Purpose + Guiding Principles + Time42

With this understanding, the organization lives with a shared vision, as it lives

together and makes decisions in accordance with common guiding principles and works

together with common purpose. Over time, the organization lives into the future, slowly

discovering an unimagined future in the midst of living together and making decisions

with the shared purpose according to the guiding principles.

This understanding of vision contains all of the components of a vision cultivation

process. It is egalitarian and increases interconnectedness. It allows members of the

41

This is based upon concepts in Daubert, Living Lutheran: Renewing Your Congregation.

42 Ibid., 46.

59

organization to act according to conscience and encourages them to work together with

others in shared purpose with common guiding principles. It allows multiple entry points,

because the future goal is something that the organization continuously discerns as

members come and go over time. Finally, the process for discerning the shared vision

utilizes a cultivation process that allows vision to grow cogeneratively from within the

organization.

Cultivating Vision: A Community Garden

The process an organization uses in working together to cultivate vision has a

direct impact on the result derived from the process. A faulty process normally yields an

undesirable result, and a healthy process has the best chances for yielding a beneficial

outcome. This means that an organization that seeks to live together with shared vision

needs to discern and define that vision in a manner that cogeneratively cultivates shared

vision. In an organization that seeks to deliberate and act in ways that are egalitarian, that

increases interconnectedness, and that allows multiple entry points, the process of

cogeneratively cultivating shared vision inherently builds organizational habits of

working together with shared vision.

This concept of cultivating organizational vision is similar to the concept of a

shared community garden. In commercial farming, the emphasis is on maximizing crop

yield to maximize profit. The farmer, with perhaps a few paid helpers, works extensive

pieces of land using machines, chemicals, and modern techniques to get the land to

produce sizable crops that the farmer sells for profit. The land and the act of farming

become a means for the farmer‘s financial ends.

60

In a community garden, however, the wider community shares the garden. As

people come to work the land and tend the plants, they work together with a shared vision

for tending and nurturing a garden that the community can enjoy as they share the yielded

crop. In this way, the work of gardening and sharing the crop has the desirable side effect

of forming and nurturing human community. The crop feeds the individuals who

personally and carefully worked together to nurture the plants that yield the produce.

With a community garden, the garden and the community, together, both become the

ends and the means for living together. The people in the community share common

bonds as far as each person embraces the shared garden and participates in nurturing it

and receiving the crop. Even the plants themselves become part of a symbiotic

relationship with the people in the community, as people nurture life in the plants through

tending the garden, and the plants nurture life in the community by yielding food for it.

This concept of a community garden is a major philosophical foundation for the

process of cultivating missional vision in this PAR intervention. The intervention

embodies this concept by encouraging the congregation to form relationships and to

discern shared missional vision cogeneratively.

There were several entry points and opportunities for community to form,43

including small group discipleship, a congregational retreat, Wednesday night meetings,

deliberation on shared vision posted publicly with invitation for all to contribute, etc.

Throughout the process, the researcher communicated ideas and results publicly in

various ways, with invitation for dialog and widespread participation in the discernment

and decision-making.

43

Cf. previous discussion about self-forming, bottom-up communities.

61

The congregation formally embraced the shared vision in a congregational

meeting. This cultivated and shared vision will be central in moving forward in common

ministry at Living Water. It is also an open-ended process, with the possibility for

revising and growing the vision in the future. In this way, both the individuals and the

congregation nurture one another in a symbiotic relationship, rather than one becoming

the means for the other‘s ends. As members nurture the health of the congregation, the

congregation nurtures the growth and well-being of the members and the wider

community.

The extent, however, that the vision and cultivation process make an impact on

the congregation is dependent upon the depth and quality of congregational participation.

A process of cultivating vision must happen in a way that inspires people to participate as

fully as possible.

Practical Considerations

In order for an effort to organize people to work, it must capture the interest of the

people in the group, it must have a structure that facilitates the organization, and it must

inspire the group‘s members to participate. An organization cannot exist without

members and membership is impossible without an organization.44

In organizing a group,

leaders hold out promise for the benefit of the members and community to embrace and

enjoy as they mutually participate in the organization. Leaders provide tools that allow

the members to interact in ways that bring the promised benefits. Finally, leaders

44

Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, 263. This concept of promise, tools, and bargain undergirds his

understanding of new ways that society chooses to organize as our connectivity via the Internet continues

to influence and change how we interact.

62

encourage members to accept a bargain that encourages full participation by the

members.45

Promise

In order for people to agree to prioritize a new demand on their time and energy

over existing ones, the promise they hear in the invitation to participate must clearly

communicate something that they will perceive as being a worthwhile priority. In any

effort to encourage participation, persons must see a clear benefit in doing so. The

promise must be something that strikes a balance between being mundane and excessive.

It must contain explicit promises, and may include some implicit ones. One should be

able to articulate it succinctly in a way that encourages enthusiasm for participation.46

With respect to literature and key theories presented in this chapter for research,

the researcher made two key promises in conducting the PAR intervention. First, the

members of Living Water heard the promise of an opportunity to live out their faith

together, in ways that would encourage deeper relationships in the midst of an organized,

relational community. The researcher encouraged relationship building through more

intimate, small group experiences as well as more public, congregational activities.

Second, an implicit promise in the research was that individuals‘ faith would

grow as Living Water engaged in the process of vision discernment and in living

faithfully together with the resultant shared missional vision. This promise also included

the assertion that living together in the shared force field of missional vision would

45

Ibid., 260ff.

46 Ibid.

63

encourage deepening of relationships with stronger, lay-led missional activity in daily life

in the congregation and community.

Tools

The second practical area to consider in planning the intervention pertained to

tools the researcher used to implement the intervention. Different tools are appropriate

for different situations. Small groups are better at fostering conversation; thus, they are

better suited to help groups to converge on a single perspective. Larger groups, on the

other hand, give a wider pool of people who can bring expertise to a problem. They allow

loosely connected or even unconnected people to pool knowledge without having to

agree on anything in particular.47

In planning various aspects of the vision cultivation

process it was necessary to tailor the tools used to foster interaction, along with the sizes

of the groups, to help achieve the best possible outcome for the desired aspects of the

PAR intervention.

With this in mind, the Damascus Travelers were a key component in building

relationships that encouraged members of Living Water to converge on a shared

understanding of vision for ministry.48

These small group components were present at the

congregational retreat, as well as before and after the retreat. The intervention also

utilized large group conversation involving the entire congregation to allow people to

bring their expertise to bear on the vision‘s basic building blocks that surfaced in the

smaller groups, in the congregational retreat, and during the Wednesday night meetings.

47

Ibid., 266-77.

48 See appendix I for specifics on the content of the Damascus Travelers readings and discussion

questions.

64

The congregation council conversed as a small group and worked together to converge on

set purpose and time statements. These statements then fed back into conversation at a

congregational forum where members‘ wisdom could surface and impact the shared

vision. The small-group congregation council then discussed and integrated the

congregation‘s perspectives into the final statements. They brought these final statements

back to the larger congregation for approval and adoption. In this way, the benefits of

larger and smaller groups interacted to serve as tools to refine and define shared vision

that bubbled up from the congregation, encouraging greater acceptance and use.

Bargain

Whereas the promise provides an opportunity for members to understand what

benefits they receive from participating in an organization, and the tools provide means

for meaningful interaction, the bargain describes the activity that the organization asks

for or expects from the members. Participants have to agree to the bargain, and it must

become a part of the relationship and interaction between the individual members and the

group. Again, the group needs to have the members participating even as members need a

group in which they may participate. If the promise states the responsibilities of the

organization to the individual, then the bargain states the responsibilities of the member

to the group. The researcher designed the tools to maximize and augment the fullest

possible interrelationship between the organization and its members. The bargain

encouraged and inspired members to interact with one another to discern the shared

65

missional vision cogeneratively. The researcher worked to tailor the tools to assist with

this need.49

For the PAR intervention, the bargain took the form of an expectation that the

vision cultivation process participation would be constructive, authentic, and lively.

Again, the small group aspect helped foster accountability of individual members and

encourage a greater level of participation. In addition, participants that shared public

comments included their names with their remarks to encourage constructive

participation. By requiring people to take responsibility for their statements, conversation

remained relatively civil and constructive. Finally, allowing members the freedom to

choose the level of their participation invited healthy interaction and a greater likelihood

that the members would appropriate the congregational vision, to varying degrees, as

their own.

Conclusion

For a congregation to cultivate missional vision, it is important for individuals to

form structures of organization that draw them together in a shared vision and purpose.

There are various aspects of a complex community, such as the one at Living Water

Lutheran Church, that require care in implementing and living with shared vision for

ministry. This vision, lovingly shared, can bring God‘s people together with a set of

principles to guide them in making decisions and working together in shared ministry.

The principles of this vision, as a missional vision, are founded theologically in a biblical

and theological understanding of the relational and perichoretic triune God. Through

49

Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, 270ff.

66

living with this vision, God draws people into the caring, redeeming, and reconciling

reign of Christ‘s kingdom.

Huntley

67

CHAPTER 3

BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Some people brought a blind man to Jesus and begged him to touch him. He took

the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village; and when he had put

saliva on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, ―Can you see

anything?‖ And the man looked up and said, ―I can see people, but they look like

trees, walking.‖ Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked

intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.

(Mark 8:23b-25)

In this section of Mark‘s gospel account, Jesus is miraculously feeding and

healing people, even as the Pharisees and religious leaders confront Jesus about his

authority. The disciples, also, do not understand why Jesus is doing these things, as he

makes his journey to Jerusalem and the cross. Along the way, ―some people‖ bring this

blind man to Jesus and beg him to heal the man. Ultimately, Jesus does heal him but it

takes two healing attempts to restore the man‘s vision completely.

This man‘s blindness is similar to the cultural cataracts of the disciples, the

Pharisees, and the crowd, each of whose preconceived notions blind them to the true

mission of Jesus Christ. Jesus tells the disciples repeatedly that he is on his way to

Jerusalem to die and rise again from the dead. Yet, like the blind man whose vision only

partially clears with Jesus‘ first touch, the disciples and others do not understand or

accept the purpose and scope of Jesus‘ mission. Nonetheless, Jesus repeatedly tells the

disciples about his pending death as they journey to Jerusalem.

With these repeated spiritual touches, Jesus is cultivating missional vision among

the disciples. With what he says and does, Jesus is cultivating a way of looking at the

68

world and at daily life that sees and perceives God‘s in-breaking kingdom. Jesus

repeatedly encourages the disciples to see it as well. As they live with Jesus, see him die,

experience the risen Christ, and share these experiences with others in the days after the

ascension, the disciples continue on a path of increasing clarity of vision as the Holy

Spirit works to cultivate vision for God‘s reconciling activity in the world.

In answering the research question, ―How does cultivating shared missional

vision in a newly developed congregation impact the lives of congregants and how they

relate to others in the community?‖ the researcher worked to cultivate missional vision

among the people of Living Water Lutheran Church. The hope is that congregants grew

and will continue to grow in their understanding of God‘s missional vision, and that this

will impact the lives of congregants and how they interact with the community. In

working to achieve this, leadership cultivated missional vision specifically by working

with people and shaping systems that helped and encouraged people to see life through

eyes of faith.

Casting versus Cultivating Missional Vision

In considering what it means to have missional vision, it is helpful to remember

that vision is a way of viewing and perceiving life with a shared perspective. It is a way

of viewing the world that allows people to make decisions together in light of a shared

understanding of God‘s call to life and mission. Rather than casting a prepackaged vision

or goal to reach, the cultivation process seeks to nurture a new vision that, through the

work of the Holy Spirit, helps a congregation to see the world and make communal

decisions in God-inspired ways.

69

Chapter 2 discusses the concept of moving from understanding vision as

something that the leader casts to something that the community discerns. Vision is

something that leaders cultivate among people. It is something that equips them to make

decisions from a shared missional perspective in praxis and vocation. Instead of a leader

going off to define vision then coming back to cast it and convince everyone to achieve

it, vision is cultivated in the midst of God‘s people, as together they listen and discern a

shared new way of living in the world.1

Even so, in Scripture, there are examples of both vision casting and vision

cultivation, as God and other leaders interact with God‘s people. Moses, for example,

received and cast God‘s vision for life among the Hebrew people after God freed them

from slavery in Egypt. On the other hand, the apostles cultivated vision, with God‘s

guidance and inspiration, for the life of the new Christian community in the world.

Examining both means for visioning yields insight into the concepts of vision casting and

cultivation.

Vision Casting in Exodus

In casting a vision, a leader or small group of leaders often withdraw(s) from the

community for a time of prayer and discernment. Together, the leader or leaders seek to

define a vision for an ideal goal or situation that the people are to work together to attain.

After discerning the vision, the leader returns to describe the vision to the people. The

expectation is that they will, as faithful followers of God and God‘s appointed leader,

embrace the cast vision and work together to achieve it.

1 Daubert, ―Vision Discerning vs. Vision Casting: How Shared Vision Can Raise Up Communities

of Leaders Rather Than Mere Leaders of Communities,‖ 147-71.

70

An example of this occurs in Exodus 19, when the Hebrew people arrive at Mt.

Sinai after God has freed them from oppression under Pharaoh in Egypt. Upon arriving at

Mt. Sinai, God tells the people to wash their clothes and prepare for him to come to the

mountain (Exodus 19:10). God then instructs Moses to climb the mountain alone so that

God may speak with him, saying, ―You shall set limits for the people all around, saying,

‗Be careful not to go up the mountain or to touch the edge of it. Any who touch the

mountain shall be put to death‘‖ (Exodus 19:12).

In doing this, God is casting the vision for communal life of the Hebrew people

after freeing them from slavery in Egypt. God is also casting vision for communal life for

the journey to the promised land of Canaan and for daily life after they arrive. To do this,

God first speaks to the people and gives them the Ten Commandments. As the people

hear the power in God‘s voice, accompanied with a dark cloud, thunder, and lightning,

they are afraid and they tremble before God‘s power. After this, Moses climbs the

mountain to receive God‘s vision fully. As Scripture describes it,

When all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the sound of the

trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they were afraid, trembled, and stood at a

distance, and said to Moses, ―You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let

God speak to us, or we will die.‖ Moses said to the people, ―Do not be afraid; for

God has come only to test you and to put the fear of him upon you so that you do

not sin.‖ Then the people stood at a distance, while Moses drew near to the thick

darkness where God was. (Exodus 20:18-21)

While the exact sequence of events is unclear, it appears that Moses remains on

the mountain for forty days and nights receiving the vision from God as recorded in

chapters 20-31 of Exodus. This vision includes various components. God‘s people are to

be a light to the nations and a priestly kingdom.2 There are limits for retribution that

2 Exodus 19:5-6.

71

victims can exact from the perpetrator,3 limits on profiting from the poor,

4 and

requirements for justice irrespective of financial class.5 There are requirements to treat

the least in society, such as widows, orphans, and resident aliens, with dignity and special

consideration.6 The vision includes administrative components, such as a requirement to

have a census.7 God gives Moses numerous proscriptions for annual festivals

8 and the

temple cult.9 While the Law God gives to Moses contains numerous proscriptions and

prohibitions, the overall theme and intent of the Law seems to be an emphasis on

fostering shalom; peace with God, peace with others, and peace with self.

While on the top of Mt. Sinai, however, God tells Moses that fear has driven the

people to forsake God. The people convince Aaron to lead them to worship other gods.

―Come, make gods for us,‖ they tell him, ―who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the

man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of

him‖ (Exodus 32:1). They gather the people‘s gold, some of which they had plundered as

God liberated them from slavery in Egypt, in order to melt it down and cast it into an

image of a calf. Aaron then proclaims a worship festival and they make plans to offer

sacrifices and burnt offerings before the golden calf. As a result, God angrily threatens to

destroy the ―stiff-necked‖ Hebrew people and ―make a great nation‖ of Moses (Exodus

3 Exodus 21:12ff.

4 Exodus 22:25ff.

5 Exodus 23:1ff.

6 Exodus 22:21ff.

7 Exodus 30:11ff.

8 Exodus 23:14ff.

9 Exodus 25ff.

72

32:9-10). Moses pleads on behalf of the people, making the case that if God destroyed

them then it would be an unfavorable witness to the people of Egypt. Because of Moses‘

plea, God ―changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people‖

(Exodus 32:14).

Upon his return from the mountaintop, Moses enters the people‘s revelry bearing

the two stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments. After listening to Aaron‘s

fallacious recounting of the circumstances surrounding the calf‘s construction, Moses

angrily destroys the golden calf and the two stone tablets inscribed with the Ten

Commandments. As punishment for rejecting God and the cast vision, Moses commands

the leaders to kill about three thousand people, and God brings a plague upon them.

Ultimately, Moses returns to the mountain to receive a replacement set of slabs. When he

returns again, the people are ready to receive the vision that Moses casts and follow the

precepts of the Law.

Aspects of Vision Casting in Exodus

In this story of God speaking to Moses, who discerns and casts the vision for

God‘s people to embrace and embody, six aspects provide insights into problems

stemming from reliance upon vision casting to motivate and form community. These

aspects include:

A requirement for an extremely talented and charismatic leader to discern and

cast the vision. Dave Daubert refers to this as the Great Man or Woman concept.10

Vision casting requires a leader who has the ability to discern and cast a vision,

10

Daubert, ―Vision Discerning vs. Vision Casting: How Shared Vision Can Raise Up

Communities of Leaders Rather Than Mere Leaders of Communities,‖ 149.

73

while motivating people to accept and follow it. Only a small percentage of

leaders actually have this ability.11

Not only that, but vision casting can be

beneficial only if the leader is conscientious and constructive. Due to its reliance

on power and charisma, vision casting is prone to manipulation should the

followers place their trust in an unscrupulous leader.

Vision casting is inherently exclusive and hierarchical. In the Exodus story,

Moses sets off a boundary around Mt. Sinai that the people may not cross.12

In

this case, discerning the vision is an activity reserved for the elite.

Fear is an important component of respect, which is required for the people to

follow the leader in vision casting. Prior to Moses‘ assent of Mt. Sinai, God uses

an awesome exhibition of power to awaken fear in the people, in the hopes that

the fear will inspire them to accept and embrace of the cast vision.13

This fear does not sustain long-term acceptance of the cast vision, however, as the

fear necessary to motivate the people to continue to embody the cast vision is a

short-term and fickle motivator. Shortly after Moses and the cloud, lightning, and

thunder depart, the people begin to fear other, more immediate things. Because of

these proximate fears, they abandon God and Moses while seeking to receive

protection and providence from other gods. Since fear does not engage the will

beyond the extent of the exercise of power, their allegiance and acceptance of the

vision wanes when the powerful display subsides and the charismatic leader

11

Ibid.

12 Cf. Exodus 19.

13 Exodus 20:20.

74

withdraws. Consequently, while the people may accept the cast vision initially,

they do not embrace it or appropriate it as their own in the long term. It is only

after God‘s power and the leadership of Moses return that they accept the vision,

albeit under the pain of plague and death.

On the positive side, the vision itself is missional, considering cultural mores of

the time. Nonetheless, even though the cast vision is missional and inclusive, the

exclusive nature of the process sows the seeds for subsequent rejection of the

vision among God‘s people. In later Old Testament experiences, God sends

prophets to remind the people to live according to the Law of Moses, God exiles

the people to Babylon because they have rejected the Law, etc. Even so, as Jesus

also states in Matthew 5:17-18, the Law itself is good even if the people do not

embrace it consistently. Since coercion and fear are the foundations of the process

for discerning, describing, and embracing the vision of the Law, it does not

inspire the people to accept it in the long term in shaping a just and compassionate

society. This inherently undermines the content of the vision and Law.

Finally, by not engaging the people in the discernment process, the casting

process inherently objectifies the people. Instead of being treated as partners in

ministry, Moses comes down from the mountain with an expectation that they

will accept and embody the cast vision without question. There is no dialog. The

people are not really allowed to appropriate the vision for themselves. They are to

accept either the vision or punishment, like animals that are commanded to obey

the master‘s instructions. In the vision casting process, they are not permitted to

75

help shape the vision or to decide to embrace the vision, join the community, or

love God and one another freely.

Moving From Vision Casting to Vision Cultivation

In casting vision for communal life as God‘s people, Moses brings a vision that he

discerns from God and casts among the Hebrew people. God‘s extreme power,

accompanied by violent and even deadly enforcement, is required to compel the people to

accept it. Unfortunately, this acceptance seems to last as long as the fear of retribution.

When other more fearful or enticing circumstances arise, the Hebrew people forsake the

Mosaic Law to reject God and even embrace other gods in worship. Repeatedly, God

either calls the Hebrew people to return to the ideal of the law14

or punishes them when

they forsake it.

In the person of Jesus Christ, God reverses strategies for wooing the Hebrew

people to embrace and embody God‘s vision for a community founded in grace, mercy,

and love. While it is an oversimplification to state that Jesus‘ vision of the kingdom of

God15

is an updated form of the Mosaic Law, it nonetheless contains similar foundational

principles for living in community. Jesus‘ Sermon on the Mount, for example, is

reminiscent of the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai, and it focuses on fulfilling the intent of

the Mosaic Law. At the beginning of this address, Jesus notes, ―Do not think that I have

come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly

I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will

14

Cf. ―Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners

tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers; but their delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law they meditate

day and night‖ (Psalm 1:1-2), among many other exhortations and calls to embrace the Mosaic Law.

15 Matthew refers to this as the kingdom of heaven.

76

pass from the law until all is accomplished‖ (Matthew 5:17-18). He then repeatedly goes

on to lift up various aspects of the Law, saying ―You have heard that it was said …‖

(Matthew 5:21, for example) after which he gives a new contemporary application,

saying ―But I say to you …‖ (Matthew 5:22). Again, it is not a precise retelling or

reframing of the original Law of Moses, but the underlying themes of justice and shalom

are present in Jesus‘ remarks on the Sermon on the Mount.

There is a key difference, however, between the Mosaic Law and the Sermon on

the Mount—that being the visioning process. Again, in Exodus, God speaks to Moses

who brings the Law to the Hebrew people in a top-down fashion. After rejecting God and

his vision for shalom, the people bear the pain of their sin and brokenness. On the other

hand, in the Gospel accounts, God humbles himself to take on human flesh and become

one of us. God walks among the people, speaking and listening, as Jesus and the disciples

mutually bear the burdens of life. Most strikingly, instead of violently enforcing the

Law‘s precepts, God in Christ bears the pain and separation of sin and humanity‘s

rejection of God. In the passion of Christ, God bears that brokenness, heals it, and

overcomes it, thereby redeeming humanity from the dark powers of sin and separation.

Jesus then returns to the Father, and God‘s Holy Spirit descends upon and enters into

God‘s people to dwell inside of them to continue the work of redeeming them and

healing the divisions that humanity‘s sin causes.

Furthermore, in contrast to Moses‘ vision casting that objectifies and bends the

wills of God‘s people to accept the Law, the mutuality of the indwelling Spirit respects

the personhood of God‘s people by inviting them to respond to God‘s grace in faith. This

is a key component of any vision cultivation process, as it engages folks in mutual dialog

77

and discernment, nurturing and deepening relationships with God and one another from

the grass roots. God‘s activity in the community, cultivating missional vision, is evident

in Acts as the disciples wrestle with the question of how to invite and incorporate

Gentiles into the community of believers.

Cultivating Missional Vision in Acts

In the early Church, there was a question about whether Gentiles would be subject

to the Hebrew Law16

—that is, to be circumcised and obey the specific provisions of the

Law—in order to be members of the Church. At one point, an angel of God visits a

centurion named Cornelius ―who feared God with all his household‖ (Acts 10:2) and tells

him to send for Simon Peter. Cornelius then sends for Peter, who travels to see Cornelius.

Along the way, God speaks to Peter in a vision and reveals the fact that nothing in

creation is unclean. In other words, God tells Peter to move beyond the specific legal

demands of the Mosaic Law to accept Cornelius as he is without requiring him or his

household to accept circumcision and the specific demands of the Law. As Peter

contemplates the vision, Cornelius‘s men arrive. At the direction of the Holy Spirit, Peter

talks with them. The next day, Peter goes with them to Cornelius‘s house. After arriving,

Peter does something a good, practicing Hebrew person would normally not do; he enters

the unclean house of a Gentile centurion. As Peter is sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ,

the Holy Spirit descends upon Cornelius and his whole household, just as the Spirit did

on the day of Pentecost. This surprises the circumcised believers who were with Peter at

16

In the discussion of vision in Acts, the term Law refers to the Law of Moses as interpreted by

and expanded upon in the Pharisaic tradition.

78

the time. Peter gives instructions for everyone in Cornelius‘s household to be baptized,

and he stays with them for several days.

After this, Peter returns to Jerusalem, where the ―circumcised believers criticized

him, saying, ‗Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?‘‖ (Acts 11:2-3).

Peter recounts to them all that has happened, from the vision where God spoke to him, to

the pouring out of the Holy Spirit with Cornelius and his household coming to faith and

being baptized. At the end of the story, Peter asks, ―If then God gave them the same gift

that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder

God?‖ (Acts 11:17). As the story continues, ―When they heard this, they were silenced.

And they praised God, saying, ‗Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance

that leads to life‘‖ (Acts 11:18). For those talking with Peter, the matter of whether or not

Gentiles are welcomed into Christ‘s Church, without a requirement to be circumcised and

to observe the specific precepts in the Mosaic Law, is settled. Through mutual

conversation, the community discerned the voice of the Holy Spirit saying that faithful

Gentiles are welcome in the Christian community as Gentiles.

Even so, this did not settle the matter universally in the early Church. In the next

two chapters of Acts, Paul and Barnabas travel to various cities as they proclaim the

Gospel, and they find receptive audiences that include both Gentiles and Jews.

Everywhere they go, however, a group of people in the crowd continually stirs up

opposition to the inclusion of Gentiles among the ranks of Christian believers. This is a

recurring problem for Paul and Barnabas.

Finally, the apostles call a meeting in Jerusalem, and they appoint Paul and

Barnabas to go there to refute those teaching that, ―Unless you are circumcised according

79

to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved‖ (Acts 15:1). At this meeting, there was

lively debate among the gathered people. Some advocated for circumcision and the

requirement for all believers to follow the specific precepts of the Law. Paul and

Barnabas, on the other hand, held that in numerous places many Gentiles were coming to

faith in Christ and that God was doing amazing miracles among the uncircumcised

Gentile Christians. Peter then described the vision where God spoke to him, and he

shared the fact that although he had previously advocated for circumcision and observing

the specific precepts of the Law, God had brought him to a new understanding regarding

Gentile circumcision. Finally, James spoke and shared a new interpretation of Scripture

from Amos.

In a decision that shaped the makeup and practices of the Church forever, the

people who assembled at Jerusalem decided to articulate a vision for ministry that

allowed Gentiles to become Christians, with some minor instructions regarding food

sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality. Gentiles would have to forsake their

pre-existing gods and religious worship to embrace Christ and the Church unreservedly,

yet they would not have to accept circumcision or be required to live according to the

specific precepts of the Law.

In moving forward, the Church now had a new vision for life together. Previously,

the Christian movement was primarily a movement within the Hebrew people who lived

outwardly by the specifics of the Law. As the Holy Spirit spoke to various people as they

discussed events and their various experiences, the community gathered, conversed, and

discerned together a new way of looking at life together in the Church. As they

articulated this new, shared, missional vision, one that included expanding the movement

80

to draw all people into a Christ-centered (rather than a Law-centered) set of faith

practices, they cultivated a new vision for life together. The new vision, founded on the

original themes of mercy and shalom in the Law, is now lived by praxis of servanthood

and sacrifice in the kingdom of God founded in the person of Jesus Christ. As they now

live with this new, shared, missional vision for ministry together, God reveals and forms

an unimagined future for the Church as millions of people came to faith in Christ by

God‘s grace.

Aspects of Missional Vision in Acts

God, then, cultivated missional vision in the early Christian community. In this,

God moved the community beyond understanding the Church to be an inward-looking

Hebraic reform movement. Instead, they had a new and shared vision of a ministry of

God‘s care and redemption wherein God is seeking to restore relationships and form a

community founded in mercy and shalom with and among all people. This new,

missional vision contains the following six key elements:

First, it is a new way of looking at life together. Rather than continuing to have

circumcision as a key factor for inclusion in the community of faith, God revealed

a new way. Now, faith in Christ and baptism into Christ is the foundation for

community. In this way, the newly discerned vision requires a radical

reorientation of understanding in the community that makes the movement

universally inclusive in its invitation to redeem and restore relationships in Christ.

Second, God reveals missional vision to Peter, Barnabas, James, and others.

Vision for ministry has God as its exclusive source, and the people grasped,

understood, and articulated it in the community of faith.

81

It is communally discerned, which is the third key element. The process does not

simply seek to find something for everyone‘s agreement. Instead, people in the

community prayerfully seek God‘s vision so that, together, they can faithfully

articulate vision that God reveals. In Acts, God simultaneously revealed the new

vision for inclusion of Gentiles to several different people in ministry across a

wide area. When they came together to discuss it, they realized that the Holy

Spirit had been speaking to them individually yet simultaneously. As they wrote

in the statement describing the new missional vision, ―it has seemed good to the

Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials‖

(Acts 15:28). The vision was revealed by God and communally discerned.17

Fourth, the discernment process embraced the surrounding community and

culture with mutuality as the apostles listened attentively to Scripture, tradition,

voices outside the Church, and the voice of the Holy Spirit. The process of vision

discernment included voices from observing God at work in the world, ―And God,

who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just

as he did to us‖ (Acts 15:8). Peter acts by mutually accompanying Gentiles in

listening to God‘s voice when Peter accepts the invitation from Cornelius to visit

this Gentile centurion. In fact, this encounter sets Peter on a path to a new

understanding of Gentile inclusion in the Church.18

The vision discernment

process also included the biblical voice when James quoted Scripture from Amos.

It included the voice of personal experience. As Peter says, ―Now therefore why

17

Cf. Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: a Community Led by the Spirit, 104ff.

18 Cf. Acts 10.

82

are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that

neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe

that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will‖ (Acts

15:10-11). As the people gathered prayerfully to discern God‘s missional vision,

they listened to all voices as they sought direction from the Holy Spirit.

Fifth, the Holy Spirit led the process of discernment throughout its entirety. In

understanding and perceiving this new God-given vision, the Holy Spirit led them

throughout the entire vision-discernment process.

Finally, the process involved the entire community—lay people and leaders—as

they listened to the Holy Spirit and discerned this new, missional vision. The

vision was cultivated in a bottom-up fashion rather than having the leader(s) cast a

vision for life together in a top-down fashion. In the assembled group, everyone

had the opportunity to speak and engage in the process of discerning and

describing what this new missional vision would be.

In this process of discerning missional vision in Acts, a key event was the vision

that Peter had on the rooftop on the way to Cornelius‘s house. This vision of, ―What God

has made clean, you must not call profane‖ (Acts 10:15), had a large impact on the

discernment process. While Peter did not cast the new communal vision on his own, the

vision God gave him served as a starting point that the Holy Spirit confirmed and

expanded upon in the lives of others in the community. In similar fashion, theological

components from the missional church movement served that purpose in the

vision-cultivation process at Living Water Lutheran Church.

83

Components of Missional Vision

The work that people in the missional church movement have done was

foundational in the conversation throughout the vision cultivation process. With roots in

the Gospel in our Culture Network, the missional church movement has specific

characteristics. These include but are not limited to:19

Trinitarian theology, with the social model of the Trinity. The persons of the

Trinity dwell in perichoretic union with one another, and reach out to build

perichoretic relationships with us.

The missio Dei is a call and a mission to redeem all of creation that draws us into

the fullness of God‘s caring, redemptive, and reconciling reign (i.e. the Kingdom

of God). Caring for creation, redeeming humans in bondage to sin and darkness,

creating new relationships, and reconciling strained ones are signs of the

in-breaking Reign or Kingdom of God.

This mission of reconciliation comes to fruition in the person and life of Jesus

Christ, and extends throughout time and space by the work of the Holy Spirit

through the church‘s ministry and vocation in the world.

Trinitarian Facets of Missional Vision

The Social Trinitarian Model

God‘s essence as three divine Persons in union as one infinite God is impossible

for created beings to understand. Like the prisoners in Plato‘s cave analogy who have an

19

Some of these characteristics are based upon work by Craig Van Gelder, ―Rethinking

Denominations and Denominationalism in Light of a Missional Ecclesiology,‖ Word & World 25, no. 1

(2005): 30.

84

incomplete perception of reality because their entire understanding of it is formed by

watching shadows on a cave wall, we as finite and created beings cannot even begin to

perceive or understand the infinite reality of God. This means that any attempt to

understand, model, symbolize, or describe God will fall woefully short even if it is

accurate. Nonetheless, it is important to try to understand and describe the One in whose

image we are made, because in doing so, we can learn and understand more about the

human race.

With this in mind, even though the social model of trinitarian theology is

incomplete in describing the fullness of the triune God, it is nonetheless the first and

foundational component of missional vision. Some trinitarian theologies consider the

Trinity starting from a position of the oneness or unity of God, and ask, how can this one

God exist in three persons? Such theologies often focus on the essence and authority of

God. They can also border on modalism, as they focus somewhat on the essence and

God-ness of each person of the Trinity at the expense of the differentiation and

relationality of the three Persons. The social model, on the other hand, begins by

considering the three Persons of God, asking, how can these three persons exist as one

God? The social model emphasizes the unity of the Trinity through the relationality and

mutual indwelling of the three Persons with one another. This model is more helpful as a

foundation for the relational emphasis of vision within the missional church movement.

More specifically, the social trinitarian model recognizes God as ―the one divine

Being who eternally exists as three distinct centers of consciousness, equal in nature,

85

genuinely personal in relationships, and each mutually indwelling the other.‖20

Thus, the

three persons (hypostases) of the Trinity are distinct and bounded, yet they unite as one

both in essence (ousia) and in perichoretic, interpenetrating, and mutually indwelling

relationships.

This concept of perichoresis is essential to understanding the unity of the three

persons of the Trinity. Relationships that are mutually loving, giving, sacrificing,

reciprocal, equal, and inter-dwelling have potential to be perichoretic. One example of

perichoresis is that of a village, wherein the inhabitants take to the streets daily at a set

time to circulate around the neighborhood, mutually listening and sharing, bearing one

another‘s burdens, and relating to one another.21

The depth of relationality, then, of the

three Persons of the Trinity is essential to understanding God, creation, and in particular,

humans created in the image of God. The unity of the three Persons of the Trinity exists,

in part, in their common, perichoretic bond as the three Persons of the Trinity who share

one divine will, essence, and common bond.

Perichoresis, therefore, contains an element of mutual accompaniment. In the

Trinity, no hypostasis or person is greater or lesser than the others are. Even when the

Father sends Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit, there is a sense of mutuality and

accompaniment in the sending. For example, even as the Father sends Jesus, the Father

remains with him. As Jesus says, ―The Father and I are one‖ (John 10:30).

Furthermore, the mutuality of these perichoretic relationships extends beyond the

triune Godhead. In the Garden of Eden in Genesis, Adam and Eve seemingly had a

20 J. Scott Horrell, ―Toward a Biblical Model of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equivocation of

Nature and Order,‖ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 3 (2004): 399.

21 I am grateful for this analogy from one of my professors, Dr. Gary Simpson.

86

relationship with God marked by mutuality as they accompanied one another in the

garden. Yet sin marred that relationship and almost broke it. The relationship remained,

however, thanks to God‘s work to bring them back into perichoretic fellowship. After

disobeying God, Adam and Eve hid while God walked in the garden ―at the time of the

evening breeze,‖ looking for them and calling out, ―Where are you?‖ (Genesis 3:8-9).

This question echoes throughout Scripture and history as God constantly cares for

creation and redeems humanity from the dark power of sin, wooing and calling us back

into this deep and loving relationship.

This broken relationship between God and humanity persists throughout history

until the death and resurrection of Christ. When Christ dies, the perfect and perichoretic

relationships that the Son has with the Father and the Spirit are broken. Death, after all, is

the ultimate in separation and broken relationships. Nonetheless, when Christ rises from

the dead, the relationships between the Son and the Father, and the Son and the Spirit are

restored.

With a relationship of faith in Christ through the Holy Spirit, God extends that

restoration to redeem us from our brokenness and restore us to fellowship with God. In

the Incarnate Christ who is simultaneously fully God and fully human, God repairs this

broken relationship with humanity, and God restores a relationship of perichoresis and

mutual accompaniment. In the person of Christ, God kenotically22

humbles himself to

reach down, embrace our humanity, redeem us, bear our sin, and draw us up to restore

what was lost in Eden. In the person of Jesus Christ, humanity and divinity are

22

Cf. Philippians 2:7.

