Using and misusing the tools of parish development
separate while still remaining connected ... survey, shared analysis, energy, action
There was an AP news item yesterday about an American cardinal celebrating the old Latin Mass in St. Peter’s . It’s an interesting story for this Episcopal priest whose tradition insists upon the use of the Book of Common Prayer. More accurately our tradition insists on liturgical conformity while in practice each priest alters language and ignores rubrics about baptism and the Eucharist. All that is not what this column is about today. I just don't care that much about it.
It was another part of the story that captured my attention.
Three stories
The Pope and the Bishops
The Vatican story included this. “In July, leaked Vatican documents undermined Francis’ stated reason for having imposed the restrictions in the first place: Francis had said he was responding to ‘the wishes expressed’ by bishops around the world who had responded to a 2020 Vatican survey, as well as the Vatican doctrine office’s own opinion. But the documents suggested that the majority of Catholic bishops who responded to the survey had expressed general satisfaction with the old Latin Mass and warned that restricting it would ‘do more harm than good.’”
In other words, Pope Francis looked at the survey results, was not pleased, took note of “the wishes expressed” by bishops he agreed with, and ignored what the data actually indicated regarding the views of most of the bishops. It was a bit of sleight-of-hand so he could manipulate things in the direction he wanted them to go. He had a sense of what he believed was best for the church, the majority of bishops saw things differently, he decided to do things the way he thought best. Within his system, he had every right to do that. I wish he had just directly said that. He didn't have to be harsh about it, i.e., “I’m the Pope and you're not.” He could have openly acknowledged the thinking of most bishops, thanked them for participating in the survey, and said that his discernment went in another direction. But instead of being straightforward with the bishops, he used language to suggest that the data supported his desires. Something that wasn't true.
It was a bit of manipulation.
Surveys and parish profiles
Some years ago Sister Michelle and I wrote about how a survey was framed in a manner that appeared to take a parish into an unrealistic commitment. I’ll quote, at length, from that report.
The Profile said, “We have developed some ways of answering this call, and look forward to new inspirations to respond to those who are lonely, hungry, or in physical or spiritual need.” The parish’s approach had been to do a few things well. The CAT survey from Holy Cow! Consulting used as part of the search process, and which contributed to elements of the Profile, seemed to press the parish to do much more: “The responses to the survey also suggested areas where parish life could benefit from the investment of new energy. Across all demographics, the following priorities were identified: …Expand outreach ministries that provide direct services to those living on the margins of society. Develop ministries that work toward healing those broken by life circumstances. Work as an advocate for social and institutional change so that society might better reflect the values of the kingdom of God.” These are all things the parish had been doing. So, was the survey result just utopian dreaming or actual commitment to new efforts?
The summary based on the CAT survey does seem to tilt in the direction of “fix-the-problem” and “balance the system.” We wonder if the survey has at least two features that can take churches into pathways that aren’t really based on reflection and free choice, or adequately grounded in the culture and ethos of their tradition, and therefore are unnecessary uphill struggles. One feature is what we call institutionalism. The second is about the way questions are asked, or what we call the “should the parish have Bible study?” question.
Avoiding “should the parish have Bible study?” types of questions is a standard caution for parish leaders and consultants who construct surveys. If you ask, “Should the parish have Bible study?” almost everyone will say, “yes.” However, if you ask, “Will you commit to participating in a Bible study group every two weeks?” there will be many fewer saying “yes.” Surveys have the same problem in regard to any worthy program. “Should the parish do more to serve the most vulnerable and advocate for justice?” will receive overwhelming support in most Episcopal parish churches. That doesn’t tell us whether people will lend their time and energy to such parish efforts nor does it invite people into the needed pragmatic conversation of how much this particular parish is called to do and is able to do.
The CAT survey asks questions from within a certain box—the functioning of the institution, our satisfaction with that institution, and how we can improve it. The survey does seem to tilt in the direction of “fix-the-problem” and “balance the system.” It does that work rather well. But its bias seems to be that the laity’s ministry is in and through the institution of the parish. It doesn’t make much use of the work done over the years on the primary ministry of the baptized or of the organic functioning of the Body of Christ—we are fed by the love of Christ in the Eucharist and we carry that love into our daily life. The principal way in which a parish church carries out its mission is through the baptized who are scattered throughout the institutions and groupings of society. To the extent we become light and salt by our participation in the Eucharist, daily prayers and formation of the church we are light and salt with family and friends, in workplace and civic life.
