Effective Church Meeting?!

"Meetings make me sad."

The caption for the following photo is “meetings make me sad.” I think we can all identify with this sentiment, as we think of church meetings where we spin wheels, follow irrelevant rabbit trails, doze off while certain repeated talkers drone on and the whole thing meanders endlessly.

I’m working on a resource for churches in leading/facilitating effective meetings, so this blog comes as an experiment and invitation for feedback. 

I’m trying to form the questions to ask. 

What is an effective church meeting?

One contribution from fellow consulting colleague Betsy Miller is this: “An effective meeting is when participants experienced the power and presence of the triune God as they accomplished what needed to get done without being sidetracked by what didn’t need to get done.”

I’m struggling through this possible definition:  “An effective meeting is one where things got done in a timely way which preserved and enhanced the relationships of the people involved, inspired their faith and made room for God’s presence/direction, and served the ultimate purpose of moving forward the church’s participation in God’s mission.”

What makes for an effective meeting?  I’m mulling over this list of things that make for an effective meeting:

• Enough structure to enable clarity, direction, and task accomplishment.
• Enough space for God to be present and work among us.
• Enough room for all to participate and have voice.
• Enough follow-through to empower fruitful action outside of the meeting.

I say “enough,” because it all feels like a balancing act.  Also it allows for the fact that over time meetings may tend toward one or the other.

Next, I’m wondering–What theology informs our practice of doing work through meetings?  Is that even a good question to ask?

Stewardship comes to mind, in that we aim to be good stewards of all that God has given us.  This includes people’s time (and meetings can be a time waster). This includes the gifts given to God’s people.  Our reliance on meetings in the church signals that we have a corporate belief that meetings are one of the best ways to coordinate the work of ministry, and being faithful stewards of the many gifts God has given his people.   One could slip in some perichoretic Trinitarian community stuff in here, anyone game to try their hand at that theological approach?

Then, I’m musing about why meetings make us so sad/mad/frustrated sometimes?  I’m guessing it’s due to the behavior gap that occurs during meetings; the gap between our good intentions and actuality.  Which leads to another question–What checklist of behaviors would you include in a behavioral covenant for a group that meets regularly?

We covenant to…

• Practice deep listening to one another (listen to understand, not just quietly formulate my next thought to share).
• Ask questions of others to clarify what I heard.
• Attempt to summarize what I’ve heard the group or a person saying.
• Offer my thoughts more readily if I tend to be quiet; leave more space for others to offer their thoughts if I tend to talk easily.
• Do my part to keep the discussion on track.
• Not interrupt one another!

 What is an effective church meeting?

What makes for an effective meeting?

What theology informs our practice of doing work through meetings?

What checklist of behaviors would you include in a behavioral covenant for a group that meets regularly?

Many of you know I attended the “Transformational Summit” for my denomination in January in Louisville, KY.  One night at dinner, I had the priviledge of sitting next to Jim Spain, a Commissioned Lay Pastor in the Muskingum Valley Presbytery in Ohio (in my tribe, PCUSA).  I’d never met a CLP* before, so this alone was interesting.  But way more fascinating was the stories Jim told of his first year serving in Unity Presbyterian Church, which is part of a Presbytery intentionally seeking to move in a missional direction.   His stories embody my favorite quote regarding change: 

“Crossing the river one step at a time.”  **   

Listen to his stories, as he describes first one experiment with engaging their community, which leads to another, and then another.  Making their way forward, one step at a time.

* CLP “Commissioned Lay Pastor” means that Jim is a lay person ordained as an elder, who went through training in his Presbytery to pastor a church–the whole ball game!  Preach sermons, lead the session (board), etc.

** Quote from Newsweek, said by the man responsible for leading change in China.

Leadership takes the pithy and memorable purpose/mission statement and keeps it before the people such that it can propel impactful efforts over a sustained period of time (and therefore doesn’t become the statement filed away in a drawer and forgotten).  Good implementation of a purpose statement over time depends on good generation of the purpose statement.  In other words, it’s easier to implement a purpose statement that is shared, and it’s easier to have a shared purpose statement if it’s been created in a process where everyone has involvement and voice.  This was the topic of Vision Part I and II.   Now we turn to implementation.