87

hypostatically united, thereby restoring a relationship of mutual burden bearing and

ministry.23

On the cross, Jesus loves us and redeems us by taking our pain and brokenness

upon himself and defeating the powers of darkness and division. At Pentecost, the Holy

Spirit enters into a hypostatic union with the church that mirrors the Christological

hypostatic union of divinity and humanity.24

In other words, as Jesus bears our sin and

redeems us from it, and as the Holy Spirit unites believers to the resurrected Christ

through faith and baptism, God reconciles humanity with God and with one another. God

thereby heals our sinful brokenness.

In this way, the sending of the Son and the Spirit in mission25

is a natural

outgrowth of the mutual and perichoretic nature of the social Trinity. The missional

Trinity is a natural outpouring of the social Trinity as the Father sends the Son and the

Spirit to reach out to humanity in our sin and separation from God and one another. In

this, God redeems humanity from the brokenness of sin and reconciles us to God and to

one another. God restores the perichoretic unity that God created us to share with him.26

By extension, God gathers and unites the church with and one another by the Holy Spirit

through baptism and faith in Christ. God then sends the church, as the earthly Body of

Christ, to reach out in sacrificial love to connect with others in God‘s perichoretic

23

Cf. Matthew 11:28-29 and John 20:21.

24 This is why, for example, Paul can refer to the Church as the Body of Christ in such places as

1 Corinthians 12:27 and Ephesians 2:14.

25 The root word of mission is missio, the Latin word for ―sent.‖

26 Cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17-21.

88

ministry of accompaniment, burden-bearing, redemption, and reconciliation. This belief

is a key aspect of true missional vision.

The Social Trinity in Missional Vision

In cultivating missional vision at Living Water, therefore, it is essential for the

congregation to understand the need for participating in the redemptive, missional, and

mutual perichoretic aspects of God‘s being. The congregation in relationship with God is

sent to join in God‘s work to free people from bondage to the dark powers of sin and to

share the freeing, reconciling Gospel. In this, God works to form and nurture faithful,

equal, free, loving, and mutual relationships with God and with one another.

In this way, Christian community can sacramentally be a living icon of the reality

of the social Trinity. As John Navone writes,

The Father who eternally pours himself out in selfless, self-giving love is seen in

the icon of the triune God, in the human self-giving love of his Son, pouring out

their Holy Spirit to draw all humankind together within the loving reciprocity of

the triune communion. The Son who eternally welcomes the selfless, self-giving

love/life of his Father is seen in the icon of those who welcome that same

love/life, the Holy Spirit of the triune communion recognized in the mutual love

of the disciples (John 13:35). The Holy Spirit of the Father and Son is ―seen‖ in

the self-giving and welcoming love that forms the body of Christ, the icon of the

triune communion.27

As people live both the perichoretic and missional aspects of the Trinity, they

embody the sacrificing, selfless love of Christ. This is the path to wholeness, peace with

justice, and a gracious society. This understanding was foundational both in the process

of cultivating missional vision and in the result. As a community works together to live

27

John J. Navone, Self-Giving and Sharing: the Trinity and Human Fulfillment (Collegeville:

Liturgical Press, 1989), 121.

89

perichoretically and reach out to connect with others, God‘s mission is accomplished,

furthering the coming of the fullness of God‘s reign throughout creation.

Missio Dei and the Kingdom of God Aspects of Missional Vision

The Missio Dei in God’s Reign

According to the social model of the Trinity, God exists as three persons, Father,

Son, and Holy Spirit, in perichoretic and mutually interdwelling relationships. The Holy

Spirit and the Son are sent into the world in the missio Dei, which is Latin for the sending

of God. As a derivative of the word missio, the mission of the Church is the sentness of

the Church. The purpose of God‘s mission (sending) into the world is to care for creation,

redeem people ravaged by sin, and reconcile relationships between God and humanity.

The Father sends the Son and the Spirit into the world to free people from

darkness and restore relationships broken by sinful humanity. The Son and the Spirit are

working to restore humanity‘s relationships with God, which we have broken by relying

upon other gods or powers. God‘s mission also includes the healing of our relationships

with one another, where we have damaged our relationships by using and mistreating one

another for selfish or unloving ends. God sends the Son and the Spirit to heal this

brokenness and restore right relationships. Specifically, as Paul writes:

So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away;

see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to

himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in

Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses

against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are

ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat

you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin

who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

(2 Corinthians 5:17-21).

90

The ―righteousness of God,‖ in this case, is a restoration of right relationships.

Understood in this way, righteousness is living in healthy and loving relationships with

God and with one another that are unmarred by the brokenness of sin. This caring,

redeeming, and reconciling mission of God, the missio Dei, thus includes restoring what

is broken in order to unite the church in the Holy Spirit as Christ‘s Body present in the

world. The missio Dei, by extension, includes the sending of the Church into the world as

the very presence of God working further to connect with people and with God. The

concept of missio Dei recognizes that God is already at work in the world, both inside

and outside of the church. 28

God sends the Church to participate with Christ in

proclaiming and experiencing the close proximity of God‘s kingdom. Put differently, as

the Church participates in communion with God through the Holy Spirit, God also sends

it—just as the Son and the Spirit, who are in perfect communion with God the Father, are

sent—to participate in the ministry of reconciliation that God is already doing in the

world. This is something that we do because this is who God is. ―God is a missionary

God.‖29

In carrying out the missio Dei, therefore, God directly assaults the powers and

principalities of darkness, sin and brokenness by taking them upon himself and defeating

them in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the Kingdom of God, or the

redemptive reign of God, entering into creation to overcome the dark powers and

principalities. God‘s reign is overcoming earthly powers of darkness, hopelessness,

28

Cf. Romans 1:19ff., where Paul argues that the divinity of the Creator is ―plain‖ to everyone by

observing creation.

29 David Jacobus Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission,

American Society of Missiology Series 16 (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991), 390.

91

bondage to decay, and brokenness, even as it has not yet reached its ultimate fulfillment.

As the self-emptying power of God‘s reign enters into a world that is overwhelmed by

powers that seek to use strength to gain humanity‘s allegiance apart from God, struggle

and strife ensues. Even so, the once for all victory of Christ, who never succumbed to the

temptations of using power apart from God‘s will, has defeated these dark powers and

continues to bring the fullness of God‘s reign lovingly to all of creation. This is the

―redemptive reign of God‖ that, through Christ, cares for and brings ―back to right

relationship all that was lost in the fall,‖ and enters into all aspects of human and created

reality.30

This reign, or kingdom, is broad and defined, although not rigidly so. It is also not

a vague concept or an imagined utopia, but it clearly exists and has specific traits. God‘s

caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign includes, but is not limited to, the following

characteristics:31

1. It is Good News. It is God‘s work in the world to redeem humanity and to create,

restore and reconcile relationships broken by sin. God‘s reign comes, restoring

order to the chaos of lives and relationships broken by sin. In this, God calls

people to repent, to change, and to recognize the lordship of Jesus. More

specifically,

30

Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: a Community Led by the Spirit, 110.

31 The list that follows is adapted from Mariasusai Dhavamony, The Kingdom of God and World

Religions, vol. 31, Documenta Missionalia (Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2004), 12-30.

92

It is repeatedly insisted in the Gospels that the members of Christ‘s Kingdom are

those that ... have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, shown mercy to the prisoner

and outcast—who have, in short, done the works of Christ (Matt. 25:31-46).32

2. It is already breaking into history, yet its fulfillment is eschatological and

universal. During his ministry, Jesus went about healing people and freeing them

from unclean spirits, yet the fullness of God‘s saving reign will be realized when

Christ returns in the second coming.

3. God‘s reign, as described in the Sermon on the Mount, changes everything. For

example, murder in God‘s Kingdom is redefined as hatred from the heart, adultery

is redefined as lust, etc.33

4. The kingdom is centered in Christ, who is king of all. ―It is significant to note that

the Kingdom is promised to those who attach themselves to the person of Jesus

and that to be his disciple means to be in the Kingdom of God. (Mk. 10:17-31, Lk.

9:57-62).‖34

Christ‘s kingship is founded in his self-emptying incarnation, death

and resurrection. ―Christ‘s reign over the world is established through his victory

on the Cross over his enemies, over all powers that brought rebellion and disorder

in the world.‖35

Through the humble giving of himself, God in Christ restores

order to chaos under Jesus‘ authority and reign.

32

(sic). John Bright, The Kingdom of God, the Biblical Concept and Its Meaning for the Church

(Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953), 221.

33 Dhavamony, The Kingdom of God and World Religions, 31:16-17.

34 Ibid., 31:19.

35 Ibid., 31:20.

93

5. God‘s reign is being actualized in and through the Spirit’s work in the Church, of

which Christ is King and head. 36

During Christ‘s earthly ministry, Jesus as God

in the flesh embodies the reconciling presence of God and humanity. Having

emptied himself37

to take on human form, God in Christ reaches out to call

disciples who grow in faith and their relationships with God, who then go out to

bear the good news that God‘s reconciling reign is near. After the crucifixion,

resurrection, and ascension of Christ, the Spirit comes and joins with the church

in a hypostatic union that embodies the union of God and humanity in Christ. In

this way, God is present in the baptized to accompany the church to mutually

proclaim and enter the kingdom of God.

The Missio Dei and the Reign of God in Missional Vision

Thus, bringing the fullness of the caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign of God

is the mission of Jesus Christ on earth, and the mission of the Holy Spirit in and through

the church. In cultivating missional vision, the congregation prayerfully asked questions

of God as to the call and purpose that God has for the individuals, the congregation and

for the community.

In listening to Scripture and in listening to the Spirit, God calls us to be Christ‘s

hands, bearing the caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign of God into our families,

church, and world. This reign, centered in Christ, is a call to embody the Kingdom

actively, as it is already breaking into our midst yet has not reached its fullness. This

36

Ibid., 31:23-24.

37 Cf. Philippians 2:5ff.

94

work of bearing God‘s reconciling reign is the work of the Holy Spirit living in the lives

and working through the vocations of the people of God.

Aspects of the Holy Spirit in the Church, Working in the

Vocation of Believers with Missional Vision

Gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Vocation of Believers

The Holy Spirit, in the faithful, daily vocation and ministry of the Church, carries

forth the work of Christ in reconciling the world to God through faith. The Holy Spirit

incarnates the Word of God in the sacraments and in the proclamation, witness, and

service of the Church in the world.38

The Spirit works in the world incarnate in the

church, to carry the reconciling Word in a dance of gathering and sending. In gathering to

receive the incarnate Word in Holy Communion, the Spirit goes out in the people of God

to:

Go from worship gatherings to share communion with the sick and homebound,

to invite others to the next celebration of the Eucharist, to fill grocery bags in food

pantries, to advocate for legislation that will reduce the number of hungry people,

to refuse to cross picket lines where workers are striking to be able to feed their

families, etc.39

Thus, the Holy Spirit brings the caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign and

Word of God, incarnate in the ministry and daily vocation of the priesthood of believers.

This work is the vocation, derived from the Latin word vocatio—calling—of God‘s

people in daily activity. In their daily vocations, God‘s people labor with God and see the

caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign of God come to its fullness. As the Psalmist

38

John F. Hoffmeyer, ―The Missional Trinity,‖ Dialog 40, no. 2 (2001): 110-111.

39 Ibid., 110.

95

writes, ―Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain‖

(Psalm 127:1).

Members of the priesthood of believers are not alone in their efforts to answer

God‘s call in daily vocations to work with God in bearing the caring, redeeming, and

reconciling reign of God. The Spirit gifts all of God‘s people with charismata, or divine

gifts, through which God works in and through people to bless others. These gifts are

widely distributed throughout the people of God in a ―symmetrical and decentralized

distribution of power‖ that allows the church to more faithfully ―correspond to the

trinitarian communion.‖40

As members of the Church collaborate with one another and

with the world perichoretically, they experience the ―reciprocal and symmetrical‖41

charismata in a way that reflects the reality of the Trinity missionally for the good of all.

Through these charismata, or gifts, God works in the daily vocation of the priesthood of

believers to bring the caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign of God to its fullness.

This happens, for example, when Jesus asks Peter to allow him to teach from

Peter‘s boat (Luke 5:1-11). Jesus is teaching a large crowd beside a lake. When the crowd

becomes so large that it presses upon him, Jesus climbs into Peter‘s boat and pushes out

into the lake. After teaching for a while, Jesus then tells Peter to ―Put out into the deep

water and let down your nets for a catch‖ (Luke 5:4). Peter protests, because these

professional fishers have been working all night without catching any fish. Nonetheless,

Peter relents, and puts his nets down in the area Jesus indicates. Astonishingly, Peter

pulls in nets that are so full of fish that they are about to break. There are so many fish

40 Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: the Church as the Image of the Trinity, Sacra Doctrina

(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1998), 236.

41 Ibid.

96

that when the fishers bring them into Peter‘s and another‘s boat, the two boats nearly

sink. Peter, along with coworkers James and John, fall at Jesus‘s feet and acknowledge

their sinfulness. Jesus then famously tells them, ―Do not be afraid; from now on you will

be catching people‖ (Luke 5:10).

As the priesthood of believers, God gifts and forms the church to embody and live

the caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign of God in daily life. Throughout the night,

Peter, James, and John were working at their occupation, occupying their time with trying

to catch fish and earn a living. Jesus comes along, and tells them to do exactly what they

have done all night and probably for years—let down their nets to catch some fish. The

only difference is that, in this case, Jesus says, ―Put out into the deep water and let down

your nets for a catch‖ (Luke 5:4). After casting his nets in the place that Jesus told him to,

Peter now catches an excessive number of fish. Now, the occupations of Peter, James,

and John become vocations, or callings.42

Their charismata, used in accordance with

Christ‘s calling, not only yield an incredible harvest of fish, but they also become the

foundation for their further life and new-found ministry as Jesus now calls them to ―be

catching people‖ (Luke 5:10).

In this way, by using charismata in the vocation of God‘s calling, God calls the

church to embody God‘s kingdom as servants. The Holy Spirit leads the church into the

world to connect with others, bearing the Good News of Jesus Christ.43

The vocational

42

A vocation is a holy calling, a living out of God‘s voice in one‘s life. The root word of vocation

is vocatio, which is Latin for ―a call‖ or ―summons.‖ The root of vocatio is voc-, or ―voice.‖ Random

House, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, 2nd ed. (Random House

Reference, 2002), 2129.

43 Darrell L. Guder and Lois Barrett, eds., Missional Church: a Vision for the Sending of the

Church in North America, The Gospel and Our Culture Series (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub.

Co., 1998), 102-08.

97

work of the missional church is for each person, baptized into the triune God, to listen

prayerfully, live faithfully, and embody boldly God‘s call in praxis, through the

charismata, or gifts, of the Holy Spirit.

Vocation and the Holy Spirit in Missional Vision

In cultivating missional vision at Living Water, it was important to cultivate a

healthy concept of the call and vocation of each person as a member of the priesthood of

believers. Current habits in Christian life, however, can serve as an impediment to doing

this. Traditionally, members of congregations attend church and act passively, being fed

with Scripture lessons, the pastor‘s sermons, and the sacraments. After years of

participating in church life in this way, many Christians are shaped to have a passive—or

perhaps, inactive—life of faith. Instead, the church needs to transform this monolog into

a dialog, where people learn to confront the earthly powers that are at work in their

vocations and daily lives. Setting the laity free to actively live and share their faith daily

would have the effect of unleashing God‘s caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign more

fully in the world.44

It is essential, therefore, for a vision cultivation process to include a strong

emphasis on helping folks to revise understandings of calling and ministry. During a

missional vision cultivation process, it is necessary to encourage participants in various

settings, formats, and groups to see ministry in what may be an unfamiliar light.

Laypersons are the front-line ministers of the Gospel. As Braaten points out,

44

Carl E. Braaten, The Apostolic Imperative: Nature and Aim of the Church’s Mission and

Ministry (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985), 192.

98

Often, however, the laity gets the impression from their pastoral leaders that the

big battle is for bigger budgets, higher attendance, increased membership,

efficient kitchens and other status symbols. The modern tragedy of the church has

been the fallacy of a misplaced emphasis on itself, inevitably downgrading the

dignity of the secular ministries of laity in the world. 45

In cultivating missional vision, then, it was important to help folks to look at life

in the church from a new perspective. Instead of viewing the pastor as the chief

evangelist, the idea that ―Pastors are servants of the servants of God in the world‖ 46

was

a major component of and impetus for cultivating missional vision.

Cultivating Missional Vision

Within this community of a priesthood of believers enlivened and gifted by the

Holy Spirit to live the missio Dei of God‘s reign of reconciliation with the social Trinity,

God also calls leaders to specific ministries within the church and the world. Missional

leaders encourage conversation among God‘s people, as the Holy Spirit cogeneratively

brings forth shared vision for ministry.

Vision in Scripture

Peter and Paul

In the New Testament, Jesus renames Simon as Peter when Simon confesses

Jesus as Messiah.47

Jesus then goes on to communicate God‘s vision for the Messiah as

one of ―great suffering,‖ death, and then being raised.48

This does not match with Peter‘s

45

Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 Cf. Matthew 16:16 and parallels.


99

vision for what being the Messiah means, so he takes Jesus aside and rebukes him. Jesus

then turns to Peter and famously says, ―Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block

to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things‖ (Matthew

16:23). Peter does not have the fullness of vision, and when he acts upon his incomplete

vision, Jesus strongly repudiates him. Later, Peter meekly denies knowing Jesus, as

Christ is beaten and tried unjustly. Even after finding the empty tomb, Peter returns to

hide in a locked room with the other disciples. It is only after the resurrection, Jesus‘

post-resurrection appearances, and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that

Peter seems to view reality with God‘s missional vision. Peter then reaches out to the

community and boldly proclaims the Gospel. Through this bold proclamation, God brings

people to faith, to Baptism, and to the Eucharistic fellowship.49

After the Holy Spirit

clarifies Peter‘s vision, he steps out and boldly witnesses to God‘s reconciling activity.

Before that, Peter lacks faith so that he both actively50

and passively51

opposes God‘s

work.

Similar things happen with Saul of Tarsus, who persecutes the church until Jesus

confronts him and gives him first blindness, then clarity of vision.52

At first, Paul sees

through the eyes of law and power, and he viciously and murderously works to safeguard

the traditional understanding of Judaism and the practice of the Pharisaic Law. It is only

after Christ encounters Saul and asks him why he is persecuting Christians that Saul‘s

49

Cf. Acts 2:14ff.


51 Cf. Matthew 26:69ff. and parallels.

52 Cf. Acts 9.

100

vision changes. In fact, Saul‘s lack of Godly vision becomes physically evident in his

temporary blindness. Saul, whose name God now changes to Paul, then begins to

perceive life with a vision that sees things through the prism of God‘s gracious love as

Jesus bears it with the humiliation and suffering of the cross. He also sees clearly that all

people—slave and free, male and female, Jew and Greek (Galatians 3:28)—are called

and invited to enter into God‘s kingdom by grace apart from circumcision and works of

law.

The Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ in God’s Reign

For Paul, people answer this call and invitation to enter into God‘s kingdom of

grace as, in baptism and through faith, people become members of the Body of Christ on

earth. As Paul begins to discuss the idea of the Body of Christ in his first letter to the

church at Corinth, Paul starts with a conversation about gifts of the Holy Spirit. Examples

of the Spirit shining in and working through the lives of people include charismata,

service,53

activities, utterances of wisdom and knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, working

of miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits, various kinds of tongues, and

interpretations of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:4-10). In all of these activities shared among

the people of God, the Spirit activates and allots them as God chooses. Specifically, in

working through these various gifts, the one Holy Spirit unites the diverse group of

people as the one Body of Christ.

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the

body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we

were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all

53

diakoniw/n, or ―deacon‖ in English.

101

made to drink of one Spirit. Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but

of many. (1 Corinthians 12:12-14)

The active, divine person of the Holy Spirit unifies the diverse people of God with

a variety of charismata into the one Body of Christ. According to Paul, God does not

necessarily unify the Body of Christ as a group with consensus of thinking and full

agreement. Instead, God the Holy Spirit works through the charismata of the people to

accomplish the missio Dei. The Holy Spirit unites the Body of Christ by virtue of the fact

that the Holy Spirit is working to accomplish the one missio Dei in and through the

charismata of the individual members of Christ‘s body.

In this, the Holy Spirit works in the people through the charismata in one shared

ministry of furthering the missio Dei. The Spirit works through the charismata of

individuals as they work in the world with shared vision. This work is missional only

because the Spirit gives the vision and the people work under the Spirit‘s leadership. It is

imperative that folks remember this caveat both during and after the vision cultivation

process. Vision will unite the people of God in one shared ministry only insofar as it

comes from and is the work of the Holy Spirit.54

This caveat is something that stands over against individuals who would seek to

manipulate the process or hijack aspects of the vision description to accomplish a

54

In practicing missional principles by seeking to deepen faith and connect with Christ, the

researcher walked a prayer labyrinth for the first time. During that time of prayer and discernment, God

revealed an understanding that there is a limit to what we can do to cultivate missional vision. There comes

a point when one just puts it out there in prayer, then lets go to release control and let God bring people into

God‘s caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign. At one point during the research, the congregation council

created a plan to invite congregants to go out into the neighborhoods nearby to knock on doors and visit

people. In preparing for worship that morning, the researcher in prayer used an image of this invitation

being a set of bones that council had set before the congregation in the hope that God and the congregants

would put flesh on the bones. That night, 28 people participated, by far exceeding everyone‘s expectations.

Recognizing the need and leaving room for the Spirit to work is essential in the ministry and work of the

missional church.

102

personal project or desire, or to increase personal power. As previously discussed, the

Holy Spirit worked to cultivate missional vision wherein Gentiles would not have to

submit to circumcision as recorded in Acts 10-15. As Paul and Barnabas preached the

Gospel throughout lands that were predominantly Gentile, people advocating

circumcision tried to subvert the new missional vision that the Holy Spirit was bringing

into the wider Christian community. They did this by secretly circulating throughout the

crowds as they sought to increase support for circumcision. This was in direct opposition

to the preaching of Paul and Barnabas, and ultimately, it opposed the work of the Holy

Spirit. Because of this, the efforts of those supporting circumcision failed.

It was important, then, to strive to keep Scripture study and prayer as key aspects

of the vision cultivation process. It was also important to the process to include the widest

number of members of the Body of Christ as possible. Again, the hope was that

maximizing member participation brought the greatest number of charismata from the

broad and diverse Body into the cogenerative discernment process. This has the greatest

potential for the congregation to continue to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit, who

personally unites the Body and draws it into the work of mutually bearing burdens,

connecting with Christ, and sharing God‘s love.

As members of Christ‘s Body listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit and respond in

faith, the community can begin to experience a decrease in human control, and an

increase of God‘s reign breaking into the midst of the community and beyond. There are

times when individuals willingly leave comfort zones of personal control to experience

God‘s reign more fully. At other times, life‘s circumstances bring persons and

communities into the wilderness. Even though these wilderness times can be

103

disconcerting and fearful, God nonetheless can use these experiences to connect people to

Christ and to one another. As persons and communities embrace and enter into these

wilderness experiences, they can bear one another‘s burdens mutually with God. In these

experiences, the community might experience God at work to bring them to a deeper and

even life-changing experience of community in what some refer to as liminality that

brings communitas.

Theology of Cultivating Missional Vision

Moving Beyond Community to Communitas

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005, it stripped away the veneer of

control that modern society imposes upon the environment.55

Without electricity, air

conditioners and refrigerators were inoperative. Due to hurricane damage, flooding, and

subsequent molding conditions, previously comfortable homes of various prices and ages

were either destroyed or uninhabitable. The hurricane not only took away almost all

human ability to control the environment and provide shelter, but it also stripped away

categories of race, socioeconomic status, level of education, etc. As one Biloxi inner-city

resident put it, ―We came here on different ships, but now we‘re all in the same boat.‖

In the response to Hurricane Katrina, local residents, nearby residents, and people

from far away worked together to restore order and bring healing to people harmed

emotionally and physically by the widespread destruction. Residents of the Gulf Coast

were jarred out of comfort zones and came together to regroup, recover, and rebuild.

People from across the country willingly left comfort zones to converge on the Gulf

55 The researcher went to the Gulf Coast six weeks after Katrina hit to assist in the recovery, and is

writing from personal experience.

104

Coast to bear the burdens mutually of those whose lives the storm had so radically

altered. In the midst of social chaos, people discovered that God worked to comfort, heal,

provide, and bring restoration out of the midst of destruction in ways that were

inconceivable and even miraculous. In fact, people on the Gulf experienced these

miracles of God‘s reign breaking into their midst with such regularity that the miraculous

almost became mundane. The Holy Spirit bound workers from across the country, along

with local residents, together with a comradery of shared experience and work that many

found to be deeply moving and life changing.

In leaving the comfort zone of modern society, Gulf Coast residents and others

who came to help with the recovery entered into experiences of liminality. Based upon

the Latin word limen, or threshold, liminal experiences allow persons to step out of the

mundane, everyday experiences of life to enter a transitional or chaotic environment.

Over the years, researchers have found that when individuals enter a liminal experience,

they will often build connections and bonds in an effort to overcome adversity and

survive. This experience can create relationships of comradery with a depth that is

unlikely in casual or mundane encounters. This depth of relationality, reliance, and

mutuality among persons experiencing liminality is communitas. Clearly, Hurricane

Katrina was a liminal event that God used to form deep relationships in the midst of the

shared risk and trust. In this, God worked to create a deep, mutual, and perichoretic

communitas.56

56

Based upon reflection from reading Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional

Church, 220ff.

105

As members of a community move beyond safety, security, comfort, and

convenience, they can experience liminality that moves them beyond themselves and

controlled environments to experience God‘s provision in the wilderness through which

God can create communitas. Missional leaders work to inspire others to move beyond the

limits of comfort zones in order to engage in shared liminal experiences. In doing this,

the community trusts God to work, shape, and form deeper and stronger cogenerative

relationships of mutual burden bearing. Through shared liminal experiences, God can

work to shape life-changing relationships in communitas experiences.

Missional, Cogenerative Leadership

Missional leaders, then, work within community to discover opportunities for and

enter into shared liminal experiences. Patterned after the example of Jesus, who

kenotically emptied himself to join humanity and bring people into God‘s kingdom

perichoretically and mutually, missional leadership cogeneratively collaborates with

others to recognize and enter into God‘s caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign.

Missional leaders also identify and nurture spiritual growth in others, who work within

the community to encourage the further cultivation of missional vision.

This mutual and cogenerative aspect is a key component of missional leadership.

It is important to foster an understanding and a desire among congregants to leave control

and comfort zones to enter God‘s control zone willingly through liminal experiences that

move them beyond themselves. Again, the leader does this with the congregants,

nurturing ever more leaders, as God forms communitas, and as the community together

discusses and grows from these experiences.

106

This happened with Jesus and his followers when he sent the seventy workers out

in pairs to the towns of Samaria in Luke 10. Jesus has just ―set his face to go to

Jerusalem‖ (Luke 9:51). He is purposefully and unswervingly now on a path to give

himself up to be crucified and to rise again from the dead. As he begins this journey,

Jesus ―appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and

place where he himself intended to go‖ (Luke 10:1). He gave them basic instructions,

telling them to focus on their purpose, to rely upon God‘s provision in and through the

mutual sharing of those whom they visit, and to be prepared for hard times. If those they

visit receive them, then they can enjoy the mutual hospitality and ―cure the sick who are

there‖ (Luke 10:9). If the people reject them, then they are to move on to somewhere

else. In all cases, however, they are to enter the town, proclaiming the same thing; ―The

kingdom of God has come near to you‖ (Luke 10:9, 11).

Put differently, Jesus trains the pairs of missional leaders and sends them out to

the places of liminality where he will be going to on his path to the Passion in Jerusalem.

These appointed missional leaders are in a mutual ministry—with one another and with

Jesus—of setting people free from sickness and unclean spirits, as they invite others to

recognize and experience God‘s caring, redeeming and reconciling reign. They are

accompanying Jesus in his ministry mutually on his path to Jerusalem.

This is borne out more fully as they return joyfully sharing the amazing things

they have seen and experienced, saying, ―Lord, in your name even the demons submit to

us!‖ (Luke 10:17). While cautioning them not to be exuberant about their power, but

instead to rejoice that their ―names are written in heaven‖ (Luke 10:20), Jesus

nonetheless shares their excitement. In an unparalleled expression of sharing this joy,

107

Jesus, ―rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, ‗I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and

earth‘‖ (Luke 10:21).57

In this extended conversation and prayer, Jesus rejoices with God

and the disciples in their shared ministry, apparently rejoicing at the fact that they have

experienced the wonder of life and communitas in God‘s caring, redeeming, and

reconciling reign.

As Jesus and the disciples, together, announce the coming of God‘s reign, they

mutually accompany one another in embodying and sharing that reign as they connect

with others to experience God‘s kingdom in their midst. As a practical consideration, any

process that cultivates missional vision must use a similar approach.

A Practical Vision Cultivation Process

In Living Lutheran, Renewing Your Congregation, along with his contribution to

The Missional Church & Leadership Formation, Dave Daubert articulates a process and

concept for cultivating missional vision in a congregation. This was the basic approach in

this research. The concern is that conventional wisdom and much of current practice

conceives of vision as something that is in the future. From this perspective, vision is

something that a gifted leader discerns, communicates to the followers, and motivates

them to attain. In cultivating vision, however, it is more helpful to understand vision as a

perspective or way of looking at current reality, that the community lives and works

together with, to enter into God‘s future.58

57

Emphasis added.

58 Daubert, Living Lutheran: Renewing Your Congregation. Also, Daubert, ―Vision Discerning vs.

Vision Casting: How Shared Vision Can Raise Up Communities of Leaders Rather Than Mere Leaders of

Communities.‖

108

This is a change in understanding vision as a future reality—that may or may not

be attainable—to one that sees vision as guiding present vocations that we can begin

work to achieve today. The latter understanding is important to the concept of cultivating

missional vision.

Vision is something that we share together in making decisions today, as opposed

to being a picture of a future reality that we are trying to bring to fruition. This shift of

understanding can affect a congregation‘s actions in ministry profoundly and quickly. For

example, instead of articulating a future vision of eradicating hunger in ten years, one

could articulate a goal of working together to eradicate hunger today. In putting the goal

ten years into the future, one would be saying that it is acceptable for a group of people to

remain hungry for the intervening 9½ years. Instead, it is better to work on seeing God‘s

kingdom fully realized—in this case, by actively helping hungry people have food to

eat—immediately.59

To do the work of communally discerning and articulating a shared vision of

ministry, vision contains specific elements. Put differently,

Vision = God’s Purpose + Guiding Principles + Time60

In this process, the congregation prayerfully and communally, with conversation

and Scripture study, discerned and articulated God’s purpose for the congregation, both

within itself and in the wider community. This purpose is a portion of the missio Dei, and

is an articulation of God‘s call in communal and individual vocation. The guiding

principles then are the specific action phrases that describe the communal life together.

59 This example comes from Dave Daubert by means of the researcher‘s personal conversation

with him.

60 Daubert, Living Lutheran: Renewing Your Congregation, 46. Emphasis added.

109

Examples of times might include ―Together we confess Jesus as Lord‖ and ―God

welcomes all in our midst.‖ As the community lives together and wrestles with questions

and ministry over time, God‘s vision grows and the future vision becomes clearer to the

individuals and the community as they collectively enter into it.61

Considerations for Christian Community in Cultivating Missional Vision

In order for the process of cultivating missional vision to have its full and desired

effect, the process itself must cultivate a missional community by design. A missional

community comes together in prayer, examining the world and community with the

discerned vision, to understand and embrace the aspect of the missio Dei that God is

specifically calling them to address. Then, the congregants support one another

perichoretically in living out God‘s call.

Jesus’ Participation in Small and Large Groups

In looking at Scripture, it seems that Jesus used a number of techniques to

embody and accomplish the missio Dei. He confronted the ruling authorities directly, he

suffered unjust punishment and death, and he gathered a small band of followers around

himself. This last item—working with small, defined groups—is most helpful in

developing structures for communally discerning God‘s call.

There were distinct differences in how Jesus interacted with larger groups and

with smaller groups. Jesus‘ interaction with larger groups tended to be either didactic or

confrontational. With smaller groups, Jesus tended to let his guard down a bit more, to be

more personal, and to reach out caringly.

61

Ibid., 46-47. Emphasis added.

110

An example of Jesus working with a small group is in the number of people he

had close relationships with during the time of his ministry. Jesus called twelve people to

follow him as disciples and to prepare for sending as apostles. Jesus also travelled with a

larger number of disciples who followed him in his ministry. Together, Jesus developed

personal, longer-term relationships, to varying degrees, with the apostles and disciples.

Jesus had a tendency to speak to the large groups in parables that could be

difficult to understand, which he would later unpack and explain privately to the

disciples. For example, after speaking in parables to a ―very large crowd‖ (Mark 4:1),

Scripture reports,

When Jesus was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked

him about the parables. And he said to them, ―To you has been given the secret of

the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order

that ‗they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not

understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.‖ (Mark 4:10-12)

Again, as Jesus accompanied the disciples mutually in shared ministry, God‘s

purposes were clearer to them. Life in the small group gave the disciples a privileged

position to understand more clearly the teachings that Jesus gave to the larger group

without explanation.

At a pivotal moment, Jesus questioned the disciples and worked with them to

hone their understanding of God‘s vision. He did this in comparison to more public and

widely held beliefs. The small-group dynamic helped the disciples to recognize and

understand Jesus for who he is.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his

disciples, ―Who do people say that the Son of Man is?‖ And they said, ―Some say

John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the

prophets.‖ He said to them, ―But who do you say that I am?‖ Simon Peter

answered, ―You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.‖ (Matthew 16:13-16)

111

Repeatedly, when Jesus wants to do momentous things, he chooses the small

group of the disciples, or even a subgroup thereof, to do his work. Jesus trains 70-72

disciples to travel to various villages to cast out unclean spirits, heal people, and to

proclaim the Good News that the Kingdom of God is near.62

Jesus reserves the Last

Supper and the ensuing conversation exclusively for the disciples.

Even more so, Jesus reserves the pinnacle moments for the very few people

closest to him. Repeatedly, Jesus singles out Peter, James, and John, a subgroup of the

apostles, to join him for significant events. Such events include the healing of Jairus‘

daughter,63

the Transfiguration,64

and Jesus‘ time of prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane

on the night of his betrayal (Mark 14:33).

There are still other examples. The sisters Mary and Martha also play significant

roles of a small sub-group with a personal relationship with Jesus in the Gospel of John.

When Jesus encounters Zacchaeus and his newfound faith, he calls him to come down

from his tree so Jesus can have dinner with Zacchaeus at his home for more personal,

intimate conversation. Finally, Mary Magdalene alone is the first person to see the risen

Jesus in John 20. Clearly, relationships with those closest to him are important to Jesus.

Through these relationships, both Jesus and others influence, and at times, even shape

one another, perichoretically.

The way that Jesus interacts with the smaller group is quite different from the way

Jesus interacts with larger groups. In all four Gospel accounts, Jesus provides food for

62

Cf. Luke 10, etc.

63 Cf. Mark 5 and parallels.

64 Cf. Mark 9:2ff. and parallels.

112

5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish. In this, Jesus himself does not feed

the five thousand people. Instead, in an example of vocation lived in the priesthood of

believers, the disciples figure prominently in the feeding, as Jesus tells the disciples to

interact directly with the crowd. This happens, for example, when Jesus tells them, ―You

give them something to eat‖ (Mark 6:37). On the other hand, in the Sermon on the

Mount65

and the Sermon on the Plain,66

Jesus clearly interacts with a large group by

teaching the crowd, but not in relating to them dialogically on the personal level with

which he interacts with the disciples.

Relationship Building through Small Groups

With this in mind, it is clear that small group interaction was an important

component of cultivating missional vision at Living Water. It was an influential part of

discerning God‘s call. It was vitally important in creating and deepening relationships

with the goal of forming a stronger, more perichoretic community of faith.