Our sense was that the survey nudged the parish in a direction. It suggested priorities that in practice were never going to be that much of a priority, e.g., “Expand outreach ministries that provide direct services to those living on the margins of society. Develop ministries that work toward healing those broken by life circumstances. Work as an advocate for social and institutional change so that society might better reflect the values of the kingdom of God.” Like a lot of city Episcopal churches the parish had already been engaged in several efforts toward those ends. We think the survey did not give space for parishioners to simply affirm that what the parish was doing was useful and enough. It was what the parish could do given its resources. The survey was used in a manner that created a pressure saying that more must be done.
The archdeacon and a vestry
I was in a room with the vestry of a New England city parish. They were all in their 70s and 80s. The parish they loved was declining in numbers. They had done all the things that at that time such parishes were urged to do, e.g., leaflet the neighborhood and be more attentive to newcomers. The decline continued, and the people were exhausted. I had been asked to accompany the diocesan Archdeacon, to observe and see if I had any suggestions about what might be done. As people gathered, I noticed their love for one another. How they checked in as each person arrived about their health and the condition of a spouse. They seem tired but in good humor. The Archdeacon launched into a call for them to do more for the Kingdom of God. He insisted that more effort was needed on their part. That they could turn around the decline if only they tried. It was as though he was trying to shame and guilt them to serve his desires while he failed to notice the ways in which in their life, the Kingdom of God was already at hand.
I had been running a two year parish development training program in that diocese. The Archdeacon had taken the course. As I watched his behavior with that vestry, I first thought “he has learned nothing.” Later, I thought, he filtered everything in the program through some lens. And the lens distorted everything. He had a channel through which he understood the theories and methods of the course and in doing that, he twisted them out of shape.
Manipulation
Back in the 70’s, when I was being trained in organization development, The Sensitive Manipulator; The Change Agent Who Builds with Others by William Dyer was one of the books on my desk. It was filled with useful processes and methods and good advice about being a change agent. At first, I hated the title.
There are two different definitions of manipulation. The first is about how we can use a tool in a skillful manner. It is the manipulation of a professional, an expert, someone trained and experienced, using the methods in accordance with ethical norms. The other is about controlling people and situations unfairly, deceptively, dishonestly, and unethically. We see it in data that is altered in order to mislead.
Parish development training
All the major training programs in parish development over the last 50 years have been aware of the phenomenon of participants seeking to use the methods and knowledge of organization development and aesthetic theology in that second sense of manipulation. People often begin such training, really seeking to use the theory and tools offered in a way that will allow them to get people to do what they want them to do. It's part of the story of sin and human limitation. It’s always a temptation. By the time the training is completed most participants have a more professional and ethical grasp of the field. But of course, it ends up, not being true of everyone.
Three leadership tasks
. . . someone who is less likely to become lost in the anxious emotional processes swirling about . . . who can separate while still remaining connected, and, therefore, can remain a modifying, non-anxious, and sometimes challenging presence . . .who can manage his or her own reactivity of others, and, therefore, be able to take stands at the risk of displeasing. It is not as though some leaders can do this and some cannot. No one does this easily, and most leaders, I have learned, can improve their capacity. —Edwin Friedman in “A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix”
Some of it is sin and human limitation. From another direction, we might speak of it as being about wisdom and leadership competence.
Friedman and others point to three tasks facing the leader:
Setting Direction – taking non-reactive, reflective, data based, well thought out positions about direction
Staying connected to the system – staying in touch with the people and culture of the organization; taking in information
Dealing with Resistance and Sabotage – the essential issue is not getting distracted from the direction by the resistance while also not “cutting off’ from those resisting
Our ability to manage the three tasks calls for the wisdom seen in listening and an inner silence, Benedict's invitation to listen with the ear of our heart; being grounded in reality and capacity for practical judgment; and an adequate measure of self-awareness and self-control. (MORE - Self- Differentiated Leadership, Reflections, Worksheet and Undifferentiated Leadership and Self Differentiated Leadership Assessment)
Hints on how to do it
How might the three tasks show themselves in our use of surveys?