Once you have that shared purpose statement, how does leadership lead in such a way that it comes alive throughout a congregation? Gardner quotes Harlan Cleveland that “planning is improvisation on a sense of direction.”  (On Leadership, pg 124) 

Purpose statements are that sense of direction that could inspire and direct our work together over time.   With clarity about main purpose, the congregation then begins to flesh out vision, defined as what it would look like to live out this purpose at this time in this congregation embedded in this community.  General to specific.  Purpose is the general mission to which God has called us.  Vision is the specific dream/intent/plan of living it out in this place.  Using Cleveland’s quote, purpose is the sense of direction, and vision is the continuous cycles of planning and spontaneous action in this direction.  The Spirit inspires the creation of this purpose statement, and then also the planning and flexible discovery of how it will unfold over time.

Which leads us back to the jazz analogy of the main melody. If the purpose statement is envisioned as the main melody, then ongoing creation and implementation of vision is the improvisation. The main melody (purpose) is decided upon, then how will the group improvise on it…this way…and then that?   How will it lift our sights from ourselves and on to the other to whom God has called us?

This is why it’s important that a purpose statement is short and memorable, so that people can keep the conversation about it going.  They can bring it up because they remember it.  The purpose can take on a life of its own when people besides the pastor/staff are bringing it up and raising the issue of how we live into this purpose statement.  

 I’ll often ask a church when they first bring me in, “Do you have some kind of vision/mission/purpose statement?”  The answer’s usually the same.  People stammer, look at each other… “Yes, somewhere…I think it’s written on our weekly bulletin…something about…God/love/reaching-out/Jesus(or is the right answer a squirrel?)…”   Once they dig it out, the statement is usually too long, even if it’s only one sentence.  It’s a kind of “kitchen sink” purpose statement, with lots of verbs. Something like, “Worshipping God together we are a caring community that builds disciples, goes out into the world, heals hurts, helps people, spreads the word, and works for justice.”  

On the other hand, there are churches I’ve worked with where everyone everywhere knows and quotes a concise purpose statement, and they interweave it into the conversation.   Short statements like, “Helping the people of Silicon Valley discover the transforming power of God’s love.”   http://www.immanuel.org/

 As an associate pastor, I put the church’s purpose statement on every agenda of every meeting I led.  At critical moments, I would ask, “What does planning this women’s retreat have to do with our purpose statement written here?”  I always found that to be a key framing conversation.  People stopped planning another event and began dreaming of how this process from start to finish would contribute to the type of ministry our purpose statement dreamed of.  People shifted from being simply worker bees to fishers of people.  They moved beyond just having a well-planned event that came off smoothly and was well attended, to imagining how everything led to transformation in people’s lives through this retreat as a vehicle. 

For example, they began to see recruitment for the retreat not as a necessary evil to get the bodies there, but as part of the ministry of changing lives.  They saw that the conversation of inviting someone to attend was a time where ministry happened, when seen through the eyes of our church’s purpose statement. 

This is where the improvisation comes into play…the main melody being played this way and that.

How will you improvise together on the purpose statement regarding why your church exists?

For more help on writing a shared purpose/mission statement, see “Creating Vision Statement” download. For a summary of these three blog articles see  “Vision Generation and Implementation” download.

One of the reasons churches experience futility around creating a vision statement is the challenge of leadership.  One of the five leadership practices that emerged from the research of Kouzes and Posner is that leaders inspire a shared vision.  Leaders’ “clear image of the future pulls them forward.  Yet visions seen only by leaders are insufficient to create an organized movement or significant change.” (The Leadership Challenge, pg 18)

A short and concise purpose statement is like the “head” in an improvised Jazz ensemble which creates that organized movement.  Jazz is based on an intro, the head, the solo section, the head out, and possibly a tag ending. The intro establishes the mood; the head is the main melody; the solo section is where the soloists improvise on the melody and/or chord progression of the tune; the head out is a restatement of the theme; and the tag is an ending. The head, or main melody, guides the rest, and forms the direction in which different instrumentalist improvise.  Each musician plays variations of this “head,” in their own way; it is a shared main melody.

Vision Formulation:  What is going to be the “Head?” (main melody)

The issue of leadership starts with the conversation.  It is the push and pull of dialogue needed to bring order out of chaos which then results in clearly named purpose.   This purpose then directs this congregation’s movement. It is leadership which creates the holding environment needed to have the discussion.  John Gardner in his book, “On Leadership” articulates well the leader’s role in vision formulation.  He writes that the leader’s task is to seek the common ground that will make concerted action possible. 