The formation and nurturing of small groups, called Damascus Travelers, helped

cultivate a network that would continue in the tradition of the apostles and disciples. It

provided a place for God‘s Spirit to work in personal relationships and conversations to

tickle the missional imagination of the participants. The Damascus Travelers groups were

lay-led with an egalitarian and perichoretic design. The relationships that people formed

in the Damascus Travelers groups helped further the goal of grass-roots vision cultivation

by giving relational structures for conversation and discernment. They helped to build

65

Matthew 5ff.

66 Luke 6:17ff.

113

and strengthen relationships among members, in the hope that members‘ relationships

with the wider congregation and community would be stronger as well.

Summary

It is important for leaders to work to cultivate missional vision in the

congregations they serve. This requires discipline for the leader to keep from trying to

shape and cast the vision for an ultimate or preferred destination. Instead, the leader tries

to help congregants discern God‘s vision for life. This inherently trusts that the Holy

Spirit works in the vocations and lives of members, through a vision for perceiving life

and making decisions, in furthering the caring, redeeming, and reconciling reign of God.

The PAR research methodology and intervention sought to accomplish this and reflect

upon its impact.

Huntley

114

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

The principle of emergence was developed to explain the ways organisms develop

and adapt in differing environments. Contrary to popular notions that they

develop through some top-down, predetermined, well-planned strategy,

emergence theory shows that complex systems develop from the bottom up.

Relatively simple clusters of cells, or groups of individuals, who individually

don’t know how to address a complex challenge, when they come together will

form, out of relatively simple interactions, an organizational culture of a higher

complexity that can address these challenges. In other words the answers to the

challenges faced by organisms and organizations in changing environments tend

to emerge from the bottom up rather than get planned before hand from the top

down. This is why we describe missional leadership as the cultivation of

environments within which the missional imagination of the people of God might

emerge.1

Recognizing the importance, then, of cogeneratively cultivating shared missional

vision as Jesus did with the disciples and as the Holy Spirit did in the midst of the early

Christian community, the researcher sought to cultivate shared missional vision in a

newly developed congregation. The method of Participatory Action Research (PAR)

seemed to be best suited for achieving this goal and for assessing the impact of doing so.

The purpose of the PAR at Living Water Lutheran Church was to unleash the

missional imagination of the congregants as they discerned, defined, and committed to

living in ways formed by the cultivated vision. This research was conducted in the hopes

that the ultimate result would include the people of Living Water reaching out to others in

the congregation and in the wider community to share the love of Christ and to

1 Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church, 263.

115

participate in God‘s work to redeem and reconcile everyone to God and to one another.

This work was done with a PAR process and intervention that sought to cultivate

missional vision in the congregation of Living Water. The research utilized the following

methodology in seeking to accomplish this in the midst of the people of Living Water

Lutheran Church.

Overview of Research Methodology

The research for this thesis utilized Participatory Action Research2 in seeking to

answer the research question. The researcher is a part of Living Water Lutheran Church

as a called pastor. The research relied primarily upon concurrent (quantitative-qualitative)

research methods to gather data to analyze in answering the research question. The

researcher‘s perceptions, notes, insights, and experiences also served as an informal

qualitative source. The overall structure of the research was as follows:

1. Formulate research question and plan.

2. Gain approval to conduct research for thesis, perform and document background

information, then refine the research plan based upon feedback.

3. Obtain a baseline evaluation of the congregation‘s understanding of shared vision

utilizing a concurrent quantitative—qualitative method. The research design

utilized quantitative methods to yield general, broad information about missional

faith practices. This quantitative data also provided insights into congregational

perspectives that the researcher utilized in planning and implementing the

2 Cf. Greenwood and Levin, Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change.

116

intervention. The researcher gathered data describing congregation practices and

perspectives using qualitative methods (yielding depth of information).

4. Implement the proposed PAR intervention by encouraging growth of relationships

by forming Damascus Travelers small groups and by working with the

congregation and congregational leaders to cultivate missional vision.

5. Obtain an endline evaluation of the impact of cultivating missional vision in the

lives of congregants and how they relate with the community after the

intervention. Concurrent quantitative and qualitative methods yielded data for

endline analysis.

6. Compare baseline and endline information and data to draw conclusions to

answer the research question.

7. Document research observations and conclusions. Submit final thesis for defense

and approval.

Specific Research Methodologies

Participatory Action Research

The primary research question for this thesis is, ―How does cultivating shared

missional vision in a newly developed congregation impact the lives of congregants and

how they relate to others in the community?‖ In answering the research question, a form

of PAR served as the primary research method.

In sociology, Action Research (AR) is a type of research that uses some kind of

iterative cycle that includes planning, action, and evaluation, then returns to planning, and

so forth, to learn how a group or organization reacts to various actions. Normally, there

117

are several iterations of this process; however, due to time constraints, the research for

this thesis utilized one iteration of this process.

Participatory Action Research (PAR), utilizes this AR concept, except the

researcher conducts the research as a part of the organization. With PAR, the researcher

implements some kind of action in hopes that the action will bring a favorable change or

improvement to the organization.3 The learning comes as the researcher and the

participants in the organization reflect upon the effect of the intervention. PAR was the

best method for this research, because it fits with the desire to have a process that

cultivates missional vision in a bottom-up, egalitarian fashion with the people of Living

Water and the researcher. PAR works for this application, because:

Participatory action research is not just research … nor is it simply an exotic

variant of consultation. Instead, it aims to be active co-research, by and for those

to be helped. Nor can it be used by one group of people to get another group of

people to do what is thought best for them-whether that is to implement a central

policy or an organisational or service change. Instead it tries to be a genuinely

democratic or non-coercive process whereby those to be helped, determine the

purposes and outcomes of their own inquiry. 4

In conducting this PAR, then, the change resulting from the intervention was a

deeper understanding of missional faith practices that members of the congregation

understand and live in daily life. As people find transformation in their perspectives, the

intended result would be that they would live with a deeper understanding and personal

practice of faith in a number of areas. This would also result in a more missional

approach to vocation and praxis outside of the congregation, which would impact

3 Cf. Yoland Wadsworth, ―What is Participatory Action Research,‖ Action Research International,

November 1998, http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.html, (accessed March 4,

2010).

4 Ibid.

118

members‘ relationships with persons in the community that congregants interact with on

a daily basis.

The intervention was the cultivation of missional vision for life, ministry, and

decision-making in the congregation. The response of the congregation and changes in

perspectives and practices due to the intervention in the congregation is the topic of this

research.

In conducting the research, the primary data-gathering technique was a concurrent

quantitative-qualitative method. A quantitative method provided data from a

comparatively broader sample that was used to gain perspectives regarding congregants‘

faith practices. Qualitative interview methods provided a deeper understanding of the

congregation‘s perception and embodiment of a missional vision. These methods, with

identical questionnaires and interview participants,5 yielded baseline and endline data.

The PAR method allowed for research based upon intervention with the

researcher as part of the system studied. The researcher analyzed the data using

quantitative and qualitative techniques, as appropriate, allowing for the determination of

the change that occurred in the congregation‘s perspectives and practices.

Other, unforeseen outside and inside influences can affect the outcome. These

outside influences included recent decisions by the Living Water‘s adjudicatory body, the

impact of the troubled economy, and the changes to the relationship between the

congregation and the mission developer.

5 The congregation council was interviewed in a group interview, and the two individuals were

chosen randomly according to age demographics from the congregation. The same two individuals were

interviewed for the baseline and endline data. The makeup of the council changed, over the year, however,

so although the same political entity was interviewed there were a few different people in the group at

baseline and endline interviews.

119

The researcher reflected upon results in light of theoretical foundations, as well as

through biblical and theological reflection. Prayer for discernment and leading by the

Holy Spirit were an important part of the research and reflection. Conclusions drawn

provided insights into possibilities for further research. Even though the scope of this

thesis was to use one iteration of the PAR action-reflection model, the possibility for

future research and/or reflection in ministry was raised for others, for the researcher and

for the congregation.

Intervention

The intervention occurred through a number of inputs into the congregation.

These inputs included the following:

1. Working with the congregation council to help congregation lay leaders to

understand the vision cultivation process. They were important in fostering

healthy dialog, participation, and communication at congregational events, and in

distilling the data to create guiding principles and purpose statements.

2. Working with the congregation council to help them implement and embody the

cultivated vision in commission meetings and in daily interactions. This included

helping them to understand, live, and practice the congregation‘s vision in daily

life, that they might encourage and help others to do so as well.

3. Creating and fostering small groups, called Damascus Travelers. These groups

formed after the baseline and before the congregational retreat. Congregants were

invited to form small groups for the purpose of building relationships,

encouraging mutual prayer, mutual accountability, and Scripture study. They were

an attempt to decentralize leadership in the vision cultivation process and to

120

encourage and provide a means for dialog in the vision cultivation process.

Participants in the Damascus Travelers were also encouraged to find and embrace

vocational ministry in praxis.

4. A congregational retreat followed by four weekly evening meetings. This is the

centerpiece of the vision cultivation process. The process relies heavily upon the

concepts contained in Dave Daubert‘s Living Lutheran book and the schedule was

similar to the ―Sample Event‖ in appendix F.6 The four weekly meetings

contained a similar agenda to the one for the congregational retreat. This effort

attempted to invite participation from congregants beyond those who participated

in the retreat. The congregational retreat agenda structure followed this outline:

a. The first session focused on discussion of missional church theology and

foundations with devotions.

b. The next session included study with individual groups studying and

discussing one each of Acts 2, 10 and 16. Participants then shared

perspectives with the larger group.

c. Later in the morning, individuals prayerfully described their understanding of

God‘s purpose for Living Water. Participants discussed these individual

responses in small groups, with specific descriptions of groups‘ understanding

of what a purpose statement should be for the congregation. Then, they shared

these perspectives with the larger group.

d. After lunch, groups reviewed the chapters of Acts they had studied earlier.

Then, individuals in small groups sorted through and described values and

6 Daubert, Living Lutheran: Renewing Your Congregation, 91-95.

121

principles the persons in these passages used in making decisions. The groups

sorted through these principles to discuss the most important ones. Then, they

shared these perspectives with the larger group.

e. Later in the afternoon, small groups met to consider these principles and to

state what values should be the guiding principles for the congregation as a

whole. Then, they shared these perspectives with the larger group.

f. The retreat ended with Eucharist and prayers for safe travel for participants as

they returned home.

g. After the congregational retreat, several of the participants met at a local

establishment to reflect on the experience and process the discussion

informally. This after-event meeting was very instrumental in fostering

cogenerative cultivation of missional vision.

h. Results of the conversations were written on newsprint and hung in the

Narthex with space inviting congregants who did not attend the retreat to add

written comments in the vision cultivation process as well.

i. After the retreat, participants had an opportunity to speak during worship to

share observations and insights gained at the retreat. The intent of this was to

invite as many congregants as possible to participate in the vision cultivation

process.

5. Damascus Travelers met biweekly, studying suggested readings related to

missional church concepts. In addition, the groups were encouraged to read the

122

lectionary readings from the Evangelical Lutheran Worship (ELW)7 hymnal daily.

Damascus Travelers were encouraged to converse and pray mutually for one

another both together and privately. The groups were also encouraged to grow

(and if clusters become large enough, to divide) through invitation and reaching

out to others. The groups were encouraged to reach out and minister together and

support one another‘s vocational ministry outside and inside of the congregation.

6. Midway through the intervention, at a council meeting, council members spent

extensive time during devotions to discuss the concepts of liminality and

communitas. The Holy Spirit provided a spark, and the council decided to move

the entire congregation into a liminal situation for the sake of being more

missional by shifting from two worship services at 8:15 and 10:45 a.m. to one

service at 9:30 a.m. They did this specifically to move the congregation out of

their comfort zone into liminality, while bringing everyone together to increase

interconnectedness. As the conversation continued, ideas for ways to be better

neighbors to those nearby came out of cogenerative, civil, and honest deliberation.

The council members specifically recognized these as ―baby steps‖ even as they

committed to helping the congregation stay out of their comfort zone to connect

with others and grow faith.

7. At the council meeting following the four meetings, congregation leaders sifted

through the information from the retreat and from subsequent congregational

7 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, Pew ed. (Minneapolis:

Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 1147-48.

123

feedback to form initial guiding principles and purpose statements. The council

communicated them to the congregation for discussion and review.

8. There was an open forum to encourage conversation for the congregation to

discuss the statements from council. Members were also encouraged to share

perspectives about the statements via email or written correspondence.

9. At the following meeting, the council revised the guiding principles and purpose

statements to incorporate the reflections from the congregation forum and

response.

10. A few weeks later, there was a congregational meeting to discuss and adopt the

guiding principles and purpose statement for the congregation.

11. Congregation council, commissions, and individual members were encouraged to

consider the guiding principles and purpose in making further plans and

decisions. Numerous congregants discussed the concept of Vision as something

that is lived into and of living with the guiding principles and purpose over time

in various forums throughout the process. They now seek to use the guiding

principles and purpose since their adoption. Congregants received instruction and

encouragement to live into the vision and to act and make decisions considering

the purpose statement and guiding principles.

12. Formal participation in Damascus Travelers concluded a few weeks prior to the

adoption of the guiding principles and purpose statement. The groups were

encouraged to continue to meet informally, but the formal program of the

Damascus Travelers ended. Depending upon the participation and enthusiasm

124

level of the clusters, the Disciple Commission may continue to work with the

Damascus Travelers as a small-group ministry of the congregation.

After the completion of the vision cultivation process, the congregation had some

time to live with the guiding principles and purpose statement. During this time,

congregants had reminders of the new statements in various publications and forums.

Congregants had opportunities in informal groups and in Sunday School classes to

discuss the new vision. The statements were prominent in preaching during Sunday

worship. The time following the intervention gave congregants time to live with the

guiding principles and purpose statement in moving forward into God‘s vision for the

congregation‘s ministry. Members discussed ways to embody the purpose statement and

guiding principles and to move forward and continue to discern God‘s vision. This

provided opportunities for reflecting upon changes in personal perspectives and practice

as enunciated in the endline data collection.

Metrics for Observing Changes in Congregational Practices and Perspectives

Efforts in the PAR Intervention endeavored to shape a deeper understanding of

missional faith practices as members understand and embody them in daily life. As

people‘s perspectives experience transformation, the intended result was that they live

with a deeper understanding and personal practice of faith. The intent was that this would

also result in a more missional approach to vocation and praxis outside of the church,

which will impact relationships with persons that congregants interact with on a daily

basis.

The locus of activity for the PAR intervention was the cultivation and

understanding of missional vision for life and ministry in the lives of congregants. In

125

analyzing the efficacy of the intervention in bringing about the desired change in

members‘ actions and perspectives, the researcher analyzed data in the following areas:

1. Personal faith practices and communal/vocational ministry. Data in this area

were gathered and assessed both in quantitative and in qualitative research data. A

quantitative questionnaire sought to gather data to compare congregants‘

perceptions of their practice in both personal practices and communal/vocational

ministry. This gave the researcher data about how much, in general, the activity of

congregants changed throughout the research. Qualitative questions also gathered

data that more specifically (and with greater depth) showed change in this aspect

of the members‘ actions and perspectives.

2. Understanding of the congregation’s shared vision. Through qualitative

questioning, data gathered and assessed helped to determine how well the vision

cultivation process led to an understanding of the congregation‘s shared vision for

decision-making and ministry activity.

3. Efficacy of how the congregation equips congregants for growth in personal faith

and communal/vocational ministry through the vision. Qualitative questions

examined how well the congregation puts the shared vision into action.

4. How congregation vision impacts personal/congregational faith practices.

Individuals answered questions about personal practices, while the congregation

council discussed questions about the congregational practices. The researcher

gathered further qualitative data to find specific ways that the cultivation and

determination of the congregation‘s shared vision impacted or influenced

congregants‘ personal faith practices.

126

5. How congregation vision impacts communal/vocational ministry. Qualitative

inquiry sought to find specific ways that the cultivation of the congregation‘s

shared vision impacted or influenced how the congregants reached out to others in

answering God‘s call to mission, and how their relationships with others changed.

The first metric looks at a general concept of the individual‘s missional practices

both inside and outside of the congregation. The second and third metrics examine the

congregation‘s vision and how well congregants understand and embody the vision. The

last two metrics examine what difference the vision actually makes in the life of

congregants and their relationships with others in the wider community.

Quantitative Research Data Gathering

Faith Maturity Scale

The Faith Maturity Scale8 (FMS), administered via a Convenience Sample after

both Sunday worship services at the baseline and endline, gave a broad survey of

congregation attitudes and actions with respect to faith practices and missional activity.

The baseline sample also served to provide information for the researcher in designing

and implementing the PAR intervention. The researcher chose the FMS because of its

applicability to this research, and its broad multi-denominational support and use.

―Evidence supporting the validity of the FMS makes it quite suitable for research use.‖9

Thus, the FMS was not field tested due to its history of validity for research.

8 Peter L. Benson, Michael J. Donahue, and Joseph A. Erickson, ―The Faith Maturity Scale:

Conceptualization, Measurement, and Empirical Validation,‖ Research in the Social Scientific Study of

Religion 5 (1993): 171-174.

9 Ralph W. Hood and Peter C. Hill, Measures of Religiosity (Birmingham: Religious Education

Press, 1999), 172.

127

The FMS questions focus on three important areas;10

views and faith practices

with respect to personal faith,11

views and faith practices with respect to the world,12

and

views and faith practices that integrate the two.13

With this in mind, congregants

completed a form of the actual FMS in its original and complete form, with the addition

of basic demographic questions (see appendix B). The researcher interpreted the results

as the authors of the study originally intended by means of an aggregate score. The

researcher also analyzed the results within clusters of (I)nward, (O)utward, and

(C)onnecting types of questions, and within various age groups. Baseline and endline

data comparisons used unpaired two-sample t-Test with unequal variances analysis to

determine what, if any, statistically significant change occurred. Participants had to sign

waivers in order to complete the FMS. They completed both the waivers and the surveys

via convenience samples on a Sunday after worship services at the beginning and end of

research.

Rationale for Breakdown of Survey Statements into Subgroups for Analysis

The FMS tool contains statements pertaining to various aspects of faith lived in

the lives of survey participants. While this can be helpful in determining faith maturity,

this research sought to identify changes in persons‘ faith specifically with respect to

personal beliefs and practices, and missional engagement in the world with others in daily

life. Although the FMS does not distinguish between personal or individual faith

10

See appendix B for a question by question breakdown of the three aspects that follow.

11 Inward-directed or personal faith views and practices.

12 Outward-directed, or faith views and practices that affect actions.

13 Connecting faith views and practices in the world; integrating faith and life.

128

practices versus those that influence missional activity, it is the researcher‘s belief that

the survey results nonetheless yielded insights into personal beliefs and practices with

respect to public, vocational, and missional practices.

For the purpose of this particular analysis, the results of the FMS statements were

grouped into three categories. The intent of doing this was to allow for targeted analysis

of the responses with respect to categories of I, O, and C inner beliefs with outer

understandings. The questions, along with the designation of I, O, or C as assigned by the

researcher is located in appendix B. Criteria used to assign statements to the various

categories are as follows:

Inner (I) statements focus on personally held beliefs, private faith practices, or

issues related to stewardship of body, mind, or spirit. Respondents could hold these

personal beliefs or practice in such a way that they would not necessarily or specifically

affect the person‘s activity in the world. (Example: ―I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of

God who died on a cross and rose again‖). The thirteen statements on the FMS in this

category are 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, 24, 26, 30, 32, and 34.

Outer (O) statements pertain specifically to the person‘s activity in the world, or

specifically focus on what one thinks are ideals for people to strive for in the world.

These are actions, as written, which do not specifically derive from beliefs. (Example: ―I

do things to help protect the environment‖). The ten statements on the FMS in this

category are 1, 4, 6, 8, 13, 16, 21, 22, 31, and 33.

Finally, Connecting faith and life in the world (C) statements describe action

based in personal beliefs. They may be actions that derive from beliefs, or they may be

beliefs that change due to action out in the world. To fit into this category, the statements

129

must specifically assert that some belief directly impacts activity with others or in the

world. It may also describe how beliefs affect opinions about others or about God at work

in the world. (Example: ―My faith shapes how I think and act each and every day‖ On the

other hand, ―I speak out for equality for women and minorities‖ is an O because it does

not show how that action is based in or stems from a direct impact on personal beliefs.).

The fifteen statements on the FMS in this category are 3, 5, 11, 14, 17, 18, 23, 25, 27, 28,

29, 35, 36, 37, and 38.

Data Analysis

In all data analysis, the questions that were reverse scored (5, 10, 25, and 26) were

analyzed by reversing the numbers. Thus, for data analysis, responses coded as 1 were

analyzed as 7, responses coded 2 were analyzed as 6, etc. Reverse-scored results

described in this thesis are described in this fashion. To analyze the data, the researcher

created a database in Microsoft Access and entered the data in the database. The data

were then exported to Microsoft Excel, and the researcher wrote programs in Visual

Basic for Applications to format the data in Excel for analysis, to use the data analysis

tools in Excel, and to format the data for output and publication. The histograms came

from reports in Access. These graphs were exported from the Access reports and

formatted for publication.

Baseline and endline results from the FMS were analyzed using the unpaired

two-sample t-Test with unequal variances analysis technique (see appendix D). The first

table compares baseline and endline averages of responses to all 38 questions for all

respondents, for those aged 18-59, and for those aged 60+. The next three tables show the

results of analysis within the I, O and C categories for all ages, for 18-59, and for 60+.

130

The last three t-Tests were performed to analyze data for each question with categories

for all ages, 18-59 and 60+. For all t-Test data, a P (T<=t) one-tail probability less than

.05 designates a statistically significant change from baseline to endline surveys. Results

in that column are highlighted to denote a value less than .05.

Data from the FMS were also analyzed, by individual question, to find the mean,

standard deviation, median, mode, kurtosis, and skew. These results were tabulated for

both baseline and endline responses for all ages, 18-59 and 60+. Finally, histograms

graphically showing the number of responses for each possible response (numbers 1-7

possible) for each question were generated. Three different sets of histograms show

baseline and endline data for all ages, 18-59 and 60+.

Qualitative Research Data Gathering

Qualitative Interviews

In using PAR to answer the research question, the researcher also analyzed

qualitative data derived from interviews. In gathering qualitative data, the researcher used

open-ended questions to gain depth of data about how peoples‘ perspectives changed in

response to the intervention. This tends to be somewhat more organic than the process of

gathering data through quantitative means such as the Faith Maturity Scale questionnaire.

This helped the research to yield additional, deeper insights into the effects of the

intervention at Living Water.

The researcher kept this desire to gain a depth of data in guiding conversation and

seeking data during the qualitative interviews. In the initial, baseline interviews,

questions sought information to describe participants‘ initial understandings, vision, and

practices of the missional perspectives at Living Water. Information from other sources

131

also informed the researcher‘s interpretation of the data—results of the quantitative

surveys, personal diaries, newsletters, bulletins, etc. In comparing this with the endline

qualitative interview data, the researcher gained insight into changes the intervention

brought in answering the research question. From the qualitative interview data, then,

various categories and trends of change in the congregation‘s practices and perspectives

resulting from action with the intervention were available for analysis and consideration.

Qualitative data provided selective depth of information for consideration in the

conclusions.

The original plan was to select two participants randomly for the qualitative

interviews from the active membership of the congregation according to two general

categories; one person aged 20-39 and one person aged 40-59.14

The congregation

council was interviewed as a group for the third qualitative interview.15

While the congregation council did participate in baseline and endline interviews,

as the research progressed, it became apparent that the two general age categories were

not feasible for this study. In analyzing the demographic data for the persons participating

in the Damascus Travelers groups and the persons participating in the baseline FMS, the

researcher discovered that the majority of participants were in the 60+ group. This meant

that the bulk of the Damascus Travelers would be outside of the pool of potential

14

For purposes of this study, ―active member‖ is defined as someone who worships, on average

over the preceding year, at least once a month.

15 As stated previously, the council group interview was conducted regardless of which specific

persons were available for the interview. This was done in this manner because council elections, with

changes in specific office holders, occurred during the research timeframe. Council was selected as a group

to be interviewed not because of the specific persons who were on council, but because of the unique

position and responsibility council holds in congregational life. This responsibility and unique position

were consistent throughout the research regardless of who filled the specific positions on council.

132

interviewees. This methodology would noticeably restrict the pool of participants and

thus the reliability of the data.

After conversation with an assigned research colleague and with these facts in

mind, the researcher alternatively decided to select one participant randomly from the

group of people who participated in the baseline FMS, and one participant who

participated in the Damascus Travelers groups. The researcher utilized a white-noise

based random number generator16

to select one person from the Quantitative Survey

participants‘ consent forms, and another person from the list of Damascus Travelers

participants.

Even though these two individuals were selected randomly, each person was

given an opportunity to either sign a research permission document or decline

participation in the qualitative data-gathering process. When a person agreed to

participate, they specifically agreed to participate in the interview at the beginning and

end of the study. In addition, the person selected from the Damascus Travelers group

agreed to participate in a Damascus Travelers group actively for the duration of the

program. One person selected from the FMS participants group was not an active

member, the second declined participation in the research, and a third person from that

category agreed to participate. This person did participate in the congregation retreat, the

Damascus Travelers, and one of the Wednesday night groups, although this was not

required. The first person selected from among the Damascus Travelers groups agreed to

these requirements.

16

The white-noise random number generator was used on the website http://www.random.org.

The website works by using ambient white noise signal levels (the best random source currently available)

to randomly select a number within a selected integer range.

133

The researcher interviewed these two persons and the congregation council, with

qualitative data derived. A licensed court reporter17

transcribed the recordings of the

interviews for analysis. The recordings and transcriptions will be destroyed three years

after the thesis approval, and were treated with full confidentiality throughout the

process. Interviews at the beginning and end of research were conducted and compared to

one another to look for change in participants‘ understanding of and activity shaped by

missional vision.

Research Areas and Questions for Qualitative Interviews

The researcher structured qualitative interviews to seek data in evaluating the five

Metrics for Observing Changes in Congregational Practices and Perspectives described

earlier. Primary questions with potential follow-up questions are in appendix E. The

follow-up questions are available, but not required, for the interviewer to use to gather

data to answer the primary questions completely. These questions were field tested with

two persons who are not participating in the vision cultivation process at Living Water,

and one minor insight garnered from their feedback was utilized to improve the interview

schedule. The qualitative interview schedule questions addressed the following subject

areas.

Personal faith practices and communal/vocational ministry. The primary

interview question is, ―In what ways does your relationship with God make a difference

in your personal life and in your relationships with others?‖ This question seeks to

provide an introductory question to allow the interviewee opportunity to share personal

17

The researcher‘s sister is a licensed court reporter.

134

experiences and to gain comfort with the interview process. It also serves to provide a

general understanding of the person‘s faith practices, both personal and

communal/vocational. The first follow up question is, ―What are some examples of times

when you have seen God at work?‖ This gives a framework to consider and remember

specific events that describe the person‘s faith. The second question seeks to focus more

on aspects of sharing one‘s faith with, ―When you talk about God with others, what do

you say?‖ The third question seeks a direct correlation between one‘s understanding of

God and their activities and personal faith with, ―How does God influence what you do

on a daily basis?‖ The fourth question again focuses on relationships with others, with the

question, ―How do you bring God into your day-to-day interactions with others?‖ The

final instruction focuses specifically on personal faith practices, ―Describe your

devotional life.‖ This item, with a specific focus on personal faith and practice, is last

because it is more personal and specific than the broader, more general questions above.

Understanding of the congregation’s shared vision. The primary interview

question is, ―What are some principles or concepts that people in the congregation hold in

common as they make decisions and work together in ministry?‖ This question goes

specifically to the information sought. The question looks to see if there is an

understanding of the congregation‘s shared vision for ministry. Other follow-up questions

that can provide ways of asking the respondent about the content of the shared vision

statements are available in case the respondent is unfamiliar with a shared vision in the

congregation. These include, ―How do you know this to be the case?‖ Also, ―Think of

some activities that the congregation does together. Based upon these communal

activities, what would you infer to be the congregation‘s vision for ministry?‖ Finally,

135

―As a congregation member, how do you think a first-time Visitor would describe the

congregation‘s shared vision for ministry after worshipping here on a Sunday?‖

Efficacy of how the congregation equips congregants for growth in personal faith

and communal/vocational ministry through the vision. The primary interview question is,

―Consider this shared vision that you just described. What are some ways that this vision

helps you make decisions in your daily life?‖ This question seeks to determine how well

the participant feels that the congregation has helped her/him to put the shared vision into

practice. Delving deeper into what that process is, the first and second follow-up

questions ask, ―How do/would you apply it in making decisions on a day to day basis,‖

and, ―How does the shared vision impact decisions you make at home, at work, or

elsewhere?‖ The third follow-up question would only be necessary for a person who has

a clear understanding of the shared vision. This question looks for specific examples of

the congregation training for applying the shared vision with, ―When have you said,

‗Wow, this vision really is helpful in dealing with this situation in life,‘ here at this

congregation?‖ Finally, the last follow-up question seeks to find out what the

congregation has done specifically to help the respondent apply these with, ―How does

this congregation help you to experience a deeper personal faith life, or to feel

comfortable to talk about your faith in daily life?‖

How congregation vision impacts personal/congregational faith practices.

Questions involve individual aspects for individual interviews and congregational aspects

for the group interviews with council. The primary question is, ―Consider your

personal/the congregation‘s faith life for a moment. How has the congregation‘s shared

vision made a difference in your personal/the congregation‘s faith life?‖ The primary

136

emphasis is specifically on the respondent‘s personal faith life to see how the shared

vision has impacted the personal faith life. This primary question with its follow-up

questions seeks to answer the portion of the research question dealing with the impact the

vision cultivation process has had on the personal faith life of the

congregant/congregation. The first follow-up question probes deeper for specific

examples of changed faith now because of congregational life; ―What is different in your

personal/the congregation‘s faith life now, compared to a year ago?‖ The second seeks to

find how God has spoken to the respondent/congregation, because of the shared vision

with, ―What were you doing privately/as a council when you felt God give you insight

through considering the shared vision?‖ A negative follow-up question seeks to find

negative impact due to the lack of vision with, ―When have you seen something happen

that went against the congregation‘s vision? What did you think or how did you feel

about that?‖ Finally, in the endline interview, a follow-up question of, ―How has the

vision cultivation process we have embraced as a congregation over the past few months

impacted the congregation‘s ministry?‖ is available.

How congregation vision impacts communal/vocational ministry. The primary

question is, ―How has the congregation‘s shared vision made a difference in how you

relate with others in the community?‖ Emphasis is first placed specifically upon the

respondent‘s missional life to see how the shared vision has impacted the respondent‘s

life in community and vocation. This primary question with its follow-up questions seeks

to answer the portion of the research question dealing with the impact the vision

cultivation process has had on the respondents‘ relationships with others in the wider

community. The first follow-up question looks for specific examples of missional life

137

with, ―How has the congregation‘s shared vision impacted your relationships with people

outside of the congregation through your actions or verbal witness?‖ The second

follow-up question looks for understandings of relational aspects of the shared vision

with, ―How do your relationships with others compare to your understanding of the

congregation‘s shared vision?‖ The next follow-up question seeks specific examples of

changed behavior in the respondent and how others have been changed in the community

due to the vision cultivation process with, ―How have people in the community that you

know benefitted from the ministry of the congregation or its members?‖ Finally, the last

three follow-up questions are available for use in the endline interviews to probe specific

results brought about by the vision cultivation process. They are, ―What are you doing

differently in our community, whether intentionally or not, as a result of the

congregation‘s vision/vision cultivation process?‖ Secondly, ―How has the vision

cultivation process we have embraced as a congregation over the past few months

impacted your relationships with people in the community?‖ The final follow-up question

is, ―How has the vision cultivation process we have embraced as a congregation over the

past few months impacted how the congregation as a whole thinks about our

community?‖

Anything else? This closing question gives the respondent an open-ended

opportunity to share further information with, ―Is there anything else you would like to

say, or that you think I should consider?‖ The first follow-up question probes deeper into

the response with, ―Why is this important to you?‖ In the closing statement of the

interview, the interviewer expresses appreciation for the respondent‘s participation with,

138

―Thank you for your time and effort in helping me understand more about your

understanding of this congregation‘s ministry.‖

Data Analysis

The interviews were analyzed using qualitative coding techniques. The researcher

initially coded respondents‘ answers. These codes were entered into a Microsoft Access

database, by question, and were printed out in two ways for further analysis.

The first method involved a longitudinal analysis, wherein codes and categories

were derived by comparing all three responses together, by question, for endline and

baseline interviews. For example, in longitudinal analysis, the initial codes from baseline

interviews for the two individual and the one group interview were coded distinctly and

together for each question. The researcher then compared these aggregate codes and

categories to similar longitudinal responses for the endline interviews by other

respondents in order to derive the results and conclusions.

The second method involved a latitudinal analysis, wherein baseline and endline

responses were coded by question for each interview. This means, for example, that one

individual‘s interview responses for each question were compared and coded with

baseline and endline together. This researcher also analyzed these findings to derive the

results and conclusions.

Summary

The research for this thesis utilized PAR in cultivating missional vision among the

people of Living Water Lutheran Church, a newly developed congregation. The

intervention of forming Damascus Travelers groups and cultivating missional vision did

139

have an impact on the congregants, and it had in impact on how they make decisions and

interact with others in their daily lives. The specific results will be described next.

Huntley

140

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS OF STUDY AND INTERPRETATION

A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.

—Inscription on Jackie Robinson’s tombstone.1

Although this inscription on Jackie Robinson‘s tombstone may be worded a bit

strongly—we are created in the image of God, after all—it does highlight the important

role we play as we influence the lives of one another in God‘s caring, redeeming, and

reconciling reign. The inscription befits a man who broke segregation barriers and stood

as an advocate for social and civil rights causes. Robinson broke segregation barriers to

attend Officer Candidate School in the U.S. Army.2 As a second lieutenant in 1944,

Robinson endured the humiliation of a spurious court martial and subsequent acquittal for

refusing to move to the back of an unsegregated Army bus.3 In 1947, Robinson broke the

segregation barrier in baseball‘s major leagues by playing for the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Later in Robinson‘s life, his experience with his son‘s drug addiction motivated him to

become a staunch anti-drug advocate.4 Throughout his life, as Robinson stood for justice

and equality, he impacted society in ways that continue to benefit all of us today.

1 Italics and formatting are sic from the source: Steve Jacobson, Carrying Jackie’s Torch: The

Players Who Integrated Baseball--and America (Lawrence Hill Books, 2007), 239.

2 Arnold Rampersad, Jackie Robinson: A Biography, 1st ed. (New York: Knopf, 1997), 93.

3 Ibid., 102-109.

4 Ibid., 438-443.

141

Although the scope of the Participatory Action Research (PAR) for this thesis was

significantly smaller than that of Jackie Robinson‘s entire life, it nonetheless sought to

similarly impact a congregation and inspire members to have a meaningful and missional

impact in the lives of one another and the community. The research question is, ―How

does cultivating shared missional vision in a newly developed congregation impact the

lives of congregants and how they relate to others in the community?‖ The PAR research

sought to have an impact on the lives of congregants, and by extension, on members‘

relationships with others.

In order to assess the impact of the PAR intervention it is important to analyze

data in order to assess the outcome of the mission cultivation process. The conclusions5

are based upon quantitative and qualitative data gathered during the research for this

thesis. The quantitative and qualitative data are now described to allow for assessment of

the PAR data in answering the research question.

Narrative of Intervention and Its Impact

The intervention phase6 of the PAR for this thesis began April 25, 2010,

7 with the

start of Sunday School discussions and the Damascus Travelers groups. The intervention

phase ended August 22 with the formal adoption of a purpose statement and guiding

principles discerned through the missional vision cultivation process. The researcher

5 Conclusions reached by analyzing the data garnered from the PAR will be described in chapter 6.

First, however, it is important to analyze the data in chapter 5 to provide material to consider and assess in

chapter 6.

6 See appendix A, ―PAR Intervention Timetable,‖ for a full description of the intervention

timeline.

7 The remainder of the months and dates refer to the year 2010 unless otherwise noted.

142

worked before the intervention to prepare the congregation for the intervention and to

maximize its impact. There were also unanticipated results, including a

member-sponsored initiative to reach out and personally connect with residents in the

congregation‘s local neighborhood.