Many parishes use surveys of many types as listening tools. They can express a common voice of the parish community and an opportunity for leaders to hear what the community thinks. They can range from a 20 minute testing process during coffee hour to a full blown system assessment involving a weekend with a professional parish development consultant.
One of the most effective organization development interventions is survey - feedback. [1] My shortest description of it is that it involves at least two and possibly three steps. First, a method for gathering information. Second, a process involving all those involved in providing the information, taking part in a common analysis. They join together in making sense of the data. Third, possibly involving those present to join in some follow up action rising from the analysis.
A major difficulty in many parishes is that they do some kind of information gathering process and then one or two things happen. Either the information goes just to the leaders who do an analysis or they have something they call a feedback session in which the leader or a consultant tells the community what the survey means. In that second situation, a real survey feedback process would begin with a question to the whole community gathered along these lines, “What do you make of the results of the survey?” That would be an invitation for everyone to participate in the planned change task of analysis. Involving people in that way is the most effective method to ensure accuracy, generating energy, and, in time, internal commitment.
Last Sunday at Saint Clement’s, Seattle
Last Sunday, Michelle led a 2040 meeting of parishioners. It was about the nature of our life as a community. It was a type of survey feedback process. She gave people a handout that included descriptions of what one might find in a healthy community. Her question was, which of these descriptions best fits our life at Saint Clements.” By some margin the description with the highest rating was this - “This community is one in which people are free to be themselves; to speak and listen fully and authentically. In which differences are accepted (we can fight with those we love). In which we can make decisions and solve the problems we face.”
Michelle then went around the room and invited each person to share what they made of the responses. Some spoke about how glad they were to be part of a parish where they saw that description being true. There were others who while liking that description would have preferred one of the others. A number of people expressed a sense of how much agreement there was in the parish about issues of social justice and feelings about the current federal administration. When it was the turn of a young man sitting at the same table as I was, he decided to share something with the entire community that he had just begun to say to the people at the table. In short, he was saying, “I'm really not as liberal as most of you. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I often disagree with parts of the sermon and elements of the mostly progressive stance of other members.”
It was an important moment in the life of that community. Were we more invested in believing that everybody agreed about issues of politics or was our investment in being a community in which we loved one another? Were we really a parish in which “people are free to be themselves; to speak and listen fully and authentically. In which differences are accepted (we can fight with those we love)?” The overall sense in the room was of acceptance and affirmation of the young man. The rector even came up with a story from his own experience in which a parishioner he often disagreed with at one point affirmed the priority of love over agreement.
Sister Michelle's following the norms of a proper survey-feedback process allowed that conversation to take place. I won't be surprised if in the coming weeks there are a couple of parishioners that push back a bit because they're unhappy to discover that not everyone is in agreement about political issues. But at that point, they will be faced with two realities about the parish culture. One, as a whole the parish is invested in love over agreement. And two, they are loved, even though they might wish the culture were more politically homogeneous.
As the deer longs for the water-brooks, *
so longs my soul for you, O God.
My soul is athirst for God, athirst for the living God; *
when shall I come to appear before the presence of God?
Psalm 42 Quemadmodum
This abides,
Brother Robert, OA
[1] Survey‐Feedback is an an organization development method for collecting and analyzing information about an organization. It makes use of a survey or other date gathering method and a feedback session of those who completed the survey inviting their participation in a process of analysis. The method has two primary objectives: 1) A tool in the improvement of the parish and 2) A tool that helps the working relationship between parish leaders and members. It is one among several methods used by OD practitioners along with interviews, observation, and group exploration & discovery processes. Cummings and Worley see it as one of the “stems of OD practice.” The method is a tool in action research, i.e., a methodology which is intended to have both action outcomes and research outcomes. You can find a complete description in chapter 2 of Finding God in All Things: Contemplation, Intercession, and Intervention