Pre-Intervention Preparations

In February, the researcher met with the congregation council at Living Water to

introduce the concept of cultivating missional vision. Dave Daubert‘s Living Lutheran8

served as a means of beginning the conversation. The council members purchased and

read the book. They held substantive and lengthy conversations about the material at

meetings in March and, to a lesser extent, in April. Because of this conversation,

congregational leaders embraced and endorsed the vision cultivation process and began

to have conversations with others in the congregation in the hopes of garnering

widespread acceptance and participation.

Additionally, in preparation for the beginning of the intervention, the researcher

included references to various elements of a missional church concept in sermons,

newsletter articles, and informal pastoral conversations. The intervention events, such as

Sunday School classes and the congregational retreat, were also publicized with an

attempt to maximize congregational participation.

Impacts of Intervention

The multi-faceted nature of the intervention brought a variety of results. Notable

results came in the areas of the Damascus Travelers groups, the congregation retreat, the


143

work of council on vision elements, the work in the congregation forum and meeting to

adopt a purpose statement and guiding principles, and through the act of quantitative and

qualitative data gathering.

Damascus Travelers

On March 16, a portion of the Discipleship Commission meeting dealt with

planning and launching the Damascus Travelers groups. The researcher shared the

concept, described fundamentals of the program, and encouraged cogenerative

conversation regarding program specifics. These details were about form and format,

program name, and means of garnering greatest congregational participation. One of the

best suggestions, for example, included having members of the commission call active

congregants to invite them personally to participate in the program.9

This approach of working with the Discipleship Commission was effective in

maximizing participation. Twenty-eight persons participated in seven groups; this

exceeded the commission‘s and the researcher‘s most optimistic expectations. In

conversation following the experience, participants showed appreciation for the

opportunity to get together. Most of the groups stated that they formed close personal

connections with the other group members, even with some occasional deep, and even

tearful, interactions. For example, one group comforted a member whose close family

member was diagnosed with cancer just hours before the scheduled meeting. Participants

also stated that they had a positive experience meeting in groups by deepening existing

relationships.

9 See appendix I

144

An example of a problem due to a top-down vision-casting process rather than a

grass-roots style occurred in the use of a prayer labyrinth.10

The researcher advocated the

use of a prayer labyrinth, with little or no mutual conversation with participants. As a

result, only a couple of people utilized it. Overall, however, participants viewed the

opportunity to form and strengthen relationships with one another in the Damascus

Travelers groups positively.11

Congregation Retreat

The congregation retreat, on the other hand, had fewer participants than the

Damascus Travelers groups. Participation may have been low because, although the

council discussed the retreat, the researcher planned and promoted it almost exclusively

in a top-down style. Even so, after several collaborative conversations, the researcher

changed the format from an overnight to a one-day retreat when it became clear that

nobody would stay overnight. This flexibility in planning the retreat induced several

congregants to attend and participate.

The conversation at the retreat was lively and folks were engaged in the

conversation. After the retreat, most of the participants decided to gather for an

impromptu conversation and fellowship at a local restaurant. In this informal

conversation, it became clear that several of the participants were excited about the

missional concepts they had discussed previously. The cultivated vision was changing not

only their perceptions about Living Water, but also their understandings of what it meant

10

See appendix J.

11 The description of the Damascus Travelers experience is from the researcher‘s journal.

145

to be a congregation or a missional church.12

During this discussion, participants asked

the researcher to bring the retreat material back to the congregation and to host three or

four Wednesday evening forums with the same material. Several of the retreat

participants even participated in the conversations at the Wednesday evening meetings, in

an effort to expand the conversation to include the wider congregation. Apparently,

informal discussion following a liminal experience helped strengthen the impact of the

retreat and nurtured a communitas experience.13

Council Work on Vision Elements

On July 12, the council received the purpose and guiding principles statements

from the congregation retreat and the Wednesday night forums. After extensive

discussion, the council edited the fifth guiding principle14

and referred the proposed

statements to the congregation for consideration at the August 8 forum. The council also

discussed ways of encouraging greater participation from the congregation. The council

recommended the following purpose and guiding principles statements to the

congregation for consideration:

Purpose Statement: God‘s purpose for [Living Water] is to grow faith that

moves us beyond ourselves.

Guiding Principles:

1. Faithfully living with Christ at the center.

2. Prayerfully listening with open hearts and minds.

12 As one participant put it, ―You know at first, I thought that we needed to do a bunch of work to

reactivate a bunch of people who aren‘t coming any more. But now, as we talk about this and as I

understand this missional church, I can see that this isn‘t our focus. They can come or they can go, but we

need to be about doing this other stuff that is important. Working in our community, working on our faith

life.‖

13 See chapter 3, ―Moving Beyond Community to Communitas.‖

14 See appendix M.

146

3. Selflessly welcoming all without preconceptions.

4. Courageously bearing our neighbor‘s burdens.

5. Relating to one another with respect and honesty.

6. Boldly sharing our blessings with others.

On August 9, the council met to review the inputs from the August 8 forum. After

reviewing the forum‘s conversation, they decided to present the purpose statement and

guiding principles for the congregational meeting without amendment.

Congregation Forums and Meeting

Qualitative analysis of the baseline and endline group interviews yielded a finding

that there were two perspectives, or visions for ministry, that congregants appeared to

hold in varying degrees. These mindsets are invitational and vocational visions for

ministry.15

These two perspectives seemed to shape much of the conversation at the

August 8 congregational forum.

As the meeting began, some members spoke about the need to invite persons in

the community to join the congregation as members. Some raised concerns about paying

the bills. Others spoke about the need to be more active in the wider community. A few

people spoke about the need to have a cohesive, shared vision to help congregants to

know what they are doing together in working with common purpose and vision.

This back and forth conversation continued for a while. Near the end of the

meeting, members affirmed the congregation‘s ministry and noted that the purpose

statement and guiding principles were helpful.

15

This will be discussed in greater depth in the ―Qualitative Interview Results‖ section.

147

At the congregational meeting on August 22, the congregation considered the

proposed purpose statement and guiding principles. There were no questions or

comments, and the congregation adopted the proposal unanimously without amendment.

The researcher observed that the persons who spoke from the invitational

perspective tended to be people who had not participated in the vision cultivation

meetings and process. Those that spoke from the vocational perspective, however, tended

to have been a part of the process and meetings in varying degrees. It seems that the

intervention helped participants to appropriate vocational perspectives and actions

proportional to the extent that they participated in the cultivation process.

Unforeseen Events and Results

At the June 14 council meeting, the researcher discussed the concepts of

liminality and communitas using the handout in appendix K. The discussion took the

form of a devotional based upon the concepts of liminality and communitas.16

The

conversation focused upon the benefits of risking a move beyond comfort and security to

step outside of the comfort zone17

and enter liminality in the hopes that the community

can grow relationally and experience communitas. As the conversation continued, various

council members shared memories of liminal experiences that had fostered communitas.

One person described a recent communitas experience of God‘s Spirit in relationships

16

The handout in appendix K is from Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional

Church, 219-221. Hirsch‘s works derives from the concepts of communitas and liminality described in

Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Aldine Transaction, 1995).

17 Variations of the phrase ―stepping outside of the comfort zone‖ have become a part of the

congregation‘s lexicon as a result of the missional vision cultivation process.

148

formed by reaching out and connecting with a neighboring inner-city congregation.

Others shared similar experiences.

After much cogenerative discussion and discernment, the council decided to

invite their fellow congregants to step outside of their comfort zones intentionally and

experience liminality together. They also asked the researcher to share the liminality and

communitas material with the congregation in a sermon. Over the following month,

surprising numbers of congregational members responded to the invitation favorably, as

they reached out together to connect with and relate to residents in the local

neighborhood.

In reflecting upon these events, it would appear that this success emerged from

using familiar concepts to draw people into missional, shared experiences of liminality.

The conversations and sermons related to the missional vision cultivation process

seemingly influenced several people and their relationships with the community. Moved

by the conversations about missional vision, liminality, and communitas, the

congregation and its leaders shared liminal experiences that drew people together in

mission. As congregants joined in mutual conversation and fellowship after these

experiences, people seemed to experience communitas.

Quantitative Survey Results

In this research, the Faith Maturity Scale (FMS)18

served two purposes. First, it

provided baseline data that helped the researcher to shape the PAR intervention. Second,

it provided baseline and endline data for analysis to help determine the extent of the PAR

18

See appendix B.

149

intervention‘s impact on the congregation and relationships with others in the community

in answering the research question.

Participants completed the FMS as a baseline convenience sample on March 21

before the PAR intervention began. After the PAR intervention, worshippers completed

the FMS in an endline convenience sample on August 29. The convenience samples

consisted of people who agreed to remain after worship and complete the consent form

and the survey.

The developers of the FMS originally intended for it to be evaluated by averaging

the scores from the 38 questions to yield one aggregate number to represent the response.

Higher scores imply a more favorable result, presumably denoting participants holding a

stronger or greater maturity of faith. Five of the questions were reverse scored, and the

responses to these questions were reverse scored for analytical purposes (e.g. a ―1‖

survey response was recorded as a ―7‖ in the analysis for reverse-scored questions). The

baseline and endline scores were analyzed in this manner for all respondents, as well as

for the three age categories (all, 18-59, and 60+), with an unpaired one-tail t-Test. This

test is helpful in determining if there was any change of statistical significance from

baseline to endline due to the intervention (see appendix D). Finally, the questions were

separated into categories of (I)nward, (O)utward, and (C)onnecting faith orientations for

analysis with respect to the type of faith activity the question refers to.19

For data analysis, the questions were evaluated on a question-by-question basis to

look at the type of responses garnered. The same three age categories (all, 18-59, and

60+) were also analyzed. This analysis utilized histograms, along with kurtosis and skew

19

This was discussed in detail in chapter 4.

150

data, to examine the response for each question for purposes of crafting the PAR

intervention and for viewing overall perspectives in the congregation‘s faith. Finally, the

t-Test analysis was also performed for each question according to the three

aforementioned age categories to gain insights into changes in the congregation‘s faith

and practices because of the PAR intervention.

Analysis of Responses to Individual Questions

Techniques used for Quantitative Analysis

The histogram graphs report the number of responses for each possible selection

(number 1 through 7) by question. The data were analyzed to determine the mean ( ), the

standard deviation (s), the number of responses (N), the median, the mode, the kurtosis,

and the skew.

The mean is an average of all of the responses. It is helpful in determining the

midpoint value of the data; a higher value implies, for example, that the responses cluster

toward the higher end of the spectrum of possible answers (which are numbered

1 through 7).

The standard deviation describes the width of the data distribution from the mean

in a normal distribution20

sample. Higher standard deviations imply a wider data

distribution, while smaller standard deviations imply that the data tends to cluster tightly

around the mean. In a normal distribution, 66% of responses will fall within one standard

20

A normal (Gaussian) distribution is commonly referred to as a bell curve due to the bell-like

shape of the Cartesian plot of the normal distribution. It is used in probability and statistics for analysis

since probability data tends to be distributed along a normal distribution. Cf. ―Normal Distribution‖, n.d.,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution, (accessed November 29, 2010).

151

deviation above and below the mean; 95% of responses will fall within two standard

deviations, and 99% will tend to fall within three standard deviations.

The median data point is the datum that falls in the middle of the data set. The

mode is the data value that occurs most often in the data set. By comparing the median

and the mode with the mean and with one another (and the standard deviation), one can

discern the shape of the data distribution. A set of data, for example, that has two modes

that are far from the mean of the data implies a bimodal system that is probably an

inverted form of a normal distribution. On the other hand, a set of data whose mean,

median, and mode are numerically close can imply a data set distributed more like a

normal distribution.

Kurtosis is a measure of how tightly the data clusters around a given response.

Kurtosis is a measure of how closely the data set matches a normal distribution. As the

data approaches one value, for example, the kurtosis will approach infinity. A histogram

with a bimodal response or inverted normal distribution with responses at both ends of

the spectrogram, on the other hand, will yield a negative kurtosis value. This is useful in

assessing the shape of the data distribution.21

In a standard distribution, the skew measures the extent to which the statistical

curve clusters to one side of the mean. A distribution where the mean, the median, and

the mode are equal will yield a skew value of zero. A positive skew, therefore, means that

the data clusters above the mean. Alternatively, a negative skew implies that the data

21

―Kurtosis‖, n.d., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurtosis, (accessed November 29, 2010).

152

clusters below the mean. Skew, therefore, is useful in determining if the main data cluster

is offset by a smaller cluster outside of the normal distribution.22

These statistical techniques were helpful in analyzing and interpreting the FMS

data. Perspectives gained through this analysis were helpful in highlighting areas to focus

on in the PAR intervention.

Intervention Perspectives from Baseline Quantitative Data

The FMS tool (see appendix B) provides a window into the faith and practice of

an individual or a group. Specifically, the FMS ―is designed to measure ‗the degree to

which a person embodies the priorities, commitments, and perspectives characteristic of

vibrant and life transforming faith, as these have been understood in ―mainline‖

Protestant traditions.‘‖23

The baseline FMS data revealed two major aspects of

congregants‘ faith and practice for the PAR intervention to address. These aspects are

personal faith, beliefs and practices, and perspectives in relating to others beyond the

congregation. Although responses to several questions gave insights into these areas, the

data from questions 2, 26, and 28 provide sufficient information to illustrate the

categories.

Personal Faith, Beliefs, and Practices

In the baseline FMS data, one person selected option six; everyone else selected

option seven, ―Always true,‖ for question 2, ―I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God

who died on a cross and rose again‖ (see figure 5.1). This near-unanimous acclamation of

22

―Skew‖, n.d., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skew, (accessed November 29, 2010).

23 Benson, Donahue, and Erickson, ―The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualization, Measurement,

and Empirical Validation,‖ 171.

153

the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ served as a key starting point in

implementing the PAR intervention. It allowed the researcher to proceed from an

assumption that the congregation recognized the salvific actions of Jesus Christ. By

extension, it was also reasonable to assume that the congregation also recognized the

divinity of Christ. This finding allowed the understanding of the Lordship of the crucified

and risen Christ to be axiomatic in the intervention.

Figure 5.1. Histogram for Question 2, ―I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who

died on a cross and rose again.‖ = 6.98, s = .12, the kurtosis is 63, and the skew is -7.94

(baseline values).

Beyond the shared conviction of Christ‘s crucifixion and resurrection, however,

there was an acute difference of opinion about the implications of faith for praxis. In

answering the reverse-scored question 26, almost twice as many people chose ―Always

true‖ (1 for data analysis) as those who chose ―Never true‖ (7 for data analysis) in

answering the question, ―I believe that I must obey God‘s rules and commandments in

order to be saved‖ (see figure 5.2). The mean of 3.52 supports the finding that the

majority of respondents held that this statement is true to some degree. In addition, the

rather large standard deviation (2.34) implies a wide disparity of opinion on the topic.

The negative kurtosis value of -1.42 numerically supports the visual evidence that the

154

histogram delineates an inverted normal distribution. With the number of responses at the

two ends of the spectrum, it appears that the response to question 26 is bimodal, with the

primary mode being ―Always true‖ nearly by a factor of two to one.

Figure 5.2. Histogram for Question 26 (reverse scored)24

, ―I believe that I must obey

God‘s rules and commandments in order to be saved.‖ In the actual response, = 4.48

and the skew is .31; reverse scored for analytical purposes, = 3.52 and the skew is -.31.

In both cases, s = 2.34 and the kurtosis is -1.42, (baseline values).

The researcher was rather surprised to discover that a significant number of

respondents to the FMS with a Lutheran heritage of being saved by grace through faith

apart from works of Law would select ―Always true‖ in responding to the statement, ―I

believe that I must obey God‘s rules and commandments in order to be saved.‖ A

perception of works righteousness could lead congregants to look at impoverished

members in the community, for example, with an attitude that their actions had led them

to poverty, and that they simply needed to get a job in order to get out of poverty. At a

fellowship event, the researcher had a conversation with a congregant that followed this

line of reasoning. The insights gained from the response to question 26 prepared the

24

As a reminder, on histograms for reverse scored questions contain inverted numbers for the

purpose of data analysis. For example, a response of ―1‖ is recorded as ―7,‖ a ―2‖ is recorded as ―6,‖ etc.

155

researcher to be able to respond to this attitude with a call for understanding, compassion,

and action for those who may be struggling with addiction, difficult life circumstances,

health problems, etc. Conversations such as these, along with sermons, newsletter

articles, classes, and other appropriate forums, gave the researcher opportunities to focus

on God‘s prevenient and universal grace through the missio Dei in all of creation as a

source and foundation for missional activity and praxis.

Perspectives in Relating to Others beyond the Congregation

In answering the research question, ―How does cultivating shared missional

vision in a newly developed congregation impact the lives of congregants and how they

relate to others in the community?‖ it was important first to identify congregants‘

attitudes and perspectives about living missionally in the community. Responses to the

FMS questions showed that the congregants did not place as high of a priority or value on

engaging the community context as, for example, they held for personal faith

perspectives.25

One instance of this is evident in the responses to question 28 (see

figure 5.3), ―I care a great deal about reducing poverty in the United States and

throughout the world.‖ The mean of the responses to this question was near the middle of

the response spectrum, at 4.72. Also, the near-zero kurtosis of -.21 and of the skew (-.16)

imply that the response histogram data are distributed similarly to a normal distribution.

25

The prior discussion of the response to question 2 is an example of these strongly held faith

perspectives. More examples of these distinctions are contained in appendix D. Question7, ―My faith helps

me know right from wrong‖ shows a stronger, ―Always true‖ response than question 13, ―I am active in

efforts to promote social justice,‖ for example.

156

Figure 5.3. Histogram for Question 28, ―I care a great deal about reducing poverty in the

United States and throughout the world.‖ = 4.72, s = 1.31, the kurtosis is -.21, and the

skew is -.16 (baseline values).

This finding is also evident in FMS scores grouped in categories of (I)nward,

(O)utward, and (C)onnecting faith orientations. Respondents consistently selected

numbers for outer dimensions of faith that were 10 percent lower26

than those for inner or

combined dimensions of faith (see table 5.1). Because of this finding, the researcher

intentionally concentrated on encouraging congregants to focus more intently on moving

to ministry outside of personal comfort zones and relationships. This was a part of the

rationale for inviting congregants to engage in liminal experiences and to focus more on

ministry outside of the congregation and beyond their comfort zones. The impact of this

effort is also evident in the purpose statement that the congregation adopted, noting that

God‘s purpose for the congregation is to ―grow faith that moves us beyond ourselves.‖

26

The O mean value in table 5.1 of 4.46 is approximately .7 points, or 10%, lower than the

average I and C values.

157

Table 5.1. Count, Mean, and Standard Deviation Data by IOC (All Ages)27

Category

(Nb)

(Ne) sb se

I 5.179

(63)

5.214

(43) 0.506 0.466

O 4.460

(63)

4.603

(43) 0.796 0.809

C 5.165

(63)

5.120

(43) 0.584 0.563

Other aspects of the impact of the PAR intervention are apparent in the

quantitative data. The t-Test is a tool for evaluating change between two sets of data. This

test revealed areas of change during the time of the PAR intervention.

t-Test Results

The unpaired one-tail t-Test analysis tool compares two data sets to determine if

there is a statistically significant difference between them. In this research, the t-Test

analysis showed the impact of the PAR intervention by comparing FMS baseline and

endline data. A probability (P) less than .05 in the t-Test result implies that the change in

the mean ( is statistically significant.

There were not any statistically significant changes between baseline and endline

data when averaging multiple questions‘ responses, whether analyzed by age category

and/or by I, O, and C categories. There is an increase in the FMS average for the Outward

category for ages 18-59 with P = .055, which is close to the .05 threshold but still outside

of required parameters (see table 5.2). In other words, there was a discernable increase of

27

Interpretive Key for Data Results:

N is the total number of responses.

is the mean.

s is the standard deviation.

b and e subscripts: baseline and endline data, respectively.

158

0.302 in the mean for the responses of persons aged 18-59 that is very close to being

statistically relevant.

Table 5.2. t-Test Results, by IOC Categories (Ages 18-59) 28

Category

(Nb)

(Ne) sb

2 se

2 df P

I 5.140

(28)

5.257

(23) 0.273 0.228 48 0.204

O 4.163

(28)

4.465

(23) 0.475 0.396 48 0.055

C 5.004

(28)

5.118

(23) 0.313 0.183 49 0.206

In the analysis of the responses to the individual questions, three questions had a

statistically significant change from baseline to endline. In the average of all ages, the

mean for Question 1 increased significantly from 4.344 to 4.857 (see table 5.3). Question

1 reads, ―I am concerned that our country is not doing enough to help the poor.‖29

Since

this was a component of several conversations during the PAR intervention, it is

reasonable to conclude that the intervention led to an increase in participants‘ concern for

the poor.

28

Interpretive Key for t-Test Results:

N is the total number of responses.

is the mean.

s and s2 are the standard deviation and variance, respectively.

df is the degrees of freedom value


P is the probability (T ≤ t) one-tail. With bold font: statistically significant change (P < .05).



159

Table 5.3. t-Test Results, Question 1 (All Ages)

No.

(Nb)

(Ne) sb

2 se

2 df P

1 4.344

(61)

4.857

(42) 1.896 1.784 90 0.031

Two other questions (see table 5.4) showed a statistically significant change in the

means from baseline to endline when analyzed within the category of participants aged

18-59. Question 3, ―My faith shapes how I think and act every day,‖ increased from

5.714 to 6.087 and question 24, ―My life is filled with meaning and purpose,‖ increased

from 5.296 to 5.818. Again, these were both components of several conversations during

the intervention, so it is also reasonable to conclude that the intervention led to a positive

change in the areas of faith shaping action and experiencing a life filled with meaning

and purpose for respondents in the 18-59 age group.

Table 5.4. t-Test Results, Questions 3 and 24 (Ages 18-59)

No.

(Nb)

(Ne) sb

2 se

2 df P

3 5.714

(28)

6.087

(23) 0.804 0.447 49 0.048

24 5.296

(27)

5.818

(22) 1.217 0.823 47 0.038

Qualitative Interview Results

While the FMS was useful in garnering data from the breadth of the congregation,

it did not plumb the depths of congregants‘ faith and practices or identify specific actions

or examples. It was necessary, therefore, to dig deeper for data that would provide better

insights for understanding congregants‘ faith and practices. The qualitative interviews

160

yielded baseline information that also helped in shaping and implementing the PAR

intervention, albeit to a lesser extent than did the FMS quantitative data. Instead, the

baseline and endline qualitative interviews yielded significant specific data to assist in

evaluating the effects of the PAR intervention.

In seeking to answer the research question, the congregation council and two

randomly selected individuals participated in interviews at the beginning of the

intervention (baseline) and after the conclusion of the intervention (endline) in an effort

to gain information. The researcher examined interview transcripts using qualitative

evaluation techniques as described in chapter 4.

The qualitative analysis revealed information relating to four major categories.

These categories include:

1. Developing a Shared Vision. The data revealed a baseline understanding that there

was not a shared vision at the beginning of the intervention, although there had

been one prior to the construction of the congregation‘s building. Endline data

exhibited components of shared vision cultivated during the intervention.

2. Invitational and Vocational Perspectives. The qualitative analysis revealed a

disparity in vision between members focused largely on acquiring more

congregational members and those focused on embodying missional principles in

daily life.

3. Changes in Perspectives and Activity. The PAR intervention impacted, to varying

degrees, all of the interviewees‘ perspectives and vision for life and missional

activity.

161

4. Impact of Missional Praxis on Beliefs and Perspectives. Data showed that some

of the respondents increased their missional activity during the intervention. One

individual who intentionally made significant behavioral changes in relationships

also experienced significant change in missional perspectives.

The qualitative analysis also revealed three minor categories relating to the

research question. These categories include Mission Developer Perspectives, Impact of

Denominational Decisions Regarding Gay Clergy, and Financial Concerns.30

Developing a Shared Vision

In seeking to answer the research question, questions in the qualitative interview

schedule focused on the interviewees‘ understanding of the congregation‘s shared vision

(see appendix E). In asking these questions in both the baseline and endline interviews, it

was possible to gain data about components of shared vision for ministry both before and

after the intervention. Data from the interviews show that there was little or no shared

vision for ministry prior to the intervention, apart from a general feeling of community

and shared experiences. In the endline interviews, however, there was a greater

understanding of a shared missional vision for ministry.

Analysis of the baseline group interviews and the two individual interviews

revealed data showing that there was not an understanding of a shared vision among the

respondents prior to the PAR intervention. Even so, there were common understandings

of what characterized ministry at Living Water Lutheran Church.

30

These categories will be described at length below in the ―Other Factors Influencing Research

and the Outcome‖ section.

162

Data Relating to Lack of Shared Vision Prior to Intervention

Over the course of the baseline group interview and discussion, participants grew

to understand that there was not a cohesive shared vision for ministry at that time. In

considering questions of what the shared vision was, participants identified elements of

unity such as worship practices, a unity of relationship in Christ, and a shared friendliness

within the congregation. As the baseline group interview continued and participants

described examples of how the shared vision inspired them in daily living or how the

congregation equipped members to live and make decisions informed by the shared

vision, people increasingly came to realize that there was not an existing shared vision for

ministry.

While this understanding was also present in the two individual baseline

interviews, it was strongest in the group baseline interview. In discussing and answering

the questions, the group seemed to realize with increasing agreement that there was not a

shared vision for ministry in the congregation. It reached a point where in response to the

beginning of question 5, ―How has the congregation‘s shared vision …‖ the group

literally interrupted the interviewer to state loudly, in unison, ―or lack thereof!‖ The

group realized that this was leading to a culture of grumbling and mutual attacks among

congregational members. As the conversation continued, participants discerned that this

was dangerous to the health of the congregation and could fracture the community if it

did not change. During the conversation, the group came to agree that there needed to be

a vision cultivation process and that there needed to be a shared vision for ministry.

The individual interviews revealed a weaker understanding of a lack of shared

vision for ministry in the congregation. In comparing the strength of the group‘s

163

understanding versus that of the two individuals‘ in the baseline interviews, it is difficult

to explain why there was such a conspicuous disparity. While this may be due to factors

such as the group dynamic of conversation and discernment, the increase in responsibility

of the group as congregational council members, or some other factor, it is difficult to

ascertain the true reason for the difference reliably without further research.

Data Relating to the Components of Shared Practices and Vision

Although there was a strongly shared understanding among the participants in the

baseline group interview that there was not a shared concept or perspective for making

decisions as a congregation, there were nonetheless aspects of experience with respect to

congregational life that participants identified as shared practices. While the baseline

perspective that there was no shared vision was evident within the group interview

responses, both group and individual interviewees shared components of these

understandings of congregational practices and perspectives.

In the baseline interviews, the group identified worship, a shared unity through a

relationship with Christ, a ―friendliness‖ that is evident in the congregation, and a shared

denominational perspective as elements of shared practices or perspectives. The

individuals identified a shared praxis of mutual care and concern (like the ―friendliness‖

concept from the group interview) similar to that of a family as an element of shared

congregational practice. One respondent described the congregation‘s mission as one of

caring for one another, with a movement to carry that practice out into the community. In

short, across all three interviews, there was clearly a shared perspective that the

congregation values relating to and caring for one another was an important aspect of

ministry and life together.

164

In the endline interviews, aspects of shared vision discussed in the baseline

interviews remained. One component that persisted from the baseline interview was the

perspective of mutual care and concern. The participants in the group interview noted that

the congregation members work together and care for one another in times of crisis.

On the other hand, there was evidence in the endline interviews of elements of the

congregation‘s newly-cultivated shared vision, as articulated in the purpose statement and

guiding principles. This vision to ―grow faith that moves us beyond ourselves‖ caused a

group interviewee to look out into the world more, and to have an increased awareness of

others. The vision was giving the person an increased awareness of spiritual and physical

suffering in the world. According to an individual interviewee, this newly cultivated

vision was affecting the congregation‘s quarterly participation in the program to house

homeless families at the church. This person also felt that the shared vision, as articulated

in the purpose statement and guiding principles, was motivating congregants toward

moving out to work in the community. The person noted that it helped inspire the

congregation to reach out and strengthen relationships with a nearby inner-city

congregation.

Two Perspectives: Invitational and Vocational31

The qualitative analysis of the group interview revealed data showing two shared

perspectives or visions for ministry among the members of the congregation. One vision

emphasizes an invitational role for the congregation, placing primary importance on

inviting others to come to the church for worship and spiritual nourishment. The second

31 While both perspectives might contain some elements of the other perspective, these monikers

seemed to describe the two perspectives in as non-pejorative a manner as possible. The researcher selected

these terms over others, such as traditional/contemporary, inward/outward, and church growth/missional.

165

vision emphasizes a vocational role for the congregation, placing primary importance on

encouraging and equipping congregants for ministry in vocation and daily living. The

researcher selected these terms as symbols to describe the two perspectives, with an effort

to communicate aspects of the perspectives without being pejorative.

Analysis of the group interview yielded this category as evidenced in the group

interview while participants interacted with one another in considering and discussing the

interview questions. Various participants seemed to address issues and share perspectives

from a particular mindset along this spectrum; in other words, no one person would be

completely invitational or vocational in his or her outlook. Rather, participants would

show a disposition or tendency to view questions and perceive reality from one of the two

perspectives. The group interviewees specifically described these perspectives; this

category was not evident in the individual interviews.

Invitational Perspective

Persons with a predominantly invitational perspective tended to focus on growing

the membership of the congregation. They saw outreach primarily as reaching out to the

community to invite persons to worship in the hopes that they might become members of

the congregation. This was the vision of the mission developer who is known for going

out into the community to knock on thousands of doors in neighborhoods and

subdivisions throughout the local and neighboring cities. This was done with a laudable

desire to grow the congregation to a size that could support the construction of a church

building and move forward there with the ministry of the congregation.

Thus, the persons with an invitational perspective in the group interview, for

example, specifically equated outreach with going into the community to knock on doors

166

and invite people to worship. During the intervention, the council even planned and led

an event that garnered strong participation by the congregation to go out into the nearby

neighborhoods to invite people to come to the church for an Independence Day event.

Invitational persons pointed out that in the past, conflict brought a call from

various folks with this perspective to return to the congregation‘s denominational roots

and traditional foundations. One person noted that folks in the congregation do not see

themselves as agents of God bearing Christ to the community or elsewhere in daily life.

Finally, one of the individual interviewees also noted a desire for visitors in worship to

identify themselves to the congregation prior to the start of worship.

Vocational Perspective

Persons with a predominantly vocational perspective, however, tended to focus on

embodying Christ in a sense of call to discuss and share faith with others. Persons with

this perspective would be more likely to seek to reach out and form mutual and

perichoretic relationships. This perspective also includes openness to newer,

non-traditional forms of worship and faith life that is lived and expressed personally.

In the baseline group interview, persons speaking from this perspective had a

focus on contemporary worship forms and songs. One person, for example, related a

story about a fellow member who threatened to cut his guitar strings with a pair of wire

cutters after he played his guitar during worship. One of the individual interviewees also

noted a desire to participate in the Damascus Travelers group and to read Centered Life32

32

Jack Fortin, The Centered Life: Awakened, Called, Set Free, Nurtured, 1st ed. (Minneapolis:

Augsburg Fortress, 2006).

167

in an effort to embrace and embody a vocational life lived from a relationship with Christ

at the center.

In the endline group interview, some with a vocational perspective advocated an

understanding that a new vision for ministry was emerging in the life of the congregation.

Participants noted that a new direction seemed to be emerging, that moved in the

direction of reaching out to the community with a desire for forming and shaping

relationships marked by mutuality and reciprocity. One person even recalled leaving a

personal comfort zone to include friends and their children in the congregation‘s

Vacation Bible School program. The person noted that this reaching out was something

that came as a direct result of the PAR intervention efforts.

Invitational/Vocational Interaction in the Group Interview

In the baseline group interview, persons engaging in dialog and answering the

interview questions noted the fact that there were two groups or concepts for

congregational identity and ministry within the membership. There had been verbal

clashes in congregational life between persons with the two perspectives. One such event

was the threat to damage the guitar described previously. Another person also noted that

during the recent call process there had been a push toward embodying a more traditional

denominational identity as opposed to the generic, non-denominational one of the

mission developer.

In the endline group interview, the distinctions between persons with invitational

and vocational perspectives were stronger. During the course of the interview, there was

a subtle back and forth between people advocating the two perspectives. During portions

of the interview, persons with the two perspectives posited and responded to one another

168

over the level of acceptance of the purpose and guiding principles statements. Those with

a predominantly vocational perspective perceived a widespread acceptance of a desire to

―grow faith that moves us beyond ourselves.‖ Others with a predominantly invitational

perspective felt that the vision was pushed from the top down rather than coming up from

the grass roots.

Nonetheless, even though there was this back and forth dialog between the

vocational and invitational folks, there was still a move from invitational to vocational in

persons with both perspectives. In the baseline group interview, one person with a

predominantly invitational perspective described a sense that the congregation needed to

move from an inward-direction of taking from the community to an outward-directed

giving stance. In the endline group interview, one person noted that there were numerous

personal changes to faith practices because of the vision cultivation process. In addition,

even though one invitational person noted that while individual members might not see

themselves as true agents of God, the person did think that people see the pastor, council

members, and ―certain people‖ as agents of God. This showed movement beyond the

pastor to include other laypersons as God‘s agents with a call33

to ministry. There was

shared thinking by persons with both perspectives that while it was not all encompassing,

there had nonetheless been ―baby steps‖ during the PAR intervention to move and change

perspectives toward a more missional and vocational perspective.

33

As was stated previously, vocatio, which is the root word of vocation, is Latin for ―call.‖

169

Changes in Perspectives and Vision for Life and Missional Activity

Qualitative analysis of the group interviews yielded data describing the extent of

shared vision, aspects of the shared vision, and the invitational/vocational perspectives of

the shared vision. While these aspects were evident in the two individual interviews, they

were primarily apparent in the group interviews.

In the individual interviews, however, qualitative analysis revealed a category

describing significant changes in perspectives and an increase in missional activity. Even

though the individual interviews revealed the greatest change from baseline to endline in

actual missional activity, there was also a discernable change from the PAR intervention

evident in the group interview.

Changes Evident in the Group Interview

Several of the persons who participated in the group interview indicated that there

were changes in perspectives and actions. One respondent noted in the endline interview

that the vision was causing the person to look into the world more, and that it was

increasing awareness of others. It was helping the person to see and to be more aware of

spiritual and physical suffering in the world.

Another respondent was specifically reaching out to others more in daily activities

and interactions. There was an understanding of the need for and a desire to embody

relationships intentionally characterized by mutuality and reciprocity in reaching out to

others.

Later in the interview, a respondent also pointed to a personal widening of

perspectives with respect to living with and in a missional faith. The person indicated that

this came in and because of the vision cultivation process.

170

Finally, a person in the group interview stated that there was more of an

intentional emphasis, both personally and in the congregation as a whole, to try to think

―outside of the box.‖ The person indicated that people talked more about new

possibilities for ministry due to the new paradigms that people discovered during the

vision cultivation process.

Changes Evident in the First Individual Interview

In the baseline interview, the first individual interviewee expressed a hope and a

desire to move to a prior bright spot in his34

journey and life of faith. In answering the

fourth question, ―Consider your personal faith life for a moment. How has the

congregation’s shared vision made a difference in your personal/the congregation’s faith

life?‖ he also mentioned that he did not see a strong connection between his

understanding of the congregational vision and his personal life.

In the endline interview, however, it became evident that there had been change in

perspectives and attitudes regarding personal and congregational ministry. The

interviewee was dreaming and brainstorming ideas for congregational ministry in the

community. He seemed to have a stronger missional imagination. For example, he was

trying to think of ways that the congregation‘s facilities could be used to serve the

community. He specifically had spoken with others about the feasibility of starting a

community garden for people in the surrounding area to share and use. He was also trying

to think of ways to let people know about the congregation and invite them to worship

and to be a part of the congregation. He recognized that he was intentionally trying to

34

This pronoun was selected randomly to allow for a better narrative flow and may or may not

match the gender of the first interviewee.

171

work ―outside of the comfort zone‖ and he realized that he was speaking from a new

perspective and way of viewing reality. He identified it as a way of viewing reality from

a missional perspective. Finally, he said that he felt that the vision articulated in the

cultivation process was a potential source for future congregational activity.

Changes Evident in the Second Individual Interview

The second interviewee showed the greatest impact or change because of the PAR

intervention. There had been conversations about the idea of the missional church prior to

the PAR intervention. In addition, her35

baseline interview occurred after the

congregation retreat. Thus, there are aspects of the baseline interview that were impacted

by the PAR intervention and preceding events. Even so, there still seems to be significant

and observable change from the baseline to the endline interviews.

In the baseline interview, the respondent indicated that her relationship with God

was beginning to affect relationships at her workplace in a factory. She was seeing God

as active in these relationships as she worked with subordinates to treat them with dignity

and in ways that were characterized more by mutual burden bearing than by top-down

direction and discipline. She was beginning to see long-term impact from these actions

and perspectives as she took personal interest in her coworkers‘ life struggles and

situations. Increasingly, she based her managerial style upon the emerging new vision, as

she acted out of a prayerful relationship with God.

Endline data indicate continued growth based upon the PAR intervention. While

she gained some of the perspectives through participation in the Damascus Travelers

35 This pronoun was selected because it is the opposite the previously selected pronoun for

inclusivity, for better narrative flow, and to distinguish the second interviewee from the first. It may or may

not match the gender of the second interviewee.

172

groups, most of the perspectives came through the conversations and meetings during the

vision cultivation process itself.

Her vision for ministry had been based on an understanding of the congregation

as a family who cares for one another. After the PAR intervention, her vision was

primarily one of reaching out to invite people from society‘s fringes that congregation

members might not normally invite. She described perspectives that she gained by being

open to change and experimentation, using open-minded processes of discernment. She

eschewed a consumer church mentality. She stated that in the practice of her faith, she

was moving beyond previous experiences of worship and church life as a rote liturgical

enactment that does not fully engage the heart and mind. Instead, she was actively living

her faith and worshipping more holistically. She found that she was having more

conversations about faith with others rather than keeping it ―bottled up‖ as she grew

spiritually with the process. She was also seeing others grow mutually in faith as she

related to them through this experience.

Specifically, her newfound missional perspectives and relationality directly

influenced her work relationships and environment. As she reached out to relate with

others, specifically those on the ―fringes,‖ she found that people would respond with trust

and would talk with her more openly about their personal problems and difficulties. As

she intentionally took time to relate with her coworkers, to care about them, and to bear

burdens mutually with them, they would also take a cue from her by reaching out to one

another to relate in the same way. This complemented a similar initiative to create a more

caring work environment from her company‘s new owners. She felt that the vision

cultivation process gave her the insights to do this in her work.

173

Previously, workers perceived supervisors as a threat. Supervisors would watch

workers closely and discipline them harshly. Since the PAR intervention, workers were

beginning to see one another and supervisors increasingly as working together as a team

and relating to one another in relationships of mutual caring. Problems became

opportunities for learning. When coworkers were having personal problems, people

would respond with mutual care and support. Supervisors were even giving workers more

flexibility to adjust work hours to handle personal problems.

These changes occurred during the PAR intervention. Certainly, this experience

would not be automatically reproducible in every context. Even so, the interviewee

clearly described these changes and attributed these new perspectives to her actions as

stemming from the vision cultivation process.

Missional Praxis Bringing New Vision and Understanding

Qualitative analysis of the interview data yielded an unexpected finding that

missional praxis yielded a deeper faith and understanding of missional vision. The first

individual interviewee, for example, described a greater understanding of the cultivated

vision as articulated ―on paper.‖ He expressed a desire to move from discerning identity

to living it. He could see potential in the newly cultivated vision, anticipated an increase

in missional activity in the congregation, and could see future benefits coming from the

articulated vision. However, he did not describe any personal experiences of living with

the vision and its effects. He had some ideas for moving forward with missional vision

(such as starting a community garden) but there was no experience or concrete planning

to do so. Thus, changed thinking did not bring a noticeable change in activity.

174

Participants in the group interview also mentioned specific missional actions that

brought a deeper understanding of missional concepts and an increased desire to act

based upon the newly cultivated vision. One respondent, for example, described an

experience of leaving the comfort zone to share faith with other friends.

The second interviewee described another example of missional praxis nurturing

new perspectives. This person clearly described a deeper appreciation and appropriation

of the cultivated missional vision by practicing missional living. Through the

congregation‘s quarterly ministry of housing the homeless for a week, she reached

outside of her comfort zone to get to know the members of the homeless families that the

congregation housed. In this experience, she learned new ways of seeing and perceiving

others. This, coupled with her perception and observation of her spouse‘s interactions

with Family Promise guests, contributed to increased awareness of persons ―on the

fringes.‖ This paved the way for relating with others at work based upon missional vision

as described previously. It would seem that as the person continued to behave missionally

and then reflected upon the activity, new understandings brought even newer and deeper

understandings and appreciations of missional vision that could lead to further changes in

practice. Apparently, this continuing loop of praxis–reflection–change may continue to

lead her to further growth and action with missional vision.

Other Factors Influencing Research and the Outcome

Qualitative analysis yielded insights into three outside factors that influenced the

outcome of the PAR intervention and research. These factors include the relationship and

legacy of the mission developer and interim pastor, the impact of a recent denominational

175

decision to ordain partnered gay clergy, and concerns regarding a lack of financial

resources.

Mission Developer Perspectives

In the baseline group interview, as described previously, there were references to

a preexisting shared vision of inviting new members and constructing a building.36

These

references pointed to the ministry of the mission developer and his relationship to the

congregation. There were also issues related to his departure and the ministry of the

subsequent interim pastor.

During the course of the baseline group interview, respondents discussed the work

of the mission developer. Early in the congregation‘s history, the mission developer cast

the vision and members embraced it in a top-down manner. This limited members‘

activity, even as it yielded positive results of congregational growth. This had the effect

of limiting controversy and conflict. When the mission developer left, however, there was

a sense of widespread disunity as the unifying power left and various disparate visions for

ministry held by the members came forth. Several members viewed the interim pastor

who followed the mission developer unfavorably. As a result, the congregation

transferred the expectations for leadership onto the president. The person who served as

president at that time stated that it took approximately 35-40 hours a week (aside from

the person‘s regular occupation) to meet the congregation‘s demands for leadership.

36

The author views these observations neither negatively nor positively. It is standard practice, in

planting a congregation, to focus on growth in numbers and to construct facilities for the congregation to

utilize. In fact, the mission developer possesses an impressive ability to knock on doors and invite

community residents to worship. This discussion simply attempts to show data gathered during the

interviews as a matter of factual representation of outside influences and their impact on answering the

research question.

176

Impact of Denominational Decisions Regarding Gay Clergy

All interviewees noted the fact that the denominational decision to allow

partnered gay clergy caused several members of the congregation to leave. This trend

continued through the time of the PAR intervention and research, such that

approximately one third of the congregation‘s membership had departed the congregation

by the end of the research.

In the baseline group interview, for example, interviewees noted that this issue

had divided a unified congregation. They lamented the decision and noted that they were

feeling its effects. The individual interviewees also noted in the baseline interviews that it

was difficult to understand why so many people had left the congregation. Even so, one

individual who did not agree with the decision also did not want to exclude gays from the

congregation‘s ministry. The divisiveness of the issue also bothered respondents in all

three interviews because of the loss of members.

In the endline interviews, respondents noted that the congregation membership

continued to dwindle because of this decision and other unspecified ―nasty blows.‖ There

was a perception that people in the congregation were still ―reeling‖ because of the

decision. One person noted that people who were leaving the congregation over this

decision might be doing so because they were failing to see themselves as Christ‘s agents

in the world. Finally, an individual interviewee noted that while the decision was

divisive, it had the benefit of being an opportunity to welcome a broader range of people

into the congregation‘s fellowship, with potential for positive repercussions.

177

Financial Concerns

In the baseline group interview, the group also mentioned financial concerns as a

major issue in the life of the congregation. They noted that the building and the

congregation‘s finances were a major focus.

In the endline interview, they pointed out that they were seeing many members

who were wrestling with pragmatic fiduciary responsibilities that might have been

reducing their willingness to risk faith to step forward into ―the unknown.‖ They also

noted that they saw people as seeking to find a balance between fiduciary responsibilities

and faith.

Conclusion

In looking at the events that transpired during the PAR intervention, the results of

the FMS and quantitative analysis, and the results of the interviews and qualitative

analysis, it is clear that the PAR intervention had a significant impact on the congregation

and its relationships with the community. The quantitative data from the FMS produced

broad data from the congregation. This data yielded insights that the researcher used in

planning and implementing specific elements and emphases of the intervention. The FMS

data analysis showed that the congregation was more attentive to community needs.

The qualitative data also provided deeper insights through conversation with a

group and two individuals into specific ways the individuals‘ and congregation‘s vision

for ministry had changed through the time of the intervention. The qualitative data

showed that in the lives of some of the interviewees, there had been significant change in

behavior and perspectives. The ramifications of these impacts will now be considered.

Huntley

178

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS WITH THEOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL REFLECTION

The Spirit is not in the possession of the church but is Lord over the church,

guiding the church from its limited, partial, and distorted understanding and

embodiment of the truth into the fullness of the truth in Jesus, who is the one in

whom all things consist (Col. 1:17). Not every spirit is the Holy Spirit. Not every

form of vitality is his work. There is need for the gift of discernment. …

There is no substitute for the gift of discernment, no set of rules or institutional

provisions by which we can be relieved of the responsibility for discernment.

Dialogue cannot be ―made safe for all possible risks.‖ The Christian who enters

into dialogue with people of other faiths and ideologies is accepting the risk. But

to put my Christianity at risk is precisely the way by which I can confess Jesus

Christ as Lord—Lord over all worlds and Lord over my faith. It is only as the

church accepts the risk that the promise is fulfilled that the Holy Spirit will take

all the treasures of Christ, scattered by the Father’s bounty over all the people

and cultures of mankind, and declare them to the church as the possession of

Jesus.1

In Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin describes the Christendom Church as having a

top-down mindset with respect to missional activity. He does not describe it in those

terms, but the sentiment is present. In this top-down mindset, expert Christendom

missionaries enter other places, faiths, and cultures in an attempt to proclaim the Gospel

and Christianize the local inhabitants. The missionaries, who unquestioningly bring the

truth of the Gospel, share the Christian message and expect others to reject preexisting

beliefs and accept it.

1 Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission, Revised. (Wm.

B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 187-188.

179

With more of a bottom-up mindset and grass-roots focus, Newbigin calls for

Christians to approach other cultures and faiths from a mentality founded in one of

mutual respect rather than from one that views others as objects to be evangelized.

Missionaries enter a culture joining God who is already at work in the missio Dei.

Through dialog and mutual discernment, both parties risk pre-existing beliefs in sharing

their faith with one another.

In order for people to engage one another in this type of mutual and egalitarian

relationship, both parties must be open and vulnerable in order to embrace each other

fully. This openness means that both parties respect and listen to one another, change in

some way through the encounter, and accept the risk attendant with true openness.

Through this type of conversation, two parties can engage in cogenerative dialog that

seeks to discern an unexpected outcome. This outcome will probably challenge the two

parties to question their preconceived notions and to embrace the aspects of the resultant

dialog upon which they both agree.

This open vulnerability to engage one another in cogenerative discernment is a

key aspect of the grass-roots missional vision cultivation process in the PAR intervention.

This research shows that utilizing a cogenerative vision cultivation process infused with

mutuality and conversation is effective in bringing the researchers and participants

together in a way that encourages people to shape and embrace the process and the result.

It also showed that, at times, activity founded in a heavy-handed top-down mindset

between the researcher and the participants resulted in a response of resistance or

rejection. The vision cultivation process impacted both the researcher and the

participants, changing them through shared activity and dialog.

180

The theoretical and theological concepts described in chapters 2 and 3 were

helpful in planning, influencing, and implementing the PAR intervention. In addition,

considering the research findings from theoretical and theological perspectives provided

insights into answering the research question, ―How can cultivating missional vision in a

newly-developed congregation impact the lives of congregants and the community?‖

These insights inspired questions that may be helpful for future research and ministry.

Finally, the data analysis and interpretation yielded unexpected new insights for

missional leaders to consider.

Impact of Theoretical and Theological Foundations

The theoretical and theological foundations for considering the research question

were discussed in chapters two and three. These foundations directly impacted the

planning and implementation of the PAR intervention. They include the need to foster a

grass-roots cogenerative process, the intent to cultivate missional vision patterned after

the social and perichoretic aspects of the Trinity, and the invisible influence, similar to

that of an electromagnetic field, that vision has on persons united as an organization.

A Grass-Roots Process that Invites Participation in Cultivating Shared Vision

Grass Roots Rather Than Top-Down Vision Cultivation

The process an organization uses in working together to cultivate shared vision

has a direct impact on the result of the process. A faulty process often yields an

undesirable result, while a healthy process has the best chances for yielding a beneficial

outcome. This means that an organization that seeks to live together with shared vision

needs to discern and define that vision in a manner that cogeneratively cultivates shared

181

vision. In order for an organization to maximize the likelihood that members will

embrace and share the vision, it should encompass four main components. It should seek

to deliberate and to act in ways that are egalitarian, increases interconnectedness,

cogeneratively cultivates shared vision, and provides multiple entry points. In attending

to these components, a process of cogeneratively cultivating shared vision inherently

builds organizational habits of working together with shared vision.

In order for the missional vision cultivation process to yield a vision that the

congregation would embrace widely, it was essential that the process itself would

embody these characteristics. By inviting congregants at Living Water to cogeneratively

discern and describe a shared vision for ministry, the process inherently nurtured an

environment of mutual discernment that moved the congregation to embody a shared

vision of mutual ministry.

One example of this occurred in the Damascus Travelers planning process within

the Discipleship Commission. Rather than bringing the concept of the Damascus

Travellers to the commission with a list of tasks that the commission needed to

accomplish in order to implement the small group ministry, the researcher brought the

idea to the commission and fostered conversation about the program‘s goals and

objectives. During the course of the conversation, the commission shaped the program

mutually. In the conversation, they decided to invite every member of the congregation

personally to participate. The commission members took ownership of the program and

enthusiastically agreed to do the phone work. They even named the program Damascus

Travelers and the name helped shape their shared vision for the project and its

implementation.

182

A failure by means of top-down vision casting occurred when the researcher

unilaterally decided to provide a prayer labyrinth for the Damascus Travelers to utilize.

There was little conversation about the helpfulness of using a prayer labyrinth, little

training for the participants in how to use it, and no cogenerative conversation about it.

Thus, even though the researcher spent several hours creating the prayer labyrinth, the

Damascus Travelers only used it sparingly. This highlights the need for grass roots,

cogenerative vision cultivation.

It is also important to note that persons not elected or appointed to official

leadership positions can nonetheless serve as leaders in a grass-roots cultivation process.

During the informal conversation after the congregational retreat, participants

cogeneratively discerned a need to hold subsequent Wednesday night meetings and invite

the wider congregation to join the process. The participants in this conversation included

the researcher, elected lay leaders, and other members of the congregation. These persons

took on an important, albeit unofficial, leadership role in expanding the process to

include more people in the congregation.

An example of an entry point into egalitarian vision cultivation occurred when the

congregation responded with vigorous participation in reaching out to the community

after the June 14 council meeting. After discussing the concepts of liminality and

communitas, the council planned events for the congregation to connect with the

community in July. Again, the group made these plans cogeneratively with teachings and

insights from the researcher, and together they embraced the ideas with the congregation.

The planning and implementation of the event increased interconnectedness for those

who participated. With this bottom-up discernment and action, the researcher, the

183

council, and the congregation worked together to enter liminality and experience

communitas through missional action. In fact, by including all four components of

grass-roots vision cultivation, the events seemed to encourage a fuller shared experience

and a better result.

Finally, respondents to the group interview highlighted an example of the risks of

top-down vision casting in their description of the congregation‘s past vision to construct

the church building. The mission developer did an excellent job of inviting and drawing

people from the community to participate in the congregation‘s ministry. The mission

developer‘s vision was powerful and helpful in forming the congregation and in

constructing the building. When the mission developer left, however, the congregation

seemingly did not have ownership of the vision or possess the skills to continue with

cogenerative vision discernment. This contributed to difficulties when the mission

developer departed, and the group clearly described a lack of shared vision for ministry in

the congregation. Again, a process and tendency for grass-roots vision discernment,

founded in love, may have been more beneficial to unite and motivate the congregation in

the long term.

The Ability of Vision, Lovingly Shared, to Unite and Motivate

Shared vision is a key factor in uniting a group together as an organization. In a

congregation who voluntarily unites in mission, it is essential for the vision to not only

connect the members, but also for it to inspire and motivate them to work together with

shared purpose. This common interest must be stronger than personal concerns in order

for the individuals to decide to sacrifice personal desires in furthering the purposes of the

larger organization. Therefore, a love that inspires members to sacrifice in embodying the

184

shared vision is an essential aspect of a shared vision cultivation process in a

congregation.

The two individual respondents in the qualitative interviews indicated that the

tendency for the congregation to love and care for one another mutually was an important

aspect of the shared vision for ministry. Both interviewees described instances where

love motivated them and others in the congregation to sacrifice personal concerns and

unite in shared ministry.

Respondents in the group interview also noted a new dimension of the

congregation‘s ministry emerging through the PAR intervention. They indicated that the

congregation was moving in a direction of reaching out to the community to form and

shape relationships marked by mutuality and reciprocity. In this case, the

newly-discerned shared vision inspired congregants to move beyond themselves

sacrificially to others outside of the congregation.

One of the individual qualitative interviewees described a strong connection

between his understanding of the congregation‘s vision and his changed activity in

praxis. He was brainstorming ways to connect with the community with a new missional

imagination that conversations during the PAR intervention sparked. He was even acting

upon these new ideas to create fresh ways for the congregation to connect together with

the community. He did this, for example, by working to start a new community garden on

the congregation‘s property.

Finally, the second interviewee noted a dramatic increase in missional activity in

the workplace due to new perspectives she gained through the vision cultivation process.

She described the fact that she was intentionally reaching out to coworkers on the fringe

185

of her work community to build connections based upon her new understandings of

missional living. She based this intentional relationality on a new understanding of

trinitarian perichoretic and mutual relationality that brought dramatic changes in her

workplace environment. Along with other influences from management at her workplace,

her intentional relationality even impacted relationships her coworkers had with one

another. This was helping to change her agonistic work environment to one where

coworkers were increasingly acting with mutual care, compassion, and teamwork.

Social Trinitarian and Perichoretic Foundations of Vision Cultivation

An essential theological component in missional vision and a foundation of the

cultivation process is the concept of the social Trinity. According to the social model of

the triune God, the three persons of God exist in a perfect, mutual, loving, and

interdwelling union. God‘s unity of three persons comes largely from the perfect and

loving union wherein God is one God, existing as three persons acting in concert with

one another in one divine will. The three persons of the Trinity perichoretically relate to

one another, embrace creation (including humanity), and act with one will. As God

graciously invites humanity to join the same perichoretic fellowship, God restores

relationships of mutual accompaniment.

While it is important for the result of a missional vision cultivation process to

contain perichoretic aspects, it is also important for the process itself to be mutual and

perichoretic. The Damascus Travelers groups were an opportunity for this type of

fellowship patterned after the relational social Trinity. Several groups formed close

personal relationships to such a depth that there were several deep, even tearful,

interactions. These intimate and perichoretic social ties seemed to form part of the

186

foundation for the purpose statement, ―to grow faith that moves us beyond ourselves,‖

along with the guiding principles, ―courageously bearing our neighbor's burdens,‖ and

―relating to one another with respect and honesty.‖

According to the individual interviewees, the Damascus Travelers experience also

helped to foster an environment of trust that impacted perceptions about the mutual care

of congregants for one another. This experience, along with others gained through other

aspects of the vision cultivation process, made a significant impact in the missional

vision, worldview, and activity of the two interviewees. This mutual conversation was a

natural, perichoretic experience of the social Trinity enfleshed in the community.

A final example of Trinitarian relationality occurred spontaneously, in the form of

a self-forming, bottom-up community2 after the congregation retreat. After a day of deep

and thoughtful discussion about the missional church, God‘s purpose, and shared guiding

principles for Living Water, several participants decided to stop at a local restaurant for

continued fellowship. During the course of the informal conversation, participants

continued the retreat‘s discussion. During this spontaneous and informal conversation, it

was clear that the social Trinity was active in the perichoretic dialog to unleash new

perspectives that participants embraced and appropriated. Because of the conversation,

the participants with the shared vision served as a catalyst to continue and extend the

conversation at Living Water during the Wednesday night conversations that they

advocated. This shared vision served to unite them, like the field effect, with a desire to

continue the conversation and vision cultivation in these Wednesday night meetings.

2 See chapter 2 for a discussion regarding self-forming, bottom-up communities.

187

Vision and the Field Effect

The concept of vision acting upon an organization to unite people invisibly in

shared purpose and action was also present in the vision cultivation process. According to

electromagnetic theory, a changing magnetic field along a wire will induce a

corresponding current in the wire. Conversely, a changing electric current in a wire

creates an invisible corresponding magnetic field.

The field effect that invisibly unites electric currents and magnetic fields is

analogous to the effect that a shared vision and purpose has in uniting a group to form an

organization. As the vision permeates the organization, the unseen force of vision has the

effect of bringing various, seemingly disconnected actions into concert as the people

accomplish the shared purpose and vocation of the organization.3

One of the individual qualitative interviewees identified the field effect nature of

shared vision as an impact in changing his perspectives and actions in personal and

congregational ministry. The interviewee seemed to have a stronger missional

imagination because of the vision cultivation process and the shared vision that emerged

from the conversation. For example, the person was thinking of ways to use the

congregation‘s facilities for ministry in the community, notably by establishing a

community garden. The person stated that he actively ―stepped outside of the comfort

zone‖ using a phrase that was part of the cultivation conversations. He had even

discussed the idea with others and was actively working to enact his new ideas. This was

one unexpected way that the field effect of the vision, along with the cultivation process

3 Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science, 55-56.

188

itself, shaped congregants‘ perspectives and activity. It is clear that the vision cultivation

process had an impact on this interviewee‘s missional vision and activity.

Impact of the Cultivation Process

Theoretical and theological aspects discussed in chapters 2 and 3 give particularly

strong insights into the PAR intervention and the impact it had on the lives of

congregants and how they relate to the community. One of these aspects is the concept of

promise, tools, and bargain that the researcher utilized to invite participation and shape

imagination for how the intervention might benefit the individual participants and the

congregation as a whole. Another illuminating aspect is the concept of liminality and

communitas. Finally, the focus on missional vocation, the Holy Spirit, the missio Dei, and

the reconciliation in God‘s reign are evident in the process and resulting cultivated

missional vision.

Promise, Tools, and Bargain

In order for an effort to organize people to be effective, it must capture the interest

of the people in the group, it must have structures that facilitate the health and growth of

the organization, and it must inspire the group‘s members to participate energetically. In

seeking to organize a group, leaders can hold out promise to the members that will

encourage them to participate in the organization. Leaders also provide tools that

effectively facilitate participation and interaction as the members engage the organization

and receive the promised benefits. Finally, leaders inspire members to give of themselves

189

through a bargain that defines what they bring to the group and give to others in sharing

the promised benefits.4

The elements of promise, tool, and bargain proved to be very helpful as a way to

invite participation in the vision cultivation process in various areas of the congregation‘s

organizational structure. In the top-down method of vision casting, the leader casts the

vision and tries to convince and motivate followers to accept and embrace it. The

top-down method places the leader in a position of superiority over the followers as the

expert who has better insights into God‘s will for the congregation.

Instead, based upon the positive response of congregants in the research, it would

appear that the elements of promise, tool, and bargain were a better fit for the grass-roots

vision cultivation process. With these elements, the leader shares the promise, designs the

tools, and invites the congregation to accept the bargain. This inherently respects the

personhood of the congregant to decide to accept the bargain, participate in the process,

and embrace the cultivated vision. It is more egalitarian, because it respects people and

invites insights and participation from the wider congregation. It differentiates the roles

of leader and congregation in mutual and cogenerative ministry without setting up a

hierarchical structure of expert and amateur. The concept of cultivating missional vision

using promise, tool, and bargain seemed to invite and encourage cogenerative

participation rather than demand and force acceptance by power and manipulation.

These elements of inviting and encouraging participation in the process were

present in various degrees as the researcher dealt with the council and the Discipleship

Commission. They were also present as the researcher and the council mutually expanded

4 Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, 260ff.

190

the process to include the wider congregation. The basic itinerary for introducing these

concepts was:

1. Introduce and explain the tool. Starting with an explanation of the framework and

timeline for the process seemed to help alleviate anxiety and provide a foundation

for further discussion about the shape and parameters of the vision cultivation

process.

2. Highlight the need for a vision cultivation process. Cogenerative discussion

inviting participants to discuss the need for the process helped foster lively

participation.

3. Discuss the promise. Having described the tool and highlighted the need, further

discussion encouraged brainstorming possibilities and creating hope for the

benefits the process offered.

4. Encourage investment in the bargain. The final aspect included an invitation for

participants to invest the time and energy to participate in the process and help

discern and describe the congregation‘s shared missional vision in moving

forward together.

Again, it was important to encourage and invite participation in the vision

cultivation process carefully without doing so in a manipulative or coercive manner.

Rather, by cogeneratively discussing the promise, tools, and bargain in various forums,

participants helped shape even the process itself in a cogenerative manner.

191

Inviting the Council into the Vision Cultivation Process

Prior to the beginning of the PAR intervention, the researcher shared the basic

tools of the process with the council as they read and studied Daubert‘s Living Lutheran5

book together. As they discussed this material, the researcher also shared the overall

research timeline, and the council formally agreed to participate in the process. This

allowed the council to understand the overall process fully and to accept the bargain with

a clear understanding of their role in the protocol.

Preparing for the PAR intervention by involving the council beforehand in this

way helped strengthen the impact of the process on both the council and the

congregation. The council embraced the promise enthusiastically and participated deeply

in all aspects of the cultivation process. Their conversation during the group qualitative

interviews also provided the researcher and the council with further understanding of the

need for and benefits of the vision cultivation process.

Working with the Discipleship Commission and Damascus Travelers

The researcher discussed the concept of the Damascus Travelers with the

Discipleship Commission immediately prior to the start of the PAR intervention. The

group discussed various aspects of the objectives of the small group program, along with

the program‘s role within the larger vision cultivation process. As the group discussed

and honed the tools and promise of the program, their overall enthusiasm and investment

in the program grew. The enthusiasm grew to the point where the group members devised

the extent of the bargain and the method for inviting the congregation to participate in the


192

program. Because of this cogenerative discussion, the entire Discipleship Commission

committed not only to participate in the program, but also to call every active member of

the congregation personally and to invite them to participate in it as well. In this way,

cogenerative egalitarian participation increased the Discipleship Commission‘s

investment in the bargain of the intervention.

The Damascus Travelers program was a key element of the PAR intervention. It

fostered growth as disciples of Christ, it helped to develop and deepen perichoretic

relationships of mutual burden bearing, and it encouraged missional imagination and

synergism of the participants in the vision cultivation process. Quantitative endline data

from the group and the two individual interviews, along with an informal evaluative

conversation with several Damascus Travelers participants after the program‘s

completion, substantiated the finding that the Damascus Travelers played a key

component in drawing the wider congregation into accepting the bargain to participate in

the vision cultivation process.

Inviting the Congregation into the Vision Cultivation Process

In addition to the role that the Discipleship Commission and the Damascus

Travelers program played in drawing the congregation into the conversation, the council

also created and shaped unexpected elements of the process. At the June 14 council

meeting, the researcher discussed the concepts of liminality and communitas. The council

enthusiastically embraced the ideas and encouraged the researcher and one another to

share personal experiences and perspectives as they discussed the concept of ―moving

beyond the comfort zone‖ with the wider congregation. During the conversation, the

council cogeneratively fashioned its own intervention in the congregation in the form of

193

opportunities to connect with the wider community during the month of July. Together

with the researcher, the council articulated the promise of reaching beyond the

congregation‘s comfort zone with these tools, and invited the congregation to participate

in these opportunities.

The congregation responded energetically to the council‘s invitation. Members

who had previously shown an aversion to such activity participated wholeheartedly. The

quantity and strength of the congregation‘s response was surprising to the researcher and

to several members of the congregation and council. By entering a liminal experience as

they stepped together outside of their collective comfort zone, the participants shared an

inspiring and intense experience of comradery and communitas.

Liminality and Communitas

As members of a community move beyond safety, security, comfort, and

convenience, they can experience liminality that moves them beyond themselves and

controlled environments to experience God‘s provision in the wilderness through which

God can create communitas. Missional leaders often work to inspire others to move

beyond the limits of comfort zones in order to engage in shared liminal experiences. The

community also trusts God to work, shape, and form deeper and stronger cogenerative

relationships of mutual burden bearing.

In the congregational retreat, the participants seemed to experience liminality as

they left the comfort and familiarity of their hometowns to journey for a daylong retreat

at a retreat facility. During the conversation in the morning sessions, participants formed

bonds in which they shared increasingly personal perspectives, concerns, and hopes. For

lunch, the facility staff inadvertently served the participants‘ food to another group. This

194

unexpected problem served to heighten the sense of liminality, and as participants waited

in the steamy July heat for the kitchen staff to prepare a second meal, communitas began

to form as the participants joked with one another and expanded upon previous

discussions.

This comradery continued as the participants, in an example of grass roots,

self-forming community, gathered for refreshments after the retreat in an impromptu

gathering at a nearby eating establishment. The shared liminal experience of leaving

familiar environs to overcome adversity and discuss the congregation‘s vision for

ministry seemed to unite them in bonds of fellowship and a form of communitas.

The shared bonds of communitas nurtured during the congregational retreat

impacted the overall congregational vision cultivation process. First, the idea for the

Wednesday night components of the cultivation process came directly from the

impromptu meeting of participants following the retreat. This was not in the original

plan, and the researcher embraced the idea and worked with the council to implement it.

Second, even though the retreat participants experienced the cultivation process at the

retreat, they nonetheless were passionately involved in the repeat cultivation process on

the Wednesday nights. Finally, since they contemplated and discussed several of the

process discussion topics at the retreat, they tended to help focus the conversations at the

Wednesday night meetings in ways that furthered the goals of the missional vision

cultivation process. In this way, the communitas experience of the congregation retreat

gained through the liminality of stepping outside of comfort zones to experience shared

cogenerative discernment had a strong impact on the cultivation process for the

congregation as a whole.

195

Missional Vocation, the Holy Spirit, the Missio Dei, and God‘s Reign

Through the daily vocation and faithful activity of God‘s people, the Holy Spirit

does the loving work of Christ to redeem and reconcile the world to God. The Spirit gifts

and works in the world through God‘s people to do this. As the people of God use their

gifts and talents in ways shaped by God‘s vision for life, God works in the world. The

Spirit works in and through various people to accomplish the universal missio Dei, even

if individuals do not recognize the unifying and unified work of the Spirit in their

individual gifts and vocations. In this, the Spirit frees people from the dark powers of sin

and unites them to God and one another perichoretically as they embody the kenotic,

self-giving God who lifts a fallen humanity. Through their callings and vocations, God

works in the world, invites others to enter God‘s kingdom, and redeems people from a

world ruled by power and darkness. Efforts through these aspects of the PAR intervention

impacted the congregation‘s vision-discernment and decision-making process. The

quantitative and qualitative data also reveal impacts that the PAR intervention had on

respondents.

In reviewing the baseline quantitative Faith Maturity Survey (FMS) data, the

researcher concluded that the data showed strong internal faith aspects, such as

understanding and acceptance of creedal statements like, ―Jesus is the Son of God who

died on a cross and rose again.‖6 Even so, the average response to (O)utward faith aspects

was 10 percent lower than the average for (I)nward or (C)onnecting aspects of faith.7

This finding caused the researcher to focus extensively on encouraging congregants to

6 Question 2 from the FMS: Benson, Donahue, and Erickson, ―The Faith Maturity Scale:

Conceptualization, Measurement, and Empirical Validation,‖ 173.

7 See chapter 5, ―Perspectives in Relating to Others beyond the Congregation.‖

196

look outside of the congregation and to work as participants in the missio Dei to embody

the work of the Holy Spirit through vocations in the caring, redeeming, and reconciling

reign of God. This seemed to have a statistically significant impact in the group aged

18-59, as they showed increases in scores to outward-oriented questions, and a near

statistically significant increase in the overall O category score. This effort clearly

impacted the vision cultivation process, as the community intentionally decided to step

outside of their comfort zones and as they ultimately agreed that God‘s purpose for the

congregation was to ―grow faith that moves us beyond ourselves.‖8

Several participants in the qualitative group interview, along with both individual

interviewees, pointed to the impact of the PAR intervention in shaping perspectives and

in encouraging a stronger focus and ministry outside of the congregation. Both group and

individual interviewees stated that they were looking into the world more and that they

had an increased awareness of others because of the process. The congregation reached

out to deepen relationships with a nearby inner-city congregation. Finally, an individual

interviewee gave a detailed description of the impact that the PAR intervention had on

her perspectives and activities in her workplace. She began to see her work as a

vocation—a vocatio or calling—to live the missio Dei. Previously, she indicated that she

did not notice people on the ―fringes.‖ Because of her new perspectives, she was

specifically connecting and relating with these fringe persons. This, along with other

influences at her workplace, contributed to an experience of God‘s redeeming,

reconciling, and gracious reign confronting the workplace powers of division and

agonistic tendencies that she had experienced previously.

8 Emphasis added.

197

Finally, there was evidence, both in the group qualitative interview and in the

researcher‘s notes relating to the congregation forum, that the PAR intervention fostered

a new vision for ministry among various congregants. The researcher discovered these

perspectives, labeling them as vocational and invitational, near the end of the PAR

intervention. These perspectives were evident in the group qualitative interviews. They

were also evident in congregational dialog during the congregation forum and special

meeting near the end of the cultivation process as congregants discussed and adopted the

proposed guiding principles and purpose statement.

It is reasonable to expect that any intervention to a system will engender a

corrective or counteractive response. In this case, the corrective response took the form of

an impetus to retreat from an outward-directed vocational vision to an inward-directed

invitational vision. The researcher found that persons who advocated enthusiastically for

an invitational vision were also persons who had minimal to no participation in the vision

cultivation process. The opposite was also true. This also supports a finding that the

vision cultivation process impacted the lives of congregants and how they relate to the

community. In this case, to the extent that congregants participated in the process, they

also grasped and accepted the cultivated shared vision as their own.

Possibilities for Further Research

Although the PAR intervention in this research had an impact to varying degrees

on the lives of congregants and how they relate to the community, the limited scope of

the intervention and its enactment revealed questions for further research and inquiry.

These opportunities include the following questions:

198

What role do core faith values play in perspectives and openness to cultivating

missional vision? One finding, for example, is that almost twice as many

respondents answered always true as those who answered never true in rating the

quantitative FMS statement, ―I believe that I must obey God‘s rules and

commandments in order to be saved.‖9 This statement would seem to be in

conflict with the concept of being justified by grace through faith apart from

works of law. Considering the fact that so many congregants hold this and other

points of view, how do these perspectives shape discernment and appropriation of

missional vision? How do other social and theological perspectives influence the

vision and the cultivation process, for good or for ill? How can congregants

discern their charismata and work to free others from the dark powers of sin,

bondage, and oppression that prevent them from being reconciled to God and

experiencing God‘s reconciling reign?

How do congregational or community perspectives and traditions influence a

vision cultivation process? For example, what affect would a larger or stronger

tradition in an established congregation have on the impact of a missional vision

cultivation process? How would one cultivate missional vision in a congregation

with a deep-seated agonistic culture? How would one cultivate deeper missional

vision in a healthy congregation that is already actively engaged in missional

activity in the community and beyond?



199

How applicable would this be in larger congregations or adjudicatories? This

vision cultivation process occurred in a newly developed congregation; are there

some lessons learned that could apply to a larger congregation? How would a

leader conduct a cogenerative vision discernment process at the adjucatory level?

Considering the fact that the researcher and pastor of the congregation had been

present for thirteen months at the beginning of the research, what impact would a

longer history of prior ministry have on the vision cultivation process? When a

pastor begins ministry, both the pastor and the congregation change as the

community and leader adapt to the new situation. Both parties are more open to

change at the beginning of a pastoral relationship than they are after a history of

ministry together. How would the dynamic of a longer shared history impact a

vision cultivation process?

What are the long-term impacts of a cogenerative vision cultivation process?

What influences congregants to return to behaviors and perspectives that the

congregation had prior to the cultivation process? What helps the congregation to

embody the cultivated vision in the long term? What changes to ecclesial

structures can a congregation make to encourage the action-reflection cycle of

discovering God‘s missional vision and nurture discipleship practices for faithful

living? How can a congregation continue to seek and enter liminal experiences

together over the long term?

This research was confined to one newly-developed congregation, with the results

and findings applicable to the particular congregation with its particular heritage and the

culture of its context and place in history. Even so, the research yielded unexpected

200

findings that may also be useful in applying and testing the results and conclusions in

other contexts.

Unexpected Research Findings

In planning and implementing the vision cultivation process, with the hopes that it

would have the maximum beneficial impact on participants, the researcher made three

unexpected discoveries. These findings include a need to include participants

cogeneratively in the planning and implementation of the intervention, the fact that new

praxis can yield new missional perspectives, and the discovery of the helpfulness of the

action-reflection model for gaining new perspectives from communal reflection upon

shared missional experiences.

Cultivating Vision for the Process and the Role of the Holy Spirit Throughout

In planning the PAR intervention and wrestling with which methods to select in

conducting it, the researcher realized that introducing an inflexible and preplanned

process in accomplishing the intervention in a top-down manner would be undesirable.

Since the process sought to cultivate missional vision in a grass-roots manner, the

researcher decided to design and implement it in a grass roots and cogenerative fashion as

well. The researcher did this prayerfully, seeking assistance from the Holy Spirit.

The researcher cultivated vision for the process in various ways, including the

cogenerative planning and implementation of the Damascus Travelers portion of the

intervention with the Discipleship Commission. The researcher also cultivated vision for

the overall intervention itself with the congregation council. As previously described, this

engendered broader participation and support for inviting and including a larger portion

of the congregation in the process. It also drew more people with richer perspectives in

201

planning the intervention. The researcher attempted to do all of this cogeneratively,

prayerfully listening and trusting the Holy Spirit to speak and work among the various

participants. Finally, as the researcher exclusively planned and implemented some

elements of the process—the failed attempt to garner participation from the Damascus

Travelers participants in the prayer labyrinth, for example—it became clear that

prayerfully including more people in not only the implementation but also in the planning

of the intervention was beneficial and probably even indispensable. The intervention

seemed to have a greater impact due to the researcher‘s openness to changing

preconceived notions and plans based upon conversation with the participants.

New Praxis Yielding New Perspectives

The impact of praxis in creating new missional perspectives was an unexpected

finding. Several participants in the vision cultivation process decided to step outside of

their comfort zones to connect with others in unfamiliar ways. As they did so, they had

experiences that shaped new missional vision and impacted perspectives for further

missional activity. This was evident in responses from participants in both individual

interviews and in the group interview.

For example, one group respondent spoke with friends in the community about

her faith and invited them to participate in the summer vacation Bible school she

supervised. An individual participant decided to create some new congregational

initiatives in sharing faith due to the conversations she participated in during the vision

cultivation process. Finally, the second individual interviewee intentionally reached out

to form new relationships with persons ―on the fringes‖ as a result of new experiences

she gleaned in the congregation‘s homeless housing ministry and as a result of the

202

conversations she had during the cultivation process. She engaged participants in the

homeless ministry in relationships in ways that she otherwise would not have attempted.

Again, these experiences led her to engage others at work relationally in ways she

normally would not have done.

Often times, congregational leaders seek to change behavior by teaching and

describing concepts for ministry in the hopes that congregants will learn new perspectives

and incorporate them into daily living. Contrary to this standard practice, this unexpected

finding highlighted a praxis-reflection-change process for changing perspectives and for

increasing missional activity. This finding suggests that missional leaders would do well

to pair teaching and fostering missional perspectives with creating opportunities for

congregants to step outside of comfort zones to engage personally in missional

experiences.

Benefits of Planning, Acting, and Reflecting

Finally, in conducting Participatory Action Research, the benefit of the

action-reflection model was evident. This is not a new idea. In Scripture, Jesus publicly

drew the disciples into new experiences of ministry and into conversations with a variety

of people. Afterward, Jesus would privately engage the disciples in faith conversations

and ask reflective questions. One notable example is when Jesus asked the disciples,

―Who do people say that the Son of Man is … but who do you say that I am?‖ (Matthew

16:13, 15). After reflecting upon this question with their shared experiences in mind,

Simon declared with what may have been a new insight, ―You are the Messiah, the Son

of the living God‖ (Matthew 16:16). In light of Simon‘s cogeneratively inspired insight,

Jesus decided to change his name from Simon to Rock, or Peter. Jesus then took the next

203

step of promising Peter that, ―on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades

will not prevail against it‖ (Matthew 16:18).

There were examples of this iterative process of plan-act-reflect at work. In the

impromptu gathering at a restaurant following the congregational retreat, those gathered

reflected upon the activity at the retreat and realized that the congregation would benefit

from a similar experience spread across four Wednesday night gatherings at church. The

researcher, in conversation with the council, even changed the PAR intervention plan

based upon these insights. The Damascus Travelers groups used a similar

action-reflection process as participants read various missional materials then gathered to

discuss them. Finally, as the group interview participants considered research questions

and discussed them, new perspectives for missional ministry arose through reflecting on

previous activity in ministry during the PAR intervention. These new perspectives,

gained through reflection on previous shared experiences, yielded further possibilities for

shared ministry and communal discernment. This strengthened the impact of the vision

cultivation process on congregants and how they relate to others.

Personal Reflections on this Research and Missional Leadership

As researcher, I found that the grass-roots process of cultivating missional vision

in this context of a newly developed congregation was extremely helpful. It encouraged

the people of Living Water to move beyond the post-construction feeling of

accomplishment and complacency to begin to contemplate how we can move beyond our

comfort zones to engage our local community and join in the missio Dei. In addition, in

this cogenerative journey of discovery and discernment, I wrestled with questions about

204

how to lead missionally from within the congregation from a grass-roots cultivation

mindset rather than from the familiar top-down vision casting mindset.

In other words, this PAR research had an impact both on the congregation and on

me. All of us have changed, to varying degrees, through embarking together on this

journey of cultivating missional vision. Consider, again, the insights from Lesslie

Newbigin at the beginning of this chapter. As a leader, it is tempting to try to stay in

control in an effort to ensure a desired outcome in ministry. Clinging to control, however,

can inhibit the work of God‘s Spirit to call and enliven us as disciples in daily vocations.

Trusting others and nurturing deeper relationships that allow love to flourish is inherently

risky. Furthermore, engaging a cogenerative and mutual process of discernment requires

openness to change with a grasp on previously held opinions that is gentle, yet firm.

This is a difficult and important thing for missional leaders and congregations to

remember in life and ministry. The days when the pastor could go to a congregation to

direct and control the congregation‘s activities are long gone. On the other hand, simply

standing back and allowing a congregation to wander about aimlessly in the hopes that it

will independently discover God‘s call to ministry and mission is unlikely to yield a

vibrant and thriving ministry. In fact, it is an abdication of leadership. Instead, the model

of missional leadership that nurtures missional capacity and imagination in a

cogenerative manner and that fosters and motivates a mindset of grass-roots vision

discernment seems to be more beneficial. At least, this cogenerative model has immense

potential and likelihood for nurturing ministry that people embrace with shared vision as

they live and reach out to others vocationally as the priesthood of believers.

205

In fact, it seems that a missional leader must wrestle continually with the question

of how much pressure one needs to apply in cultivating missional vision. Rather than

seeing the pastor as a religious expert or congregational therapist, a missional leader

would do well to view the role of leadership as one of nurturing respectful and loving

relationships that encourage constructive dialogue, safe space,10

missional imagination,

and cogenerative discernment in a congregation.

This concept of cogenerative discernment includes the aspect of listening together

to one another and to God for leadership, purpose, and direction. Discernment can even

have an aspect of action and reflection. This is akin to Luther‘s ―sin boldly‖ concept of

confidently and faithfully acting with God‘s incomplete revelation while trusting God to

act graciously in spite of our shortcomings and incomplete understanding of God‘s will.

As leader and community do this, while listening to God and to one another, God speaks

to them. God changes them. This is important to remember in discerning and discovering

God‘s purpose and vision for shared ministry.

This is how Jesus seemed to interact with the disciples. For missional leaders, the

cogenerative discernment model of planning, acting, and reflecting is a key component of

leadership. This model works well as the leader encourages congregants to seek out and

enter into shared liminal experiences prayerfully in the hopes that God will draw them

together in mutual communitas experiences. It was our experience that, as we left our

comfort zones and entered liminal moments together, the Holy Spirit did indeed work to

open new possibilities and perspectives for cogenerative discernment and perichoretic

10 The phrase ―safe space‖ also includes the aspect of openness to experimentation and even

failure. It is necessary for a missional community to understand that only God is perfect, and to allow

imperfect congregants to try various missional endeavors even if they do not produce the intended results.

In fact, we learn a great deal from our failures through God‘s grace and forbearance.

206

communitas. As we reflected together upon these experiences, we recognized the voice of

God speaking to us together as a community. It is reasonable to expect that approaching

ministry with this mindset of liminal and cogenerative discernment would yield similar

benefits in various contexts and specific areas of ministry beyond discerning general

vision in a newly developed congregation.

In Scripture, Jesus repeatedly entered liminality to share kairotic11

moments with

the disciples. In the reflective discussion that followed these experiences, the Holy Spirit

seemed to work among them to strengthen bonds of comradery and inspire new and

shared vision for life and ministry. Following the ascension of Christ, the Holy Spirit

entered the disciples and drove them out into the world to join in the missio Dei as they

traveled to the ends of the earth as ambassadors of God‘s freeing and reconciling reign.

As missional leaders, this is our heritage, our motivation, and our call in life and

ministry. We are Jesus‘ contemporary disciples, called to grow personally and

communally in faith as we are reconciled to God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. We

are Jesus‘ contemporary friends,12

united in loving fellowship and increasingly drawn

together with shared vision and purpose. We are Jesus‘ contemporary apostles, sent

beyond ourselves as Christ‘s Body to places of power and influence, to the fringes of

society, and to the ends of the earth to form relationships for the Holy Spirit to inhabit.

God of the universe, you lovingly created us in your image for communion with

you and one another. In our brokenness, we depart from you and embark upon

paths that lead to brokenness and darkness. As you send your Son with the Holy

Spirit to restore your righteous reign and heal our relationships, heal our

11

Καιρός, or kairos, is the Greek word for ―opportune time.‖ Being different from the ordinary

chronological time of daily life, kairos refers to a moment in time that is particularly poignant or filled with

extraordinary possibilities.

12 Cf. John 15:12-17.

207

brokenness and the divisions that we cause. Restore us to your fellowship.

Cultivate your vision for life in us. Send us forth burning with zeal and joy for

your redemptive reign. Work in us, through us, and in all of creation, that you

might restore your loving reign and fellowship with all, through Jesus Christ,

your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,

now and forever.

Huntley

208

EPILOGUE

NEW BEGINNINGS, REALIZING DREAMS

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was

God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him,

and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him

was life, and the life was the light of all people. … And the Word became flesh

and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only

son, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-4, 14)

New Beginnings

Epiphany is a day for recognizing and affirming the gift and call of Christ who

gives his life for the salvation of the world. On Epiphany, we celebrate the appearance

and manifestation of God in Christ as ―the true light, which enlightens everyone, [which]

was coming into the world‖ (John 1:9). As I write this, it is Epiphany—January 6, 2011.

Today we celebrate the missio Dei, concretely manifest in Jesus Christ, who walked

among us bringing God‘s reign to invite and embrace everyone.

It has been five months since Living Water Lutheran Church adopted the purpose

statement and guiding principles at their July 25 congregational meeting. The purpose

statement, ―God‘s purpose for [Living Water] is to grow faith that moves us beyond

ourselves,‖1 continues to make an impact on the ministry of the congregation‘s members

as Living Water turns a page in ministry and reaches out to deepen relationships with a

local congregation and the greater community.

1 Living Water‘s purpose statement (the pseudonym replaces the congregation‘s name).

209

This coming Sunday, the people of Living Water will not gather for worship as

they normally do at their church building. Instead, they will gather to worship God with a

nearby inner-city congregation at their house of worship. This newly developed

congregation, the youngest in their conference, will gather and celebrate the beginning of

a 6-9 month discernment period for a new partnership of shared ministry with the oldest

congregation in their conference. The discernment period will culminate with an

interview and qualitative analysis to reflect upon the time of shared ministry. The hope is

that this discernment period of ministry action and reflection will lay foundations for a

long-term shared-parish ministry.

As the people of Living Water discussed this new opportunity for partnership in

ministry over the past four months, they did so with a stated and shared purpose of

moving beyond themselves. They will now share pastoral ministry on a half-time basis.

More importantly, as they connect with this nearby congregation, Living Water will

further the intentional effort to cultivate shared missional vision for ministry together.

Only now, it will be an effort that includes their brothers and sisters in Christ in the

neighboring congregation and community.

In this shared endeavor, the two congregation councils are intentionally

continuing the action-reflection process Living Water experienced in the vision

cultivation process. They will meet bimonthly and in a summer retreat to foster a

collaborative effort as mutual companions in ministry as they perichoretically dream,

plan, and share in the missio Dei. Living Water is intentionally reaching out to invite and

engage the nearby congregation with an invitation to enter a shared liminal experience

together. The hope seems to be that God will cogeneratively nurture relationships of

210

shared ministry and communitas. The common hope is that in doing this, God will bridge

racial and cultural boundaries by forming new bonds of comradery and mutuality.

The expansion of this existing relationship is an expression of the shared vision

for ministry that Living Water cultivated in this participatory action research (PAR). As

researcher and now pastor of these two congregations, I celebrate this opportunity to

continue fulfilling a personal desire and dream that I have had for a long time.

Realizing Dreams

I remember a momentous day about ten years ago, as a first-call pastor in a rural

congregation, when I was sitting in the mid-summer late-afternoon heat of my basement

office. It had been a long and hot day of, among other things, dealing with

inconsequential squabbles among congregation members. As I sat in my chair taking a

much-needed rest from the day‘s work, I leaned back and laced my fingers together

behind my head. I wondered, ―Is this what ministry is supposed to be?‖ It was frustrating

and troubling for me to realize that I had given up a promising career as an Air Force

electrical and flight test engineer to deal with the picayune issues I was facing. I had

entered full-time pastoral ministry hoping to expand upon the fulfilling experiences of

seeing God at work in peoples‘ lives that I had known as a lay youth leader. The reality

of ordained ministry was not meeting my expectations.

As I considered this, I thought, ―Surely this can‘t be what ministry is about! What

am I supposed to be doing? What is a pastor in ministry supposed to do?‖ This was the

beginning of a new dream for pastoral ministry. I hoped for a day when ministry would

be about experiencing Christ‘s activity in our lives to deepen our relationships with God

and with one another. I began to watch for an opportunity to answer these questions and

211

find ways to nurture this kind of ministry. This became a deep and personal hope, prayer

and dream for my life in pastoral ministry.

On another day in February, five years ago, I was again doing mundane office

work. As I read the mail, I came across a pamphlet promoting the Congregational

Mission and Leadership (CML) D.Min. program at Luther Seminary. After an hour of

prayerful research on the Internet, I realized that this program was an opportunity for me

to begin to answer my earlier questions and to realize my dream to shape perspectives in

a meaningful and missional pastoral ministry. I entered into the program a month and a

half later.

Through this D.Min.-CML program and thesis research, I have been able to

wrestle with the questions about vision for pastoral ministry that I raised on that summer

afternoon in my first call. This theologically informed PAR has been an excellent

opportunity to consider, apply, and reflect upon my earlier learning in the CML program.

Thanks to the experience of sociological research I gained through this endeavor, I now

have perspectives and tools for ministry that I will carry with me for the rest of my life.

Although I doubt that I will ever fully answer the questions I raised early in my ministry,

these important insights are giving me new vision for future ministry. I hope that this

continuing vision cultivation process will also have a long-term impact on both

congregations in their lives of personal, congregational, and shared ministry in the days

and years to come.

Moving into the Future

So now, we cross the threshold of entering into new ministry endeavors as we join

in further cultivating shared vision for mutual ministry in the days ahead. As we move

212

into the future, we will experience joys and sorrows together. We will experience success

and disappointment. We will experience light and darkness. Even so, as we enter the

future on common paths of mutual ministry, we will continue in the ongoing process of

cogeneratively dreaming, planning, acting, and reflecting, both theologically and

theoretically, on our shared experiences. We will do this in the presence of a gracious

God who continues to unite us as we move beyond ourselves to engage one another and

the world in the missio Dei. We will accompany one another as we mutually and

perichoretically bear one another‘s burdens in life.

In this, I am convinced that we will see the light of Christ breaking onto our midst

to graciously dispel the darkness of our world. This coming Sunday, we will take the next

step in a process of discerning God‘s vision for us together on a new, unfamiliar path of

shared ministry. We will experience God‘s reconciling reign breaking into our midst to

dispel the darkness. We will perichoretically bear one another‘s burdens. God will send

us forth with shared vision for ministry as we joyfully enter liminal experiences in God‘s

loving grace. May God‘s kingdom come … may God‘s will be done.

Epiphany of Our Lord, 2011

Huntley

213

APPENDIX A

PAR INTERVENTION TIMETABLE

Figure A.1. PAR Intervention Timeline, February 14-August 29, 2010.

February 14, 2010 - April 19, 2010—Congregation council reads and discusses Living

Lutheran by Dave Daubert in preparation for beginning the vision cultivation

process in April.

March 21, 2010—Obtain baseline quantitative assessment.

April 8, 2010—Field test qualitative interview questions.

214

April 28, May 24 and 26, 2010—Obtain baseline qualitative assessment.

April 25, May 2 & 9, 2010—Sunday School classes discuss missional church concepts

(see appendix F) and process for vision cultivation based upon material from

Living Lutheran.

April 25, 2010—Damascus Travelers kick-off event.

May 10, 2010—Disciple Clusters begin to meet biweekly. Missional Church concepts

and theology are discussed in various settings.

May 22, 2010—Congregational Retreat, utilizing modified retreat schedule from

appendix B of Living Lutheran. See appendix G for retreat session plan.

June 9, 16, 23 and 30, 2010—Wednesday night cultivating missional vision forums are

held at Living Water.

July 12, 2010—Congregation council reviews information from retreat and refines

purpose and time statements for congregational review.

August 8, 2010—Open forum held for congregation to reflect and respond to results of

council work.

August 9, 2010—Council reflects upon input from congregation and makes revisions as

necessary, producing Draft 2.

August 15, 2010—Meet with Damascus Travelers participants to share experiences and

evaluate the program. Damascus Travelers program formally ends, but groups are

encouraged to continue to meet.

August 22, 2010—Congregational meeting held to adopt purpose and time statements.

Congregation members and commissions (committees) are encouraged to utilize

purpose and time statements in planning and making decisions. Congregants will

215

receive instruction and encouragement to live into the vision and to act and make

decisions considering the purpose and times.

August 22-28, 2010—Second and final qualitative endline assessment.

August 29, 2010— Second and final quantitative endline assessment to evaluate the

congregation‘s understanding and effort toward achieving a missional vision after

the intervention.

Huntley

216

APPENDIX B

QUANTITATIVE INSTRUMENT; FAITH MATURITY SCALE1

Instructions: Please answer the following demographic information. The information will only be used to

evaluate the validity of the responses demographically with respect to the congregation as a whole.

This information will not be used to attempt to identify you as the respondent, and it is completely

optional.

Gender: Male

Female

Age Range: 18-29

30-44

45-59

60-74

75+

On average, how often do you attend or participate in worship in this congregation?

Less than once per month

Once per month

Twice per month

Usually every week.

Describe your relationship to this congregation:

Voting member

Inactive member

Associate member (e.g., a winter visitor who is a member of another congregation)

Non-member affiliated with congregation for longer than six months

Non-member affiliated with congregation for less than six months

Thank you for your time and attention in completing this survey! Please turn to the next page for the

survey questions.

1 The Faith Maturity Scale, without the demographic questions, is from Benson, Donahue, and

Erickson, ―The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Empirical Validation.‖

217

Instructions: Mark one answer by circling only one number for each statement. Be as honest as possible,

describing how true it really is and not how true you would like it to be.

Choose from these responses:

1 = never true 5 = often true

2 = rarely true 6 = almost always true

3 = true once in a while 7 = always true

4 = sometimes true

Never Always

True True

O 1. I am concerned that our country is not doing enough to help

the poor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 2. I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died on a cross

and rose again. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 3. My faith shapes how I think and act each and every day. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O 4. I help others with their religious questions and struggles. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 5. I tend to be critical of other people (R). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O 6. In my free time, I help people who have problems or needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 7. My faith helps me know right from wrong. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O 8. I do things to help protect the environment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 9. I devote time to reading and studying the Bible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 10. I have a hard time accepting myself (R). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 11. Every day I see evidence that God is active in the world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 12. I take excellent care of my physical health. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O 13. I am active in efforts to promote social justice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 14. I seek out opportunities to help me grow spiritually. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 15. I take time for periods of prayer or meditation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O 16. I am active in efforts to promote world peace. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 17. I accept people whose religious beliefs are different from mine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 18. I feel a deep sense of responsibility for reducing pain and

suffering in the world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 19. As I grow older, my understanding of God changes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 20. I feel overwhelmed by all the responsibilities and obligations I

have. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O 21. I give significant portions of my time and money to help other

people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O 22. I speak out for equality for women and minorities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

218

Never Always

True True

C 23. I feel God‘s presence in my relationships with other people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 24. My life is filled with meaning and purpose. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 25. I do not understand how a loving God can allow so much pain

and suffering in the world (R). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 26. I believe that I must obey God‘s rules and commandments in

order to be saved (R). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 27. I am confident that I can overcome any problem or crisis no

matter how serious. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 28. I care a great deal about reducing poverty in the United States

and throughout the world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 29. I try to apply my faith to political and social issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 30. My life is committed to Jesus Christ. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O 31. I talk with other people about my faith. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 32. My life is filled with stress and anxiety. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O 33. I go out of my way to show love to people I meet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I 34. I have a real sense that God is guiding me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 35. I do not want the churches of this nation getting involved in

political issues (R). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 36. I like to worship and pray with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 37. I think Christians must be about the business of creating

international understanding and harmony. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C 38. I am spiritually moved by the beauty of God‘s creation enough

to help the poor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(R) = reversed scored.2

Key to leftmost column:3

I = Inward orientation (13 questions)

O = Outward orientation (10 questions)

C = Connecting faith and world (15 questions)

2 The reverse scoring notations were not in the version distributed to the congregation.

3 This column was not in the version distributed to the congregation.

Huntley

219

APPENDIX C

FAITH MATURITY SCALE PARTICIPATION THANK YOU LETTER

March 30, 2010

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Thank you for participating in the Faith Maturity Scale (FMS) survey after worship on

March 21. The information that you provided will be extremely helpful for us as we enter

into a period of cultivating missional vision as a congregation. I look forward to working

with you and the people of [Living Water] as we listen to God‘s call to ministry for us as

a congregation.

I also would like to thank you for signing the Informed Consent Form before completing

the survey. As promised, I am returning a copy of that form to you for your records. As

part of this visioning process, we will take the FMS after worship late in July. If you are

present that day and if you agree to take the survey again, then this consent form will

apply to that survey as well. In other words, if you take the survey a second time in July,

then you won‘t need to complete another copy of the consent form.

Again, thank you for your help and contribution to the visioning process. May God bless

you and the congregation of [Living Water] as we move forward together in ministry [in

our area]!

In Christ,

[Signed]

Enclosure (1)

Huntley

220

APPENDIX D

QUANTITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS

t-Test Results

Interpretive Key

N is the total number of responses

is the mean

s and s2 are the standard deviation and variance, respectively.


P(T ≤ t) one-tail with bold font: Statistically significant change (P < .05)

I: Inward-directed questions

O: Outward-directed questions

C: Combined (both inward-directed and outward-directed questions)

Table E.1. t-Test Results, Responses Averaged by Participant

No. Nb Ne sb2 se

2 df tStat

P(T ≤ t)

one-tail

t Critical

one-tail

P(T ≤ t)

two-tail

t Critical

two-tail

All 63 43 4.98612 5.01818 0.265408 0.228524 95 -0.328458 0.3716441 1.661052 0.743288 1.985251

18-59 28 23 4.831859 4.992455 0.225398 0.144596 49 -1.341252 0.0930113 1.676551 0.186023 2.009575

60+ 35 19 5.109528 5.039197 0.269712 0.353128 33 0.433749 0.3336465 1.69236 0.667293 2.034515

Table E.2. t-Test Results, by IOC Categories (All ages)

No. Nb Ne sb2 se

2 df tStat

P(T ≤ t)

one-tail

t Critical

one-tail

P(T ≤ t)

two-tail

t Critical

two-tail

I 63 43 5.179149 5.213506 0.255798 0.216791 95 -0.360125 0.3597766 1.661052 0.719553 1.985251

O 63 43 4.460128 4.602824 0.633374 0.654186 89 -0.897701 0.1858836 1.662155 0.371767 1.986979

C 63 43 5.165306 5.120377 0.340736 0.317332 92 0.397306 0.3460309 1.661585 0.692062 1.986086

Table E.3. t-Test Results, by IOC Categories (Ages 18-59)

No. Nb Ne sb2 se

2 df tStat

P(T ≤ t)

one-tail

t Critical

one-tail

P(T ≤ t)

two-tail

t Critical

two-tail

I 28 23 5.139881 5.256689 0.272847 0.227857 48 -0.833252 0.204415 1.677224 0.40883 2.010635

O 28 23 4.163492 4.465217 0.474658 0.396008 48 -1.632264 0.054584 1.677224 0.109168 2.010635

C 28 23 5.003571 5.117805 0.312785 0.183064 49 -0.825915 0.2064277 1.676551 0.412855 2.009575

221

Table E.4. t-Test Results, by IOC Categories (Ages 60+)

Cat. Nb Ne sb2 se

2 df tStat

P(T ≤ t)

one-tail

t Critical

one-tail

P(T ≤ t)

two-tail

t Critical

two-tail

I 35 19 5.210563 5.152227 0.247497 0.219379 39 0.427542 0.3356682 1.684875 0.671336 2.022691

O 35 19 4.697438 4.727444 0.647605 0.966532 31 -0.113923 0.4550167 1.695519 0.910033 2.039513

C 35 19 5.294694 5.133333 0.334179 0.514568 31 0.843094 0.2028171 1.695519 0.405634 2.039513

Table E.5. t-Test Results, by Question (All Ages)

No. Nb Ne sb2 se

2 df tStat

P(T ≤ t)

one-tail

t Critical

one-tail

P(T ≤ t)

two-tail

t Critical

two-tail

1 61 42 4.344262 4.857143 1.896175 1.783972 90 -1.891012 0.0309198 1.661961 0.06184 1.986675

2 63 42 6.984127 7 0.015873 0 62 -1 0.1605987 1.669804 0.321197 1.998972

3 62 42 5.935484 5.97619 0.782655 0.755517 89 -0.232659 0.4082803 1.662155 0.816561 1.986979

4 60 42 4.433333 4.595238 1.639548 2.051684 82 -0.586614 0.2795373 1.663649 0.559075 1.989319

5 61 41 4.47541 4.243902 1.553552 1.689024 83 0.896644 0.1862512 1.66342 0.372502 1.98896

6 63 42 4.52381 4.285714 2.092166 2.062718 88 0.82984 0.2044373 1.662354 0.408875 1.98729

7 62 42 6.419355 6.52381 0.575357 0.450639 95 -0.738432 0.2310362 1.661052 0.462072 1.985251

8 62 42 5.080645 5.119048 1.878636 1.717189 91 -0.143933 0.4429357 1.661771 0.885871 1.986377

9 62 42 4.145161 3.928571 2.978583 2.702091 91 0.646099 0.2599206 1.661771 0.519841 1.986377

10 62 42 4.596774 4.785714 2.801957 2.75784 89 -0.567473 0.2859108 1.662155 0.571822 1.986979

11 63 42 6.285714 6.380952 1.175115 0.631823 102 -0.518825 0.3025031 1.65993 0.605006 1.983495

12 63 42 5.15873 5.357143 1.555044 1.405923 91 -0.822747 0.2064014 1.661771 0.412803 1.986377

13 60 41 3.683333 4.04878 1.779379 2.147561 81 -1.275918 0.1028156 1.663884 0.205631 1.989686

14 63 42 4.84127 4.738095 1.393753 1.319977 90 0.44585 0.3283882 1.661961 0.656776 1.986675

15 62 42 5.225806 5.404762 1.915389 1.61266 93 -0.679844 0.2491459 1.661404 0.498292 1.985802

16 62 40 3.145161 3.225 2.158911 2.230128 82 -0.265284 0.3957283 1.663649 0.791457 1.989319

17 63 42 5.904762 5.642857 1.410138 1.942509 78 0.999714 0.1602701 1.664625 0.32054 1.990847

18 63 42 4.666667 4.52381 1.580645 1.914053 82 0.537413 0.2962189 1.663649 0.592438 1.989319

19 63 41 5.761905 5.853659 1.829493 2.078049 82 -0.32496 0.3730194 1.663649 0.746039 1.989319

20 62 43 4.016129 3.813953 2.475145 3.297896 82 0.592036 0.2777278 1.663649 0.555456 1.989319

21 62 43 4.741935 4.55814 1.407721 2.300111 76 0.665839 0.2537649 1.665151 0.50753 1.991673

22 61 41 4.344262 4.487805 2.596175 2.656098 85 -0.438121 0.3312051 1.662978 0.66241 1.988268

23 62 43 5.66129 5.72093 1.014543 1.72979 75 -0.250705 0.401364 1.665425 0.802728 1.992102

24 61 41 5.52459 5.731707 1.186885 1.15122 87 -0.949962 0.1723815 1.662557 0.344763 1.987608

25 62 43 4.483871 4.44186 2.778424 3.014396 88 0.123928 0.4508276 1.662354 0.901655 1.98729

26 60 43 3.516667 3.488372 5.474294 5.684385 90 0.059859 0.4762003 1.661961 0.952401 1.986675

27 60 43 4.983333 5.255814 2.016667 1.909192 92 -0.975569 0.1659182 1.661585 0.331836 1.986086

28 60 43 4.716667 4.55814 1.698023 2.300111 82 0.554307 0.2904389 1.663649 0.580878 1.989319

29 62 43 5.145161 5.186047 1.273665 2.202658 74 -0.152617 0.4395579 1.665707 0.879116 1.992543

30 62 43 6.064516 6.162791 1.14331 1.139535 91 -0.463573 0.3220302 1.661771 0.64406 1.986377

31 61 42 5.098361 5.119048 1.990164 2.448897 82 -0.068602 0.4727367 1.663649 0.945473 1.989319

32 61 43 3.95082 3.767442 2.847541 3.277962 86 0.523056 0.3011401 1.662765 0.60228 1.987934

33 62 42 5.096774 5.404762 1.826547 1.124855 100 -1.298675 0.0985212 1.660234 0.197042 1.983972

34 62 43 5.83871 6.046512 1.1211 0.75969 100 -1.099043 0.1371941 1.660234 0.274388 1.983972

35 61 43 3.721311 3.581395 3.837705 3.963455 90 0.355288 0.3616025 1.661961 0.723205 1.986675

36 62 43 6 5.744186 1.47541 2.337763 77 0.915002 0.1815235 1.664885 0.363047 1.991254

37 61 43 5.360656 5.534884 2.034426 1.778516 94 -0.637415 0.262702 1.661226 0.525404 1.985523

38 61 43 5.131148 5.139535 1.782514 2.170543 85 -0.02971 0.4881841 1.662978 0.976368 1.988268

222

Table E.6. t-Test Results, by Question (Ages 18-59)

No. Nb Ne sb2 se

2 df tStat

P(T ≤ t)

one-tail

t Critical

one-tail

P(T ≤ t)

two-tail

t Critical

two-tail

1 28 23 4.25 4.869565 2.490741 1.664032 49 -1.542638 0.0646763 1.676551 0.129353 2.009575

2 28 23 6.964286 7 0.035714 0 27 -1 0.1630945 1.703288 0.326189 2.051831

3 28 23 5.714286 6.086957 0.804233 0.44664 49 -1.698496 0.047878 1.676551 0.095756 2.009575

4 26 23 4.269231 4.608696 0.924615 2.158103 37 -0.943713 0.1757191 1.687094 0.351438 2.026192

5 27 22 4.296296 4 1.37037 1.619048 43 0.840248 0.2027086 1.681071 0.405417 2.016692

6 28 23 4.392857 4.304348 2.099206 1.675889 49 0.230196 0.4094488 1.676551 0.818898 2.009575

7 27 23 6.481481 6.434783 0.566952 0.529644 47 0.222562 0.4124205 1.677927 0.824841 2.011741

8 28 23 4.607143 4.913043 1.506614 1.355731 48 -0.910998 0.1834245 1.677224 0.366849 2.010635

9 28 23 3.785714 3.782609 2.619048 2.450593 48 0.006943 0.4972446 1.677224 0.994489 2.010635

10 28 23 4.5 4.869565 2.407407 2.573123 46 -0.830843 0.2051771 1.67866 0.410354 2.012896

11 28 23 6.285714 6.26087 0.804233 0.656126 49 0.103836 0.4588618 1.676551 0.917724 2.009575

12 28 23 4.571429 4.956522 1.439153 1.316206 48 -1.168427 0.1242026 1.677224 0.248405 2.010635

13 28 23 3.321429 3.956522 1.411376 2.134387 42 -1.678252 0.0503624 1.681952 0.100725 2.018082

14 28 23 4.5 4.826087 1.518519 1.059289 49 -1.029692 0.1541054 1.676551 0.308211 2.009575

15 28 23 4.964286 5.304348 2.332011 1.675889 49 -0.86057 0.1968332 1.676551 0.393666 2.009575

16 28 23 2.857143 2.826087 2.275132 1.968379 48 0.076032 0.4698547 1.677224 0.939709 2.010635

17 28 23 5.607143 5.478261 1.728836 2.26087 44 0.322162 0.3744279 1.68023 0.748856 2.015368

18 28 23 4.571429 4.347826 1.513228 1.873518 45 0.607442 0.2733053 1.679427 0.546611 2.014103

19 28 22 5.928571 6.090909 1.846561 1.324675 48 -0.457042 0.3248512 1.677224 0.649702 2.010635

20 28 23 4.464286 4 1.813492 2.454545 44 1.121166 0.1341496 1.68023 0.268299 2.015368

21 28 23 4.357143 4.391304 1.349206 1.794466 44 -0.09616 0.4619149 1.68023 0.92383 2.015368

22 28 23 3.642857 4.304348 2.312169 2.312253 47 -1.54585 0.0644241 1.677927 0.128848 2.011741

23 28 23 5.571429 5.956522 0.994709 0.86166 48 -1.425403 0.0802557 1.677224 0.160511 2.010635

24 27 22 5.296296 5.818182 1.216524 0.822511 47 -1.817597 0.037752 1.677927 0.075503 2.011741

25 28 23 4.428571 4.478261 2.253968 2.806324 45 -0.110417 0.4562847 1.679427 0.912569 2.014103

26 28 23 3.535714 3.826087 4.924603 5.513834 46 -0.450415 0.3272637 1.67866 0.654527 2.012896

27 28 23 4.892857 5.478261 2.099206 1.26087 49 -1.624918 0.055298 1.676551 0.110596 2.009575

28 28 23 4.464286 4.434783 1.665344 1.802372 46 0.079466 0.4685035 1.67866 0.937007 2.012896

29 28 23 5.178571 5.173913 1.041005 2.150198 38 0.012887 0.4948927 1.685954 0.989785 2.024394

30 28 23 6.107143 6.347826 1.210317 0.600791 48 -0.91397 0.1826504 1.677224 0.365301 2.010635

31 27 23 5.037037 5.217391 1.806268 1.814229 47 -0.472367 0.3194253 1.677927 0.638851 2.011741

32 28 23 4.607143 4.086957 2.321429 3.083004 44 1.116805 0.1350697 1.68023 0.270139 2.015368

33 28 23 4.964286 5.26087 1.813492 0.837945 47 -0.932304 0.1779722 1.677927 0.355944 2.011741

34 28 23 5.678571 5.869565 1.48545 0.754941 48 -0.651756 0.2588336 1.677224 0.517667 2.010635

35 27 23 3.851852 4.217391 3.054131 3.450593 46 -0.712589 0.2398495 1.67866 0.479699 2.012896

36 28 23 5.857143 5.782609 1.830688 1.268775 49 0.214674 0.4154562 1.676551 0.830912 2.009575

37 28 23 4.785714 5 2.174603 1.636364 49 -0.55549 0.2905435 1.676551 0.581087 2.009575

38 28 2 4.928571 20 1.253968 648 1 -0.837244 0.2781248 6.313752 0.55625 12.7062

223

Table E.7. t-Test Results, by Question (Ages 60+)

No. Nb Ne sb2 se

2 df tStat

P(T ≤ t)

one-tail

t Critical

one-tail

P(T ≤ t)

two-tail

t Critical

two-tail

1 33 18 4.424242 4.833333 1.439394 2.147059 30 -1.013586 0.1594429 1.697261 0.318886 2.042272

2 35 18 7 7 0 0 In. 65535 Indeterm Indeterm Indeterm Indeterm

3 34 18 6.117647 5.833333 0.713012 1.205882 28 0.958615 0.1729788 1.701131 0.345958 2.048407

4 34 18 4.558824 4.5 2.193405 2.029412 36 0.139717 0.4448312 1.688298 0.889662 2.028094

5 34 18 4.617647 4.611111 1.697861 1.663399 35 0.017323 0.4931385 1.689572 0.986277 2.030108

6 35 18 4.628571 4.222222 2.122689 2.771242 31 0.877159 0.1935738 1.695519 0.387148 2.039513

7 35 18 6.371429 6.611111 0.593277 0.369281 42 -1.23827 0.1112464 1.681952 0.222493 2.018082

8 34 18 5.470588 5.333333 1.893048 2.235294 32 0.323638 0.3741589 1.693889 0.748318 2.036933

9 34 18 4.441176 4 3.163102 3.058824 35 0.860323 0.197733 1.689572 0.395466 2.030108

10 34 18 4.676471 4.722222 3.195187 3.271242 34 -0.087132 0.4655388 1.690924 0.931078 2.032245

11 35 18 6.285714 6.555556 1.504202 0.614379 48 -0.971751 0.1680231 1.677224 0.336046 2.010635

12 35 18 5.628571 5.777778 1.181513 1.124183 35 -0.48103 0.3167443 1.689572 0.633489 2.030108

13 32 17 4 4.117647 1.935484 2.360294 30 -0.263512 0.3969788 1.697261 0.793958 2.042272

14 35 18 5.114286 4.611111 1.163025 1.781046 29 1.384019 0.0884563 1.699127 0.176913 2.04523

15 34 18 5.441176 5.611111 1.526738 1.545752 35 -0.469908 0.3206678 1.689572 0.641336 2.030108

16 34 16 3.382353 3.75 2.000891 2.333333 28 -0.812625 0.2116445 1.701131 0.423289 2.048407

17 35 18 6.142857 5.833333 1.067227 1.676471 28 0.880305 0.1930939 1.701131 0.386188 2.048407

18 35 18 4.742857 4.777778 1.667227 2.065359 31 -0.08666 0.4657495 1.695519 0.931499 2.039513

19 35 18 5.628571 5.777778 1.828571 2.300654 31 -0.351625 0.3637492 1.695519 0.727498 2.039513

20 34 19 3.647059 3.473684 2.780749 4.263158 31 0.313335 0.3780624 1.695519 0.756125 2.039513

21 34 19 5.058824 4.684211 1.269162 3.005848 27 0.847179 0.2021712 1.703288 0.404342 2.051831

22 33 17 4.939394 4.705882 2.121212 3.345588 27 0.457007 0.3256609 1.703288 0.651322 2.051831

23 34 19 5.735294 5.473684 1.04902 2.818713 26 0.617983 0.270981 1.705618 0.541962 2.055529

24 34 18 5.705882 5.611111 1.122995 1.663399 29 0.267583 0.3954572 1.699127 0.790914 2.04523

25 34 19 4.529412 4.315789 3.286988 3.450292 37 0.404961 0.3439191 1.687094 0.687838 2.026192

26 32 19 3.5 2.894737 6.129032 5.321637 40 0.881351 0.1916967 1.683851 0.383393 2.021075

27 32 19 5.0625 5.157895 1.995968 2.251462 36 -0.224305 0.4118941 1.688298 0.823788 2.028094

28 32 19 4.9375 4.789474 1.673387 2.953216 30 0.324783 0.3737996 1.697261 0.747599 2.042272

29 34 19 5.117647 5.157895 1.500891 2.473684 30 -0.096393 0.4619248 1.697261 0.92385 2.042272

30 34 19 6.029412 5.947368 1.120321 1.830409 30 0.228173 0.4105299 1.697261 0.82106 2.042272

31 34 18 5.147059 4.944444 2.18984 3.46732 29 0.399644 0.3461735 1.699127 0.692347 2.04523

32 33 19 3.393939 3.473684 2.683712 3.48538 34 -0.154979 0.4388773 1.690924 0.877755 2.032245

33 34 18 5.205882 5.555556 1.865419 1.555556 38 -0.930281 0.179049 1.685954 0.358098 2.024394

34 34 19 5.970588 6.263158 0.817291 0.760234 39 -1.156029 0.1273511 1.684875 0.254702 2.022691

35 34 19 3.617647 2.736842 4.546346 3.649123 41 1.543195 0.0652338 1.682878 0.130468 2.019541

36 34 19 6.117647 5.631579 1.197861 3.80117 24 1.002058 0.1631562 1.710882 0.326312 2.063899

37 33 19 5.848485 6.157895 1.445076 1.362573 39 -0.910405 0.1841008 1.684875 0.368202 2.022691

38 33 19 5.30303 5.157895 2.217803 3.140351 33 0.301005 0.3826495 1.69236 0.765299 2.034515

224

Overall Response Analysis

Interpretive Key

N is the total number of responses

is the mean.

s is the standard deviation.


I: Inward-directed questions

O: Outward-directed questions

C: Combined (both inward-directed and outward-directed questions)

Table E.8. Count, Mean, and Standard Deviation Data by Age

Age Nb Ne1 sb se

All 63 43 4.98612 5.01818 0.515177 0.478042

18-59 28 23 4.831859 4.992455 0.47476 0.380258

60+ 35 19 5.109528 5.039197 0.519338 0.594246

Table E.9. Count, Mean, and Standard Deviation Data by IOC (All Ages)

Nb = 63

Ne = 43

Cat. sb se

I 5.179149 5.213506 0.505765 0.465608

O 4.460128 4.602824 0.795848 0.808818

C 5.165306 5.120377 0.583726 0.563322

1 One respondent to the endline FMS survey did not answer the age question; thus, the sum of the

counts for the 18-59 and the 60+ age ranges is one less than the count for all respondents.

225

Table E.10. Count, Mean, and Standard Deviation Data by IOC (18-59)

Nb = 28

Ne = 23

Cat. sb se

I 5.139881 5.256689 0.522348 0.477344

O 4.163492 4.465217 0.688954 0.629292

C 5.003571 5.117805 0.559272 0.427859

Table E.11. Count, Mean, and Standard Deviation Data by IOC (60+)

Nb = 35

Ne = 19

Cat. sb se

I 5.210563 5.152227 0.497491 0.468379

O 4.697438 4.727444 0.804739 0.983124

C 5.294694 5.133333 0.584462 0.717334

226

Individual Response Analysis

Table E.12. Interpretive Key

Cell Attribute Kurtosis Range Skew Range

Black with White Text 3 ≤ {Value} -2 ≥ {Value}

Gray with Black Text 1 ≤ {Value} < 3 -1.5 ≥ {Value} > -2

Hash with Bold Text {Value} ≤ -1

Table E.13. Baseline Data (All Ages)

No. s N Median Mode Kurtosis Skew

1 4.344262295 1.377016653 61 4 5 -0.485916727 -0.296906937

2 6.984126984 0.125988158 63 7 7 63 -7.937253933

3 5.935483871 0.884677727 62 6 6 0.829365428 -0.752144408

4 4.433333333 1.280448368 60 4 4 -0.205645277 0.028099487

5 4.475409836 1.246415626 61 4 4 -0.713813821 0.137953784

6 4.523809524 1.446432127 63 5 4 -0.495198152 -0.329676162

7 6.419354839 0.758522876 62 7 7 0.520516524 -1.115025117

8 5.080645161 1.3706333 62 5 5 -0.450261836 -0.426027014

9 4.14516129 1.725857109 62 4 5 -0.961871959 -0.152619768

10 4.596774194 1.673904608 62 5 3 -1.33857992 0.042698406

11 6.285714286 1.084027309 63 7 7 8.033812922 -2.326586157

12 5.158730159 1.247013842 63 5 6 -0.493942195 -0.516812446

13 3.683333333 1.333933481 60 4 4 0.031417751 0.344526073

14 4.841269841 1.180573251 63 5 4 -0.291958958 -0.228787444

15 5.225806452 1.38397568 62 5 5 0.049019492 -0.689280967

16 3.14516129 1.469323187 62 3 2 -0.408268929 0.413652592

17 5.904761905 1.187492421 63 6 6 1.630263126 -1.362508485

18 4.666666667 1.257237114 63 5 5 -0.216020647 -0.290589241

19 5.761904762 1.352587553 63 6 6 3.642252663 -1.771299484

20 4.016129032 1.573259491 62 4 4 -0.576639114 -0.131836953

21 4.741935484 1.186474097 62 5 4 -0.642577916 0.035967646

22 4.344262295 1.611264989 61 4 3 -1.084756514 -0.067419152

23 5.661290323 1.00724504 62 6 6 0.078708545 -0.558735365

24 5.524590164 1.089442631 61 6 6 0.052073403 -0.784650691

25 4.483870968 1.666860556 62 4 3 -0.951361069 -0.047729506

26 3.516666667 2.339720878 60 3 1 -1.421975883 0.314989996

27 4.983333333 1.420093894 60 5 5 0.240324216 -0.557445823

28 4.716666667 1.303081962 60 5 5 -0.209768947 -0.162283445

29 5.14516129 1.128567556 62 5 6 -0.347071192 -0.294905924

30 6.064516129 1.069256947 62 6 7 0.032051917 -0.963259814

31 5.098360656 1.410731702 61 5 5 -0.546516989 -0.437567122

32 3.950819672 1.687465847 61 4 4 -0.805911631 0.03663193

33 5.096774194 1.351497984 62 5 6 1.0851038 -0.922307565

34 5.838709677 1.058820073 62 6 6 -0.334109261 -0.694258031

35 3.721311475 1.959006105 61 4 2 -1.189897577 0.157770851

36 6 1.214664495 62 6 7 1.782440678 -1.474572706

37 5.360655738 1.426333141 61 5 7 -0.696323516 -0.45685013

38 5.131147541 1.335108108 61 5 4 -0.981158624 -0.030530966

227

Table E.14. Baseline Data (Ages 18-59)


1 4.25 1.578208079 28 4 6 -0.921773714 -0.201667201

2 6.964285714 0.188982237 28 7 7 28 -5.291502622

3 5.714285714 0.896790279 28 6 6 2.055319625 -1.036083708

4 4.269230769 0.96156923 26 4 4 0.352008029 -0.008651969

5 4.296296296 1.170628195 27 4 4 -0.514967691 0.611786594

6 4.392857143 1.448863813 28 4 4 -0.101663577 -0.124550419

7 6.481481481 0.752961863 27 7 7 -0.241084821 -1.100111107

8 4.607142857 1.227441957 28 4.5 4 -0.645798923 -0.072463238

9 3.785714286 1.618347187 28 4 4 -1.046576987 -0.360089965

10 4.5 1.551582227 28 4.5 5 -0.851887483 0.096103464

11 6.285714286 0.896790279 28 7 7 -0.152029619 -0.954822241

12 4.571428571 1.199647214 28 5 6 -0.940535334 -0.319664113

13 3.321428571 1.188013325 28 3 3 2.328111226 0.887860892

14 4.5 1.232281834 28 4.5 4 -0.179299867 -0.191837404

15 4.964285714 1.527092198 28 5 5 -0.339025973 -0.540437433

16 2.857142857 1.508354161 28 2.5 2 0.48520248 0.818340334

17 5.607142857 1.314852075 28 6 6 1.25414115 -1.303498238

18 4.571428571 1.230133128 28 5 5 -0.636808646 -0.112820547

19 5.928571429 1.358882205 28 6 6 6.026570149 -2.24613815

20 4.464285714 1.346659595 28 4.5 4 -0.54966252 -0.261358513

21 4.357142857 1.161553421 28 4 4 -0.137691137 0.297619852

22 3.642857143 1.520581899 28 3 3 -0.71140094 0.387570616

23 5.571428571 0.997350989 28 6 5 0.289584567 -0.45291828

24 5.296296296 1.102961566 27 6 6 0.026412255 -1.015957487

25 4.428571429 1.501322169 28 4.5 4 -0.237856652 -0.31175121

26 3.535714286 2.219144694 28 3 1 -1.359467237 0.222644543

27 4.892857143 1.448863813 28 5 5 -0.380650309 -0.272083952

28 4.464285714 1.290482048 28 5 5 -0.579981045 -0.193595858

29 5.178571429 1.020296668 28 5.5 6 -1.021038856 -0.383670111

30 6.107142857 1.100144291 28 6.5 7 0.767749546 -1.124465592

31 5.037037037 1.34397463 27 5 5 -0.32155818 -0.38019908

32 4.607142857 1.523623501 28 4.5 4 -0.670839953 -0.219121918

33 4.964285714 1.346659595 28 5 5 1.41590698 -1.008561379

34 5.678571429 1.218790275 28 6 7 -0.853474644 -0.515423961

35 3.851851852 1.747607237 27 4 5 -0.788557585 -0.035955345

36 5.857142857 1.353029132 28 6 6 1.945770683 -1.557692536

37 4.785714286 1.474653578 28 5 4 -0.789348066 -0.12412626

38 4.928571429 1.11980724 28 5 4 -0.837194237 0.490416857

228

Table E.15. Baseline Data (Ages 60+)


1 4.424242424 1.199747448 33 5 5 0.086529533 -0.33021947

2 7 0 35 7 7 Indeterminate Indeterminate

3 6.117647059 0.844400662 34 6 6 -0.510809728 -0.554017211

4 4.558823529 1.481014731 34 5 5 -0.607153409 -0.121715257

5 4.617647059 1.303019939 34 5 5 -0.525396251 -0.186725528

6 4.628571429 1.456945118 35 5 5 -0.564817113 -0.512268494

7 6.371428571 0.770244968 35 7 7 1.232042009 -1.178924648

8 5.470588235 1.375880855 34 6 5 0.681887865 -0.936226119

9 4.441176471 1.778511064 34 5 5 -1.134131619 -0.137774691

10 4.676470588 1.787508648 34 5 3 -1.620317255 -0.019779288

11 6.285714286 1.226459001 35 7 7 9.501234214 -2.716471096

12 5.628571429 1.086974059 35 6 6 0.307771887 -0.78804884

13 4 1.391216687 32 4 4 -0.303586207 -0.076671497

14 5.114285714 1.078436465 35 5 6 -0.727356591 -0.089778872

15 5.441176471 1.235612386 34 6 6 0.450364297 -0.727108135

16 3.382352941 1.414528637 34 3 4 -0.642764429 0.15197835

17 6.142857143 1.033066741 35 6 7 1.497904678 -1.319988641

18 4.742857143 1.291211404 35 5 5 0.261133815 -0.444509146

19 5.628571429 1.352246808 35 6 6 3.031253917 -1.538215346

20 3.647058824 1.667557694 34 4 4 -0.491264286 0.143432934

21 5.058823529 1.126570997 34 5 6 -0.7115995 -0.121553105

22 4.939393939 1.456438163 33 5 6 -0.811514319 -0.405418235

23 5.735294118 1.024216582 34 6 6 0.210003358 -0.685605972

24 5.705882353 1.05971442 34 6 6 -0.071812596 -0.661117019

25 4.529411765 1.813005108 34 4 3 -1.319908151 0.046886477

26 3.5 2.475688239 32 3 1 -1.511629764 0.387770958

27 5.0625 1.412787225 32 5 5 1.226380587 -0.849384804

28 4.9375 1.293594642 32 5 5 0.212878222 -0.163176571

29 5.117647059 1.225108675 34 5 5 -0.126454121 -0.237023909

30 6.029411765 1.058452104 34 6 7 -0.379608154 -0.876003396

31 5.147058824 1.479810654 34 5 6 -0.582558635 -0.506615321

32 3.393939394 1.638203932 33 3 3 -0.437727783 0.35933161

33 5.205882353 1.365803388 34 5.5 6 1.215995352 -0.926537625

34 5.970588235 0.904041234 34 6 6 0.021165906 -0.724210846

35 3.617647059 2.132216174 34 3 1 -1.367936209 0.295581695

36 6.117647059 1.094468347 34 6 7 0.992823166 -1.277222378

37 5.848484848 1.202113039 33 6 7 -0.752156715 -0.610229179

38 5.303030303 1.489229005 33 5 7 -0.942417637 -0.377059021

229

Table E.16. Endline Data (All Ages)


1 4.857142857 1.335654194 42 5 5 -0.366881972 -0.113181897


3 5.976190476 0.869204717 42 6 6 -0.002660812 -0.654648803

4 4.595238095 1.432370095 42 4 4 -0.182668699 -0.174901469

5 4.243902439 1.299624711 41 4 4 -0.414462067 -0.191925185

6 4.285714286 1.436216477 42 4 4 -0.195292175 0.246636199

7 6.523809524 0.671296352 42 7 7 3.494026791 -1.614432856

8 5.119047619 1.310415703 42 5 6 -0.055706311 -0.639784379

9 3.928571429 1.643803696 42 4 4 -0.80470241 0.085074186

10 4.785714286 1.660674478 42 5 4 -0.782984918 -0.312570409

11 6.380952381 0.794873236 42 7 7 0.584881502 -1.118149064

12 5.357142857 1.185716385 42 6 6 0.126675121 -0.655572808

13 4.048780488 1.465455893 41 4 4 -0.34705995 0.41274349

14 4.738095238 1.14890242 42 5 5 -0.384140151 0.342414451

15 5.404761905 1.269905389 42 6 6 -0.122885067 -0.676189299

16 3.225 1.493361378 40 3 2 -0.07244605 0.565975919

17 5.642857143 1.393739111 42 6 7 1.408995055 -1.132804603

18 4.523809524 1.383493197 42 4 4 0.125564906 0.064254476

19 5.853658537 1.441543888 41 6 7 3.751871964 -1.889639196

20 3.813953488 1.816010986 43 4 5 -0.742427802 0.115017586

21 4.558139535 1.516611599 43 5 5 -0.010159772 -0.610127315

22 4.487804878 1.629753834 41 5 5 -0.182583661 -0.523590389

23 5.720930233 1.315214656 43 6 6 2.921068612 -1.495387983

24 5.731707317 1.072948979 41 6 6 0.541002588 -0.960566506

25 4.441860465 1.736201733 43 5 4 -0.870228809 -0.298368756

26 3.488372093 2.384194913 43 3 1 -1.321663582 0.501537613

27 5.255813953 1.38173499 43 6 6 -0.270240754 -0.712383059

28 4.558139535 1.516611599 43 5 5 -0.588277367 -0.137677019

29 5.186046512 1.484135374 43 6 6 1.233245736 -1.160392329

30 6.162790698 1.067489992 43 7 7 0.739182135 -1.202096033

31 5.119047619 1.564895087 42 6 6 1.393779209 -1.209092806

32 3.76744186 1.810514388 43 4 2 -0.875626872 0.364343406

33 5.404761905 1.060591731 42 5 5 -0.68436438 0.00457562

34 6.046511628 0.871601929 43 6 6 -0.453258877 -0.545183631

35 3.581395349 1.990842824 43 3 1 -1.093503039 0.291790469

36 5.744186047 1.528974497 43 6 7 2.603450262 -1.599313597

37 5.534883721 1.33361016 43 6 7 -0.285472828 -0.646886773

38 5.139534884 1.473276157 43 5 5 0.653718943 -0.954841115

230

Table E.17. Endline Data (Ages 18-59)


1 4.869565217 1.289973496 23 5 6 -0.292787303 -0.29277517


3 6.086956522 0.668311541 23 6 6 -0.536099706 -0.096474988

4 4.608695652 1.469048252 23 4 4 -0.38902709 0.284431815

5 4 1.272418021 22 4 4 0.243616828 -0.305116155

6 4.304347826 1.294561442 23 4 4 0.069963256 0.612400255

7 6.434782609 0.727766631 23 7 7 4.363873596 -1.690483094

8 4.913043478 1.164358718 23 5 5 0.846238508 -0.384887061

9 3.782608696 1.565436963 23 4 4 0.101621228 0.628054496

10 4.869565217 1.604095549 23 5 6 0.084685636 -0.709178777

11 6.260869565 0.810016347 23 6 7 -1.243410821 -0.534401998

12 4.956521739 1.147260011 23 5 6 0.264986995 -0.897443491

13 3.956521739 1.460954261 23 4 4 -0.092513815 0.560806174

14 4.826086957 1.029217439 23 5 5 0.456515928 0.378079291

15 5.304347826 1.294561442 23 6 6 0.502770432 -0.902073644

16 2.826086957 1.402989468 23 2 2 0.397681604 0.878175617

17 5.47826087 1.503618823 23 6 7 1.96886575 -1.184455132

18 4.347826087 1.368765059 23 4 4 0.860957875 0.000440377

19 6.090909091 1.150945405 22 6 7 7.014745341 -2.253901563

20 4 1.566698904 23 4 5 0.053027631 -0.077674862

21 4.391304348 1.339576949 23 5 5 -0.243248323 -0.304896988

22 4.304347826 1.520609406 23 5 5 -0.387361448 -0.397790519

23 5.956521739 0.928256473 23 6 6 -0.161838229 -0.655126936

24 5.818181818 0.906923824 22 6 6 0.407912524 -0.87397812

25 4.47826087 1.675208677 23 5 5 -0.594116587 -0.466982874

26 3.826086957 2.348155445 23 3 7 -1.447920718 0.389930318

27 5.47826087 1.122884484 23 6 6 0.381669935 -0.890164737

28 4.434782609 1.342524317 23 4 4 -0.483489975 0.337196302

29 5.173913043 1.466355219 23 6 6 1.6006932 -1.181078247

30 6.347826087 0.775106776 23 7 7 -0.896062525 -0.722675112

31 5.217391304 1.346933276 23 5 6 3.088665938 -1.288907356

32 4.086956522 1.755848499 23 4 4 -0.8307867 0.186608171

33 5.260869565 0.915393175 23 5 5 -0.155688349 0.594798398

34 5.869565217 0.868873242 23 6 6 -0.729772445 -0.185937043

35 4.217391304 1.857577155 23 4 4 -1.078098365 0.118484936

36 5.782608696 1.126398998 23 6 6 0.409760054 -0.994856399

37 5 1.279204298 23 5 6 0.023280423 -0.570791336

38 5.173913043 1.230379613 23 5 5 1.079242089 -1.00222887

231

Table E.18. Endline Data (Ages 60+)


1 4.833333333 1.465284554 18 5 5 -0.391743291 0.070115887


3 5.833333333 1.098126747 18 6 7 -0.934443783 -0.533058552

4 4.5 1.42457424 18 4.5 6 0.379206049 -0.755374432

5 4.611111111 1.289728147 18 4 6 -0.976649774 -0.276097233

6 4.222222222 1.664704728 18 4 4 -0.441359247 0.120424779

7 6.611111111 0.607684989 18 7 7 1.12632156 -1.36161604

8 5.333333333 1.495090003 18 6 6 -0.022368421 -1.003284081

9 4 1.748949264 18 4 6 -1.103994083 -0.371101938

10 4.722222222 1.808657466 18 5 7 -1.396909983 -0.003037892

11 6.555555556 0.783823376 18 7 7 6.069092349 -2.266576628

12 5.777777778 1.060274967 18 6 6 -0.810924824 -0.503105561

13 4.117647059 1.536324874 17 4 5 -0.288144941 0.3641818

14 4.611111111 1.334558261 18 4 4 -0.86023062 0.483959059

15 5.611111111 1.243282604 18 6 6 -0.600431772 -0.595164538

16 3.75 1.527525232 16 4 4 0.304642296 0.352711365

17 5.833333333 1.294785924 18 6 7 -0.278362573 -0.934923908

18 4.777777778 1.437135859 18 5 4 -0.488467393 0.035782317

19 5.777777778 1.516790557 18 6 7 5.068594234 -1.967090814

20 3.473684211 2.064741605 19 3 3 -0.821441913 0.50741856

21 4.684210526 1.733738144 19 5 6 0.358955428 -0.883401095

22 4.705882353 1.829094922 17 5 4 0.233921783 -0.756273874

23 5.473684211 1.678902454 19 6 7 1.441103424 -1.326749817

24 5.611111111 1.289728147 18 6 6 -0.007204697 -0.831338291

25 4.315789474 1.857496271 19 4 4 -1.007905098 -0.052655061

26 2.894736842 2.306867449 19 2 1 -0.655596973 0.901666829

27 5.157894737 1.50048725 19 6 4 -0.802296786 -0.409339913

28 4.789473684 1.718492471 19 5 5 -0.208355006 -0.66371781

29 5.157894737 1.572795031 19 6 6 1.295910668 -1.151727288

30 5.947368421 1.35292622 19 7 7 -0.504178393 -0.947642091

31 4.944444444 1.862074183 18 6 6 0.318987564 -1.016495389

32 3.473684211 1.866917276 19 3 2 -0.606192388 0.589989033

33 5.555555556 1.247219129 18 6 7 -0.752521008 -0.448897821

34 6.263157895 0.87191394 19 6 7 0.99397842 -1.138079858

35 2.736842105 1.910267732 19 2 1 -0.273689713 0.901445506

36 5.631578947 1.94965884 19 7 7 1.637445527 -1.528426123

37 6.157894737 1.167293065 19 7 7 -0.472564044 -1.04203438

38 5.157894737 1.772103518 19 5 5 0.371647907 -1.002501431

232

Response Count Histograms

All Ages

Figure E.1. Response Count Histograms, Questions 1-6 (all ages), the x-axis denotes the

response to the question and the y-axis denotes the number of responses to the question.

233

Figure E.2. Response Count Histograms, Questions 7-12 (all ages), the x-axis denotes the


234

Figure E.3. Response Count Histograms, Questions 13-18 (all ages), the x-axis denotes

the response to the question and the y-axis denotes the number of responses to the

question.

235



question.

236



question.

237



question.

238



question.

239

Ages 18-59

Figure E.8. Response Count Histograms, Questions 1-6 (18-59), the x-axis denotes the


240

Figure E.9. Response Count Histograms, Questions 7-12 (18-59), the x-axis denotes the


241

Figure E.10. Response Count Histograms, Questions 13-18 (18-59), the x-axis denotes


question.

242



question.

243



question.

244



question.

245



question.

246

Age 60+

Figure E.15. Response Count Histograms, Questions 1-6 (60+), the x-axis denotes the


247



248



249



250



251



252



Huntley

253

APPENDIX E

QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW RESEARCH TOPICS AND QUESTIONS

1. Personal faith practices and communal/vocational ministry

In what ways does your relationship with God make a difference in your life and

in your relationships with others?

o What are some examples of times when you have seen God at work?

o When you talk about God with others, what do you say?

o How does God influence what you do on a daily basis?

o How do you bring God into your day-to-day interactions with others?

o Describe your devotional life.

2. Understanding of the congregation’s shared vision

What are some principles or concepts that people in the congregation hold in

common as they make decisions and work together in ministry?

o How do you know this to be the case?

o Think of some activities that the congregation does together. Based upon

these communal activities, what would you infer to be the congregation‘s

vision for ministry?

o As a congregation member, how do you think a first-time Visitor would

describe the congregation‘s shared vision for ministry after worshipping

here on a Sunday?

3. Efficacy of how the congregation equips congregants for growth in personal

faith and communal/vocational ministry through the vision

Consider this shared vision that you just described. What are some ways that this

vision helps you make decisions in your daily life?

o How do/would you apply it in making decisions on a day to day basis?

o How does the shared vision impact decisions you make at home, at work,

or elsewhere?

o When have you said, ―Wow, this vision is really helpful in dealing with

this situation in life?‖ here at this congregation?

o How does this congregation help you to experience a deeper personal faith

life, or to feel comfortable to talk about your faith in daily life?

254

4. How congregation vision impacts personal/congregational faith practices

Personal applied to individuals, congregational applied to the council interviews.

Consider your personal/the congregation‘s faith life for a moment. How has the

congregation‘s shared vision made a difference in your personal/the

congregation‘s faith life?

o What is different in your personal/the congregation‘s faith life now,

compared to a year ago?

o What were you doing privately/as a council when you felt God give you

insight through considering the shared vision?‖

o When have you seen something happen that went against the

congregation‘s vision? What did you think or how did you feel about that?

o (For endline interviews). How has the vision cultivation process we have

embraced as a congregation over the past few months impacted the

congregation‘s ministry?

5. How congregation vision impacts communal/vocational ministry

How has the congregation‘s shared vision made a difference in how you relate

with others in the community?

o How has the congregation‘s shared vision impacted your relationships

with people outside of the congregation through your actions or verbal

witness?

o How do your relationships with others compare to your understanding of

the congregation‘s shared vision?

o How have people in the community that you know benefitted from the

ministry of the congregation or its members?

o (For endline interviews). What are you doing differently in our

community, whether intentionally or not, as a result of the congregation‘s

vision/vision cultivation process?


embraced as a congregation over the past few months impacted your

relationships with people in the community?


embraced as a congregation over the past few months impacted how the

congregation as a whole thinks about our community?

6. Anything else?

Is there anything else you would like to say, or that you think I should consider?

o Why is this important to you?

o Thank you for your time and effort in helping me understand more about

your understanding of this congregation‘s ministry.

Huntley

255

APPENDIX F

SUNDAY SCHOOL MISSIONAL CHURCH LESSON PLAN

Note: This was covered over a three-week time span. There was not a specific plan for

which portions were covered on a given day; each session covered as much material as

appropriate. All of this material was covered over the three weeks.

1. God’s work in the world

a. Genesis 2 and 3; God in fellowship with humans, left searching for us.

―Where are you?‖

b. God‘s reign is now incomplete. We listen to other voices besides God for

our marching orders.

c. Love and choice. We choose others over God.

d. Even the Exodus and the 10 commandments. Israel is God‘s kingdom for

reaching out to the world.

i. Enslaved after trusting Pharaoh to provide instead of God. Other

gods always do this!

ii. God frees the Hebrew people

iii. Priesthood of Believers did not begin with 1 Peter or Luther.

―Exodus 19:5-6. Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep

my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the

peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, 6but you shall be for me a

priestly kingdom and a holy nation. These are the words that you

shall speak to the Israelites.‖

iv. ―I am the Lord who freed you … have no other before me‖

(Exodus 20).

v. Jealous God

e. We want a human king. (1 Samuel 8) —rejecting God as king

256

f. This continued, back and forth. The prophets constantly called the nation

of Israel back to God.

g. Two things: Focused on God in the temple, out worshipping other Gods.

What happened to the nation of priests (with the Levites priesting the

priests)?

h. Babylon

i. People kicked out of the temple, SENT out there to the nations.

ii. Carry the message of God‘s kingdom to Ninevah.

iii. God … was there already.

iv. God‘s anointed one, or messiah could be … Cyrus? Isaiah 45.

i. Finally, in Jesus, the sent one … God leaves it all behind (Philippians 2) to

empty himself and become us.

2. Trinity

a. The perichoretic nature of God

b. Is poured out for us drawing us into that perichoretic relationship

i. The spirit brooding over the waters of chaos, the word sent out to

bring order out of chaos in creation (cf. Gen 1 and John 1)

ii. Missio Dei–sending of God in mission at work in the world to

come and heal the division

iii. Missio is all over John! Cf. John 17:1-8, 15-23. Then, John

20:21-23.

iv. Holy Spirit: sent John 14:25-27

v. Now, we: sent John 20:21:23

c. The sending is a reaching out of the perichoretic God to bring us back to

fellowship with God. To restore creation to what it was before we broke

relationship with God and forsook God‘s kingdom for our own.

3. Christendom

a. Early church structure; a movement of people being led, formed and

shaped by the Spirit

257

i. Founded in the commandments to love God and one another.

ii. On the fringe (how can you preach Christ crucified from a position

of power?)

iii. A movement and a network

iv. Inherently relational and personal

b. Constantine: Christianity is the official religion (325)

i. Church buildings for each parish

ii. Baptism and membership automatic

iii. Maintenance and in the center of society

iv. Sometimes coopted by the king or wrongly using power from king

(crusades, missionaries in imperial age, etc.)

c. But now … something new and old is happening

i. Luther started it in the west, the separation of Church and state

(leave Roman church)

ii. US as new country without king and with religious freedom

iii. Postmodern democratizing of universal and instant

communication. What now?

iv. Where is perichoresis in this?

4. missio Dei—The “Mission of God” or “Sending of God.”

a. Righteousness of God and right relationships 2 Corinthians 5:17-21

b. Church in the world is the very presence of God (through the Holy Spirit)

to reconcile humanity with God

5. Kingdom of God

a. Redemptive reign of God

b. An assault on the dark powers of this world that keep people in ―control‖

and away from true peace

c. Characteristics

258

i. It is Good News

ii. It is already breaking into history, yet its fulfillment is

eschatological and universal.

iii. God‘s reign, as described in the Sermon on the Mount, changes

everything.

iv. The kingdom is centered in Christ, who is king of all.

v. God‘s reign is being actualized in and through the Spirit’s work in

the Church, of which Christ is King and head.

6. Role of the Holy Spirit

a. Charismata and the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, 1 Corinthians 12

b. Priesthood of believers

c. Vocatio (calling) cf. Luke 5 and the calling of Peter

d. the church is called to represent God‘s kingdom as servants;

Huntley

259

APPENDIX G

RETREAT/WEDNESDAY NIGHT AGENDA AND SESSION PLANS

Retreat Schedule (Saturday, May 22, 2010)

8:30 a.m. Devotions (Who is my neighbor?)

8:45 a.m. Session 1–Missional church overview

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. Session 2–God‘s purpose in the Book of Acts

12:00 p.m. Lunch

1:00 p.m. Session 3–God‘s purpose for Living Water

2:30 p.m. Break

2:45 p.m. Session 4–Biblical/Guiding principles for Living Water

4:00 p.m. Closing Eucharist

4:30 p.m. Depart Beckwith

Wednesday Night Meetings Agenda

June 9, 2010 Session 1–Who is my neighbor?/Missional church overview

June 16, 2010 Session 2–God‘s purpose in the Book of Acts

June 23, 2010 Session 3–God‘s purpose for Living Water

June 30, 2010 Session 4–Biblical/Guiding principles for Living Water

Devotions (Who is my neighbor?) Session Plan

1. Luke 10:25-28

1.1. What does this mean?

1.2. One person tell a 90 second story of loving your neighbor as yourself. How did

you feel?

2. Luke 10:29

2.1. What does this mean?

2.2. One other person tell a story about when someone was a neighbor to you.

2.3. Write ―And who is my neighbor?‖ on the board.

260

3. Luke 10:30-37

3.1. What‘s a priest? Today? Pretend you‘re the priest (reread the story)

3.2. What‘s a Levite? Today? Pretend you‘re the Levite (reread the story)

3.3. What‘s a Samaritan? Today? Pretend you‘re the Samaritan (what do you look

like, pastor on Harley, reread the story)

3.4. What‘s a guy beaten up by robbers? Today? Pretend you‘re the guy. Reread the

story.

4. Some thoughts

4.1. What if it was our goal to intentionally be Samaritans?

4.2. Who would we hang around with?

4.3. Ministry, missionary work is done on the fringe. What would it look like for us to

hang out on the fringe?

5. Read 10:25-29 and contemplate quietly.

6. Sing Amazing Grace, verse 1.

Missional Church Overview Session Plan

1. Some initial conversation

1.1. How do we currently talk about church?

1.2. What is our vision (define it) of ministry and congregational life? What does it

look like?

1.3. How do we define success

2. Organizational Theory

2.1. The church is, does what it is, organizes what it does

2.2. Currently, we organize, we do that, and that makes us what we are; franchise

ELCA congregation.

3. meChurch video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGEmlPjgjVI)

3.1. Describe these people

3.2. Read, ―Then Jesus told his disciples, ‗If any want to become my followers, let

them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.‘‖ (And a version of

this is in all three synoptics).

3.3. What kind of disciple does a meChurch shape? (Society is shaping us to be

selfish).

4. Lonely People video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_3IsEmyCU)

4.1. Describe these people

4.2. What would ministry with these people look like?

261

4.3. Instead of effectiveness, what if we shot for faithfulness. How would we measure

our level of faithfulness?

5. Brisco‘s Transitioning From Traditional to Missional (see appendix H)

5.1. Item 1: Perichoresis and missio Dei. Bulletins are ―visitor friendly.‖ What if,

instead, the custom and culture was that everybody brought Bibles to church and

we all read from our Bibles?

5.2. Item 2: Apostleship

5.3. Item 3: Priesthood of Believers/Spirit working in believers‘ vocations

5.4. Item 4: Sending of 72 to free people so that they may love God.

5.5. Item 5: Perichoresis

5.6. Item 6: Faithfulness, Kingdom of God

5.7. Item 7: Woman at the well

5.8. Item 8: Parables

5.9. Item 9: Paul, ―To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I

am not free from God‘s law but am under Christ‘s law) so that I might win those

outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have

become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for

the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.‖ 1 Corinthians

9:21-23.

God’s Purpose in the Book of Acts Session Plan1

Vision = God‘s Purpose + Guiding Principles + Time

A. Form small groups. Keep groups smaller than eight per group. Count off by the

number of groups needed, depending on how many are present. Do not let people

self-group. There should be a multiple of three groups (3, 6, 9, etc.--usually six

groups is enough) so that an equal number of groups study each chapter. These will

be the work groups for the day.

B. Give each group one chapter to study. If more than three groups are formed, give

more than one group the same chapter to study. Do not give more than one chapter

to any group! 1. Acts 2

2. Acts 10

3. Acts 16

C. Have each group discuss the text. Each group will need to have a scribe to record

answers to the following questions. Each group should list at least five or six

answers for each question. Have them read the text and then spend about 10-12

1 From Daubert, Living Lutheran: Renewing Your Congregation, 91-92.

262

minutes on each question. The facilitator should help them keep on track with the

task and the time available.

1. What did God do in the chapter you studied?

2. What did people of faith do in the chapter you studied? (For example: prayer,

public preaching, etc.)

3. What key lessons would you say any church should learn/remember from this

chapter?

D. Report back to large group. (group scribe serves as primary reporter) 1. Record all answers on newsprint, using large print and markers.

2. Process each question for each group one at a time. (For example, have the

group working on Acts 2 list all the things they found God doing in their text,

then have the group working on Acts 10 do the same, then the group working

on Acts 16 do the same. Then move on to question 2 and repeat the cycle.)

3. Post the newsprint sheets on the walls around the room for everyone to see.

E. Close session with prayer.

God’s Purpose for Living Water Session Plan2

A. Return to the same small groups.

B. Sticky Note Exercise--This is done in silence. Do not allow any conversations until

step 6! 1. Give everyone a self-stick note.

2. Have 10 minutes of silent prayer and reflection on morning

lessons--encourage people to wander around the room in silence and reflect

and pray as they read the newsprint notes from the earlier session. Maintain

silence for the entire time as participants work and pray and think! No one

should write until they have walked around the room and read what is posted

and spent time praying.

3. Instruct each person to create a purpose statement by completing this

sentence, adding no more than twelve additional words: ―God‘s purpose for

our church is …‖ Have them write their statement on their sticky notes.

Remind participants to remain silent as they complete this task.

4. Have participants post their sticky notes on the wall in silence. The purpose

notes from each group go in a cluster on one wall.

5. Let participants read the notes in silence until everyone has read what

everyone wrote.

6. After each person has written a purpose statement for the congregation,

reassemble the small groups again. Instruct each group to discuss the

statements and from them produce one purpose statement to share with the

large group.

2 Ibid., 92-93.

263

7. Come together as a large group and have small groups share their draft

purpose statements.

8. Save written copies of each group‘s statements for the leadership team to use

after the retreat.

Biblical Guiding Principles Session Plan3

(Return to the same small groups from the morning session)

A. Review the chapter (Acts 2, 10, or 16) that you studied earlier. Look at major

events and the decisions/choices that people of faith made in them. What values or

principles were they using to make those decisions? Each small group should make

a list of all the key principles they see in action. Do not try to determine the most

important ones; just list as many as you can in 30-40 minutes.

B. Sort through the guiding principles you have found and discuss which ones

seem to be most important. Compile a list of the five most important.

C. Bring the small groups back to a large group and have each group share the

top five guiding principles that they see in action in the Bible text. Have

someone from each small group read the principles that they have discerned. (A

possible idea is to have five different people from the group each read one principle.

This involves more people in the reporting.)

Guiding Principles for Living Water Session Plan4

A. Return to the same small groups. Have everyone wander and read what has been

posted through the day. Then have each group draft five guiding principles for the

congregation. What should be the most important as you follow God‘s purpose for

your congregation?

B. Have each group share with the larger group the five principles they drafted.

Explain what will happen with the work of the group after the event (see below). Thank

participants and send them home with a prayer and a blessing.

3 Ibid., 93-94.

4 Ibid., 94.

Huntley

264

APPENDIX H

TRANSITIONING FROM TRADITIONAL TO MISSIONAL HANDOUT1

Over the past few months I have had an increasing number of conversations with pastors

and church leaders about moving existing churches in a missional direction. I have been

asked what key issues or topics need to be considered when attempting to transition a

traditional church. The following list is certainly not conclusive or comprehensive, but

here are nine elements that I believe need to be considered when making a missional

shift:

1. Start with Spiritual Formation

God calls the church to be a sent community of people who no longer live for themselves

but instead live to participate with Him in His redemptive purposes. However, people

will have neither the passion nor the strength to live as a counter-cultural society for the

sake of others if they are not transformed by the way of Jesus. If the church is to ―go and

be,‖ rather than ―come and see,‖ then we must make certain that we are a Spirit-formed

community that has the spiritual capacity to impact the lives of others.

This means the church must take seriously its responsibility to cultivate spiritual

transformation that does not allow believers to remain as adolescents in their spiritual

maturity. Such spiritual formation will involve much greater relational underpinnings and

considerable engagement with a multitude of spiritual disciplines.

One such discipline should involve dwelling in the word, whereby the church learns to

regard Scripture not as a tool, but as the living voice of God that exists to guide people

into His mission. If we believe the mission is truly God‘s mission, then we must learn to

discern where He is working; and further discern, in light of our gifts and resources, how

He desires a church to participate in what He is doing in a local context.

2. Cultivate a Missional Leadership Approach

The second most important transition in fostering a missional posture in a local

congregation is rethinking church leadership models that have been accepted as the status

quo. This will require the development of a missional leadership approach that has a

1 Brad Brisco, ―Transitioning from Traditional to Missional‖, May 20, 2010,

http://missionalchurchnetwork.com/transitioning-from-traditional-to-missional/, (accessed May 21, 2010).

(Included here sic).

265

special emphasis on the apostolic function of church leadership, which was marginalized

during the time of Christendom in favor of the pastor/teacher function.

This missional leadership approach will involve creating an apostolic environment

throughout the life of the church. The leader must encourage pioneering activity that

pushes the church into new territory. However, because not all in the church will embrace

such risk, the best approach will involve creating a sort of ―R&D‖ or ―skunk works‖

department in the church for those who are innovators and early adopters.

A culture of experimentation must be cultivated where attempting new initiatives is

expected, even if they don‘t all succeed. As pioneering activities bear fruit, and the

stories of life change begin to bubble up within the church, an increasing number of

people will begin to take notice and get involved.

3. Emphasize the Priesthood of All Believers

Martin Luther‘s idea of the priesthood of all believers was that all Christians were called

to carry out their vocational ministries in every area of life. Every believer must fully

understand how their vocation plays a central part in God‘s redemptive Kingdom.

I think it was Rick Warren who made popular the phase ―every member is a minister.‖

While this phrase is a helpful slogan to move people to understand their responsibility in

the life of the church, God‘s purpose for His church would be better served if we

encouraged people to recognize that ―every member is a missionary.‖ This missionary

activity will include not just being sent to faraway places, but to local work places,

schools, and neighborhoods.

4. Focus Attention on the Local Community

As individual members begin to see themselves as missionaries sent into their local

context the congregation will begin to shift from a community-for-me mentality, to a

me-for-the-community mentality. The church must begin to develop a theology of the

city that sees the church as an agent of transformation for the good of the city (Jeremiah

29:7). This will involve exegeting each segment of the city to understand the local needs,

identify with people, and discover unique opportunities for the church to share the good

news of Jesus.

5. Don’t Do It Alone

Missional activity that leads to significant community transformation takes a lot of work

and no church can afford to work alone. Missional churches must learn to create

partnerships with other churches as well as already existing ministries that care about the

community.

6. Create New Means of Measuring Success

The church must move beyond measuring success by the traditional indicators of

attendance, buildings and cash. Instead we must create new scorecards to measure

ministry effectiveness. These new scorecards will include measurements that point to the

church‘s impact on community transformation rather than measuring what is happening

266

among church members inside the church walls. For the missional church it is no longer

about the number of people active in the church but instead the number of people

active in the community. It is no longer about the amount of money received but it is

about the amount of money given away.

A missional church may ask how many hours has the church spent praying for

community issues? How many hours have church members spent with unbelievers? How

many of those unbelievers are making significant movement towards Jesus? How many

community groups use the facilities of the church? How many people are healthier

because of the clinic the church operates? How many people are in new jobs because of

free job training offered by the church? What is the number of school children who are

getting better grades because of after-school tutoring the church provides. Or how many

times do community leaders call the church asking for advice?

Until the church reconsiders the definition of ministry success and creates new scorecards

to appropriately measure that success, it will continue to allocate vital resources in

misguided directions.

7. Search for Third Places

In a post-Christendom culture where more and more people are less and less interested in

activities of the church, it is increasingly important to connect with people in places of

neutrality, or common ―hang outs.‖ In the book ―The Great Good Place‖ author Ray

Oldenburg identifies these places of common ground as ―third places.‖

According to Oldenburg, third places are those environments in which people meet to

interact with others and develop friendships. In Oldenburg‘s thinking our first place is the

home and the people with whom we live. The second place is where we work and the

place we spend the majority of our waking hours. But the third place is an informal

setting where people relax and have the opportunity to know and be known by others.

Third places might include the local coffee shop, hair salon, restaurant, mall, or fitness

center. These places of common ground must take a position of greater importance in the

overall ministry of the church as individuals begin to recognize themselves as

missionaries sent into the local context to serve and share.

In addition to connecting with people in the third places present in our local communities,

we need to rediscover the topic of hospitality whereby our own homes become a place of

common ground. Biblical hospitality is much more than entertaining others in our homes.

Genuine hospitality involves inviting people into our lives, learning to listen, and

cultivating an environment of mercy and justice, whether our interactions occur in third

places or within our own homes. Regardless of our setting, we must learn to welcome the

stranger.

8. Tap into the Power of Stories

Instead of trying to define what it means to be missional, it is helpful to describe

missional living through stories and images. Stories create new possibilities and energize

people to do things they had not previously imagined. We can capture the ―missional

267

imagination‖ by sharing what other faith communities are doing and illustrate what it

looks like to connect with people in third places, cultivate rapport with local schools, and

build life transforming relationships with neighbors.

Moreover, we can reflect deeply on biblical images of mission, service and hospitality by

spending time on passages such as Genesis 12:2, Isaiah 61:1-3, Matthew 5:43; 10:40;

22:39; 25:35; and Luke 10:25-37.

9. Promote Patience

The greatest challenge facing the church in the West is the ―re-conversion‖ of its own

members. We need to be converted away from an internally-focused, Constantinian mode

of church, and converted towards an externally-focused, missional-incarnational

movement that is a true reflection of the missionary God we follow.

However, this conversion will not be easy. The gravitational pull to focus all of our

resources on ourselves is very strong. Because Christendom still maintains a stranglehold

on the church in North America—even though the culture is fully aware of the death of

Christendom—the transition towards a missional posture will take great patience; both

with those inside and outside the church. Many inside the church will need considerable

time to learn how to reconstruct church life for the sake of others. At the same time, the

church will need to patiently love on people, and whole communities, that have

increasingly become skeptical of the church.

Huntley

268

APPENDIX I

DAMASCUS TRAVELERS INFORMATION

Phone Call Talking Points

The following talking points were utilized by the Discipleship Commission members

who called and personally invited active congregants to participate in the Damascus

Travelers groups:

Small groups of about 5 people

Men are with men, women are with women

Groups meet biweekly.

Groups are asked to read various book(s) and Scripture passages and to discuss

the readings and their perspectives about them.

The first book is The Centered Life, which talks about the difference God makes

in our life when Christ is at the center of what we do and say.

The hope is that we will deepen our faith as we listen and share our faith with one

another.

Groups begin to meet in May and the program formally ends in July.

We also hope that everyone will participate in the May 21-22 congregational

retreat, and that the Damascus Travelers groups will be part of the retreat

experience. This is not required, just desired.

We really believe that this is an opportunity to form new relationships and deepen

existing ones. Our hope is that we will grow in faith as we participate in these

conversations with one another.

269

Initial Group Instructions, Sent via Email on May 13, 2010

Basic Info

1. I have included a list of the Damascus Traveler groups that are assigned, as of

May 13. Groups can grow and even split if they reach a size of six or seven people.

In fact, you are encouraged to invite others to participate!

2. For each group, I am asking a person (designated with an asterisk * in the list of

groups) to take the bull by the horns and contact folks to schedule a first meeting.

Please try to meet by May 23.

3. For each meeting, I recommend choosing a facilitator. It would be a good idea to

take turns facilitating at each meeting to prevent one person from seeming as

though they are ―in charge.‖ The facilitator‘s job is to make sure there is equal time

for everyone to speak and to share perspectives. Encourage quiet people to

participate, and try to keep talkative people from dominating. The facilitator should

also participate in an appropriate amount.

4. Remember to respect confidentiality. Do not share anything from the groups with

spouses, friends or anyone else. It is important that we can trust and respect one

another as we share intimate perspectives.

5. Please let me know when you plan to meet, just so that I know. Also, after you

meet, it might be helpful/inspiring to have a person in your group share some

insights or ―aha‖ moments with everyone else. To do so, just send an email to

[email protected]. Remember to respect confidentiality and

only share appropriate info that the source specifically allows you to share with the

rest of us.

6. Remember, there is not really a ―right‖ way to meet as a group. This is not a

program; it is an opportunity for you to grow in your faith. This is for you; make it

fit you. Use it as a chance for you to connect with others, to grow as Christians, and

to nurture one another‘s faith. Talk about things that are important. Bring issues that

impact your faith to the group so you can gather insights. Bear one another‘s

burdens. Pray for one another. Love one another. Have fun. Be a blessing and be

blessed!

7. On a personal note, I must admit that this is something that is totally new and

unfamiliar for me. We are learning and growing together. There are certainly ways

that we can do this better, and there are ways that we will do this well. That‘s OK,

because we are doing this together and with God. I am absolutely convinced that

God wants to be closer to us, and it excites me that we have this opportunity to

grow together in our relationship with God. Doing things the ―right way,‖ or

270

figuring out what is ―right,‖ is less important than being faithful and growing in our

relationship with God. I am confident that God will bless us with his presence in

this journey with one another. That is why I think it is important to learn together

(myself included). Any and all constructive conversation in this regard is highly

encouraged! And I praise God that we have this opportunity to grow together.

8. It might be helpful for you to keep a journal. Write down things that occur to you

either in your devotions or in your group. What is God saying to you? What is God

saying to others? What are you wrestling with? What occupies your prayer? What

do you hear in the daily Scripture readings? How is God challenging you to grow as

a Christian? What makes you happy, afraid, concerned, peaceful, in love, sad, or

any other emotion? Why do you feel that way?

9. Remember to keep up with the daily devotions and the other readings we have. It is

a discipline. I truly believe that God will be present in unanticipated ways as we

feast on God‘s word together daily and consider our faith from these other

perspectives.

General Group Meeting Structure

As a reminder, each meeting is flexible, subject to the consensus of the group. This is a

general outline, an idea, for how you can structure your conversation as a group. Feel

free to modify it as appropriate as you journey together on the road to Damascus!

10-15 minutes: Checking in, highs, lows and updates for prayer concerns since last

meeting.

25-30 minutes: Discuss the readings for the two-week period.

10-15 minutes: Sharing, discernment, mutual conversation, prayer concerns. (Is there

anything you are wrestling with in your life? Do you have any concerns

or items for prayer? Is there anything the group can do to help bear a

burden in your life or shed additional insight or wisdom?)

10-15 minutes: Prayer

Partial Reading Schedule

May 10-23: Centered Life, chapter 1 (This is a change, I had originally asked for the

first two chapters)

May 24-June 6: Centered Life, chapters 2 and 3.

June 7-June 20: Centered Life, chapters 4 and 5.

271

Also, please immerse yourself in the Scriptures appointed for the Daily Lectionary in the

ELW (the cranberry hymnal). A copy of the Daily Lectionary is attached to this email for

your convenience.

The overall structure for our planned time together is (and it is subject to change):

May: Centered in Christ. Group discussion will focus on insights gleaned from The

Centered Life.

June: Faith practices. Specifically, this will include dwelling in the word, prayer, and

other spiritual practices. Folks will be encouraged to individually participate in a

faith experience, such as a prayer labyrinth. We will also finish The Centered Life.

July: Relating to others, sharing faith and ourselves with others. We will likely look at

excerpts from Unchristian and from Free of Charge, Giving and Forgiving in a

Culture Stripped of Grace.

Final Full Schedule, Sent via Email June 23, 2010

Greetings!

I finished discerning the reading schedule, and I also wrote/found/edited discussion

questions for the remainder of the readings. The schedule is below, as well as attached to

this email as a .pdf file. The readings are also attached as .pdf files.

Earlier, I mentioned that each group could continue at their own pace. That is still the

case. After putting together the remainder of the reading schedule, however, I am torn

between my enthusiasm for these readings (they are quite good, actually) and a desire to

fulfill the promise to complete our time together by the end of July.

With that in mind, I would like to ask that you prayerfully consider either 1. Stepping up

your reading schedule to more closely reflect the original plan, or 2. Possibly meet once

or twice in August to complete the reading schedule and conversations. I really think that

you will appreciate the readings and conversation.

Also, please remember that this week and next week is the time for participating in prayer

with the Prayer Labyrinth. Again, it will be available for use in the Narthex this week and

next week. There are also labyrinths available in Robertsdale and Mobile.

Let me know if you need anything or if there is anything you would like to discuss.

Peace,

Pastor Mike <><

272

Full Reading Schedule

May 10-23: Centered Life1, chapter 1

May 24-June 6: Centered Life, chapters 2 and 3.

June 7-June 20: Centered Life, chapters 4 and 5.

June 21-July 4: Celebration of Discipline2, chapters 1 and 3

July 5-July 18: unChristian3, chapters 1 and 2

July 19-Aug 1: unChristian, chapter 9

August 8: Meet Sunday after worship to discuss our experiences together as a large

group.

Also, please immerse yourself in the Scriptures appointed for the Daily Lectionary in the

ELW (the cranberry hymnal). A copy of the Daily Lectionary was distributed previously.

The overall structure for our planned time together is:

May: Centered in Christ. Group discussion will focus on insights gleaned from The

Centered Life.

June: Faith practices. Specifically, this will include dwelling in the word, prayer, and

other spiritual practices, with excerpts from Celebration of Discipline. Folks will

be encouraged to individually participate in a faith experience via a prayer

labyrinth. We will also finish The Centered Life.

July: Relating to others, sharing faith and ourselves with others. We will look at

excerpts from Unchristian.

1 Fortin, The Centered Life.

2 Richard J Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth, 20th anniversary ed.,

3rd ed., rev. ed ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1998).

3 David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about

Christianity... and Why It Matters (Baker Books, 2007).

273

Discussion Questions

June 21-July 4

Celebration of Discipline, Chapter 1

1. In the first paragraph, Foster talks about the need for deep people. Share an

experience in your life when you had a deep, spiritual experience. What has

happening when you had the experience? What impact did the experience

have on you and your relationships with those around you?

2. What are some ways that you experience a deep relationship with God? What

prevents you from going deeper?

3. What ―ingrained habits of sin‖ (p. 4) bind you and keep you from deepening

your faith? Talk about your struggle to move beyond ―will worship‖ (p. 5) to

enter the door of inner transformation (p. 6ff.).

4. In the section, The Way of Death: Turning the Disciplines into Laws, Foster

discusses the dangers of practicing the Spiritual Disciplines externally but not

internally. Is this a potential danger for you? Why or why not?

Celebration of Discipline, Chapter 3

1. What is prayer for you? Describe your prayer life. When you pray, what is it

like?

2. After reading chapter 3, in what ways do you hear the Holy Spirit speaking,

calling you to grow and deepen your prayer life?

3. In this chapter, what spoke to you the strongest, and why?

4. Foster writes, ―Our prayer is to be like a reflex action to God‘s prior initiative

upon the heart‖ (p. 42). Talk about this. What are some ―prior initiatives‖ God

is placing on your heart?

5. In the section, The Foothills of Prayer, Foster shares several possible means

and topics for prayer. Which ones of these foothills resonated with you? What

foothills would you add to the list?

274

July 5-18

unChristian, Chapter 14

1. Do you know any ―outsiders?‖ Would you consider them to be friends? What

do you think their perceptions are of Christians or Christianity?

2. The author contends that young people do not like to join things that seem

easy, mainstream, or normal. What does that mean for Christianity today?

How can we help people grasp that Christianity was never meant to be safe?

3. When a young Christian interacts with the world, they are much more likely to

live within a truly pluralistic generation … that is, many of his or her friends

are not likely to be Christian. What should change, if anything, in the way we

prepare to live in a pluralistic, diverse world?

4. How does the Bible teach Christians to behave toward outsiders? If the Bible

describes your life as an ―open letter‖ (2 Corinthians 3:2), what does it say

about the God you serve?


1. One outsider in the research made the following comment (p. 26): ―Christian

means conservative, entrenched in their thinking, anti-gay, anti-choice, angry,

violent, illogical, empire builders; they want to convert everyone, and they

generally cannot live peacefully with anyone who does not believe what they

believe.‖ What is your reaction to this comment? Why do people come to

these conclusions?

2. When Christians talk about being persecuted by today‘s American culture, do

you think they are accurate or not? How does Jesus teaching about being

persecuted line up with what people experience today? What is the biblical

response to being ―hated‖ by the world? What does this mean for the way you

live the Christian life?

4 Adapted from ―unChristian Discussion Guide‖, 2007, 1,

http://www.unchristian.com/downloads/uc_discussion_questions.pdf, (accessed June 22, 2010).

5 Adapted from Ibid.

275

3. What are some examples of ways Christians have become known for what

they oppose? What is your church known for? Why does it have that

reputation?

4. Do outsiders‘ views matter to you? From the Perceptions of Christianity chart

on page 28, discuss the unfavorable and favorable perceptions of Christianity

and how they compare with your experiences engaging outsiders.

5. The book describes a movement of young Christians who are reluctant to

admit they are Christians. They are not simply trying to be cool or popular,

but they are concerned that the current way Christianity is expressed toward

outsiders actually makes it more difficult to express what Jesus was about.

Are you encouraged or troubled by this trend? In what situations are you more

or less likely to say you are a Christian?

6. In what ways can your life help to redeem the term Christian? How can you

be a Christian, rather than simply telling people you are one? What does a

Christian who represents both truth and grace look and act like?

July 19-August 1


1. Reflect on how you can engage criticism with the right perspective. Do you

respond with anger and resentment? Or do you respond with understanding

and compassion?

2. Cultivating deep relationships with fellow Christians and outsiders is a key

element to turning the tide of negative perceptions. How much emphasis did

Christ put on relationships in his own life? Discuss steps that will afford you

opportunities to connect with outsiders.

3. Do you use clichés to express your faith? What clichés need to be shelved and

what new phrases or statements can the Holy Spirit create in you?

4. How can your group or church begin to creatively express your faith in new

and fresh ways?

6 Adapted from Ibid., 5.

276

5. Christ was an example of a true servant. How are you serving your fellow

Christians and outsiders in your community?

6. Have someone in your group read aloud the Isaiah 58 passage. Discuss what it

means to ―spend yourself on behalf of the poor.‖

Huntley

277

APPENDIX J

PRAYER LABYRINTH HANDOUT

The Prayer Labyrinth The labyrinth is an ancient symbol for the spiritual journey and is

found in many cultures around the world. Utilized as a spiritual tool

in the Christian faith since the fourth century, it has played a

prominent role in the design of numerous cathedrals since the 12th

century. Today, the labyrinth has been discovered by a whole new

generation of Christ-followers who hunger after God and seek to

deepen their spiritual life as they walk its winding paths.

What is the Labyrinth?

It is a single meandering path which ends in an inner circle. The same path must be followed to

leave the labyrinth. Thus, it is not a maze with blind alleys, dead ends, and puzzles.

For what is the Labyrinth used?

The Labyrinth is designed for prayer and meditation. As a metaphor for the spiritual journey, the

labyrinth suggests insights and analogies for each person’s place on the spiritual path. The

labyrinth is an effective tool for “centering prayer”- prayer which is essentially focused on

listening to God. It can touch our sorrows and release our joys.

How does the labyrinth work?

Walking a labyrinth is a way to pray and meditate just as kneeling, folding one’s hands, or

bowing one’s head are ways to pray. The labyrinth helps us center on God through the physical

act of walking a set path that requires our attention. In the walking, distractions fall away and

the mind is put at rest so that the spirit (rather than the mind) is able to lead the prayer for the

labyrinth-walker.

What are some of the benefits of walking the labyrinth?

Mental and physical benefits can include relaxing and healing, as well as relief from stress and

anxiety. Spiritual benefits can include deepening our relationship with God, gaining greater

self-knowledge, and transforming our souls through communion with God.

278

How do I use the Labyrinth?

Pause at the entrance and ask God to direct your prayer. Take a moment to reflect on

where you are in your life.

Bring a question or a problem which you would like to discuss with God, meditate on a

Scripture, or simply be silent in your mind and let your senses become aware of the

garden around you.

Let the labyrinth set the pace of your walk. Let the labyrinth slow and calm you.

If you meet someone else on the path, simply step to the side and allow them to pass.

If you get confused about where you are, just keep going, and you will wind up at either

the center of the labyrinth or its entrance.

Pause as you exit and offer thanks to God for His presence with you in the labyrinth.

Take some time to reflect on your labyrinth experience. You might wish to record your

thoughts and experiences in a spiritual journal From http://www.stlukesmethodist.org/labyrinth

If you haven't experienced a labyrinth before:

1. Take advantage of this opportunity to pray with your whole body. Give yourself permission

to follow the intuitions and desires that come. Be open to your body expressing itself

through gestures, movements, or the flow of tears. Don’t be trapped by the thought, “I can’t

do that, other people are watching!” Other people are busy with their own labyrinth

experiences.

2. You can’t get lost on a labyrinth, but you can get turned around. If you move off the path

and forget which way you were heading when you step back on, you will either end up at

the threshold or the center. From there you can decide to continue or end your experience.

3. You may choose to walk the path from the threshold to the center and from the center back

out, or to explore the labyrinth pattern in another way. For instance, you may wish to walk

around the labyrinth, experience it by witnessing others as they move on it, sit beside it—

the possibilities are limitless! If an idea comes, try it! For some ideas see Living the

Labyrinth.

4. Many have experienced the labyrinth as a mirror where it is possible to view one’s life

internally and externally at the same time. Open your heart; open your mind to what you

may notice. Be compassionate with yourself; judging yourself isn’t helpful!

5. Labyrinth experiences are seldom “done” when one leaves the pattern. You may wish to

journal, walk around the labyrinth, use art supplies to explore the meanings of your time on

the labyrinth, or sit quietly to let what has begun continue to grow. You may not become

aware of all the meanings of your labyrinth encounter for hours, days or even months!

6. Witnessing others as they move in prayer can be a very meaningful way of readying yourself

for your prayer on a labyrinth. One of the many gifts the labyrinth offers us is a place to

practice watching others with eyes of prayer rather than eyes of judgment.

279

7. Before you enter, let go of any expectations about what may happen during your labyrinth

experience. Pay attention whatever develops as you move in prayer. Try to let go of

thoughts that distract you from being present to the experience.

8. It is often helpful to respond to your labyrinth experience by writing, drawing, or using some

other creative process.

Some prayerful ways of approaching your labyrinth experience:

Caring “God, [person’s name] is in need…”

Centering As you feel God's presence, move into it more deeply.

Focusing A favorite name for God, i.e. “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus...”

A spiritual word that has significance for you, “Love, love, love...”

A short prayer, “Please help!” “Thy will be done” “I'm available.”

Moving Embody your sacred communication. No words are necessary.

Opening “I'm here. Help me to stay open to all You wish to communicate.”

Praising “Speak God's name or attributes with love and appreciation.”

Questioning “What is the next step?” “What do I need?” “What is changing?”

Reflecting Read or recall a biblical story. Ponder its meanings as you move. Take your scriptures with you. Stop anywhere to read and respond.

Releasing “Help me let go of...” “I forgive...”

Searching “God, I want to understand...”

Seeking “Holy One, reveal Yourself to me.”

Singing Choose a favorite spiritual song. Sing it silently or out loud.

Transitioning “Ever since Sarah died...” “Thank You, God, for the new opportunity...”

Excerpted from http://www.jillgeoffrion.com ©Jill K H Geoffrion Used with permission.

Huntley

280

APPENDIX K

JUNE 14, 2010 COUNCIL MEETING LIMINALITY/COMMUNITAS HANDOUT

From The Forgotten Ways by Alan Hirsch, pp. 219-221.1

1 Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church, 219-221.

Huntley

282

APPENDIX L

HANDOUT DISTRIBUTED AT AUGUST 8, 2010 CONGREGATIONAL FORUM

Missional Vision Forum

What we are doing What is our vision for ministry? What vision of ministry do we hold in common? What is

God‘s purpose for us as a congregation? What Biblical principles do we agree upon, to

use as a foundation for shared decision-making in light of God‘s purpose for us?

Today we gather to discuss these questions, and others, as we discern and define a shared

understanding of who we are as a congregation. This will then become a basis for

deciding what we will do, and how we will organize what we do together in ministry. The

Council will meet Monday (August 9) to reflect upon our conversations today to update

the purpose statement and guiding principles. We then ask everyone to return on Sunday,

August 22 for a special congregational wherein we will officially adopt these statements

as our purpose and guiding principles.

These statements come from months of conversation among [Living Water] members at a

congregational retreat, at special Wednesday night forums through the month of June,

and from several council meetings. They serve as a basis for our conversation today.

Suggested Purpose Statement God‘s purpose for [Living Water] is to grow faith that moves us beyond ourselves.

Suggested Guiding Principles 1. Faithfully living with Christ at the center.






Huntley

283

APPENDIX M

PURPOSE STATEMENT AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

From Congregation Retreat

Purpose Statement

God‘s purpose for our church is:

Share the Good News.

Show everyone the love of God.

Guiding Principles

1. We are unconditionally loving.

2. We listen with an open mind.

3. We are faithfully trusting.

4. God is changing us.

5. Believing Jesus is our Lord.

6. Scripture is our rule of faith.

284

From Wednesday Evening Forums

Purpose Statement

God‘s purpose for [Living Water] is to grow faith that moves us beyond ourselves.

Guiding Principles





5. Respectfully seeking and speaking the truth.


From July Council Meeting (Adopted by the Congregation August 22, 2010)

Purpose Statement

God‘s purpose for [Living Water] is to grow faith that moves us beyond ourselves.

Guiding Principles







Huntley

285

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ambrose, Stephen E. Nothing Like It in the World: the Men Who Built the

Transcontinental Railroad, 1863-1869. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

Benson, Peter L., Michael J. Donahue, and Joseph A. Erickson. ―The Faith Maturity

Scale: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Empirical Validation.‖ Research in

the Social Scientific Study of Religion 5 (1993): 171-174.

Bosch, David Jacobus. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission.

American Society of Missiology Series 16. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991.

Braaten, Carl E. The Apostolic Imperative: Nature and Aim of the Church’s Mission and

Ministry. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985.

Bright, John. The Kingdom of God, the Biblical Concept and Its Meaning for the Church.

Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953.

Brisco, Brad. ―Transitioning from Traditional to Missional‖, May 20, 2010.

http://missionalchurchnetwork.com/transitioning-from-traditional-to-missional/.

(accessed May 21, 2010).

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2009.

Daubert, Dave. Living Lutheran: Renewing Your Congregation. Lutheran voices.

Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2007.

———. ―Vision Discerning vs. Vision Casting: How Shared Vision Can Raise Up

Communities of Leaders Rather Than Mere Leaders of Communities.‖ In The

Missional Church and Leadership Formation: Helping Congregations Develop

Leadership Capacity, edited by Craig Van Gelder, 147-171. Grand Rapids:

William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2009.

Dhavamony, Mariasusai. The Kingdom of God and World Religions. Vol. 31. Documenta

Missionalia. Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2004.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Evangelical Lutheran Worship, Pew ed.


―Find a Congregation - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America‖, n.d.

http://www.elca.org. (accessed March 31, 2011).

286

Fortin, Jack. The Centered Life: Awakened, Called, Set Free, Nurtured. 1st ed.


Foster, Richard J. Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth. 20th

anniversary ed., 3rd ed., rev. ed ed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1998.

Greenwood, Davydd J., and Morten Levin. Introduction to Action Research: Social

Research for Social Change. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2007.

Guder, Darrell L., and Lois Barrett, eds. Missional Church: a Vision for the Sending of

the Church in North America. The Gospel and Our Culture Series. Grand Rapids:

William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1998.

Hirsch, Alan. The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church. Grand Rapids:

Brazos Press, 2006.

Hoffmeyer, John F. ―The Missional Trinity.‖ Dialog 40, no. 2 (2001): 108-111.

Hood, Ralph W., and Peter C. Hill. Measures of Religiosity. Birmingham: Religious

Education Press, 1999.

Horrell, J. Scott. ―Toward a Biblical Model of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equivocation

of Nature and Order.‖ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 3

(2004): 399-421.

House, Random. Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition. 2nd

ed. Random House Reference, 2002.

Jacobson, Steve. Carrying Jackie’s Torch: The Players Who Integrated Baseball--and

America. Lawrence Hill Books, 2007.

Kinnaman, David, and Gabe Lyons. unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks

about Christianity... and Why It Matters. Baker Books, 2007.

―Kurtosis‖, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurtosis. (accessed November 29, 2010).

Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, , and , Matthew E. Brashears. ―Social Isolation in

America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks Over Two Decades.‖ American

Sociological Review 71, no. 3 (2006): 353-375.

―Model Constitution for Congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America‖.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), 2009.

http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-

Organization/Office-of-the-Secretary/Congregation-Administration/Model-

Constitution-for-Congregations.aspx. (accessed June 29, 2010).

Navone, John J. Self-Giving and Sharing: the Trinity and Human Fulfillment.

Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1989.

287

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission.

Revised. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

―Normal Distribution‖, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution. (accessed

November 29, 2010).

Rampersad, Arnold. Jackie Robinson: A Biography. 1st ed. New York: Knopf, 1997.

Saarinen, Martin F. The Life Cycle of a Congregation. Bethesda: The Alban Institute,

2001 1986.

Schowalter, Richard P. Igniting a New Generation of Believers. Ministry for the Third

Millennium. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.

Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations.

New York: Penguin Press, 2008.

―Skew‖, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skew. (accessed November 29, 2010).

―St. John Lutheran Church History‖, n.d. http://www.stjohnroyal.org/history.html.

(accessed March 31, 2011).

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin, 2004.

Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Aldine Transaction,

1995.

―unChristian Discussion Guide‖, 2007.

http://www.unchristian.com/downloads/uc_discussion_questions.pdf. (accessed

June 22, 2010).

Van Gelder, Craig. ―Rethinking Denominations and Denominationalism in Light of a

Missional Ecclesiology.‖ Word & World 25, no. 1 (2005): 23-33.

———. The Ministry of the Missional Church: a Community Led by the Spirit. Grand

Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Vedantam, Shankar. ―Social Isolation Growing in U.S., Study Says The Number of

People Who Say They Have No One to Confide In Has Risen.‖ Washington Post.

Washington, DC, 2006.

Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: the Church as the Image of the Trinity. Sacra

Doctrina. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1998.

Wadsworth, Yoland. ―What is Participatory Action Research.‖ Action Research

International, November 1998. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-

ywadsworth98.html. (accessed March 4, 2010).

288

Wheatley, Margaret J. Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic

World. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1999.

nourishing grass roots: cogenerative vision cultivation for missional ministry

Documents