Likewise, he articulates the leader’s role in vision re-formulation: to “renew and reinterpret values that have been encrusted with hypocrisy, corroded by cynicism or simply abandoned.” (pg 122)  Vision creation might not be inventing something new, but leading this group of people in this place to re-engage their efforts and imaginations, in light of God’s calling.

Jesus took on this leadership role of reinterpreting values that became encrusted with hypocrisy or simply abandoned. When Jesus said— “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ I say to you:  Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”—Jesus was trying to call Israel back to values that had been encrusted. Like us, Israel tended to crust over ideas about to what it means to be the people of God. Ideas such as—the people of God are blessed to be a blessing (from the call of God to Abraham). Therefore they should bless even those that curse them.

Creating a shared vision is a back-forward process.  It calls us back to Scripture and God’s purpose for God’s creation.  It calls us forward to reengaging our hearts and minds with this purpose, because we humans have a tendency to get distracted, forget, or go in another direction. We get cynical. 

Thus vision re-formulation is a work of the Spirit. Last week I imaged the process of creating vision as similar to the time the Spirit hovered over the chaos of creation in Genesis.   The Spirit also has a role in vision reformulation. It is the Spirit that softens hearts, and breaks through the corrosion of bitterness or discouragement. In the book of Acts Peter quotes the Old Testament prophet Joel to make sense of the Pentecost outpouring of the Spirit:

 In the last days, God says, “I will pour out my spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.” (Acts 2:17f)

I usually focus on the gender or status differences in this passage, of which the Spirit’s outpouring is a leveler.  But in light of vision formulation, the age difference is significant.  As I progress to middle age, I can see how individuals and churches alike can give up dreaming dreams and thinking new thoughts.  The Spirit is the one who empowers both old and young to have a vision born of God.

Thus, the leader hovers over this Spirit-inspired chaos.  He/she helps people contain the energy and possible conflict in the holding environment where the issues need to be held in conversation. These issues are the various notes, harmonies, and aspects of music we have to work with in creating that “head” or main melody:

• How God has spoken in scripture.
• How God has acted in bringing this congregation into being and placing it in this context.
• How God has been at work in the larger world.

 What is the main melody that guides your church’s ongoing improvisation?  How is the Spirit birthing new dreams in your church?

(For a download on creating a vision statement, click here.)

 Many churches find the exercise of creating a vision statement to be an exasperating endeavor.  Failed experiments abound, choking creativity.   “What if this becomes a statement that gets filed away and forgotten?”  “What if we just produce a run-on sentence with participial phrases up the ying-yang that becomes a mish-mosh representing nothing helpful or real?”

As I dialogue with churches and other consultants, this is a frustrating point for everyone in leading change in a congregation.  Yet the literature abounds with admonitions that a clearly articulated vision propels impactful efforts over a sustained period of time.

And so we slog on.  Through the rain, sleet, mush, fuzzy thinking, and heated disagreements.

What’s a church to do?  First, a church is helped by a definition of what is meant by “vision” statement or “mission” statement, etc.  The literature varies here, so I provide churches with these definitions, and a sample illustrating them which I wrote about a fictitious church named Jumpin’4Joy.*  Then I tell the churches that I intentionally wrote Jumpin4Joy’s statements poorly in order to inspire a can-do spirit of “Geez, we can do better than that!” 

Second, a discussion of a church’s identity/purpose/vision statement is just that.  A conversation. This conversation is best done embedded in a process of rethinking a church’s identity in light of several things:

• The church’s particular history
• The context of the immediate community and
• The context of the wider place in which the “Church” universal now finds itself.

The conversation is best done embedded in a process of rethinking God’s purpose in creating the church, as expressed in Scripture.  Why did God create the church?  And what does it have to do with the Kingdom of God (that Jesus came preaching)?

Third, the conversation was meant to be frustrating, because it’s the needed push and pull of developing a clear AND shared vision amidst the many realities.  I think of it as the Spirit of God hovering over the chaos creating new life, like in Genesis.  Part of the job of the first humans in this process of bringing order out of chaos was to name reality.  Animals were brought before Adam and he was asked to name them. In his work of stewardship he-and others-needed a common language so they could communicate regarding their work together.  When he needed to refer to an elephant, he could just say-”elephant”-instead of saying “that big grey creature with legs like tree trunks, ears like wings, and a tail like a rope.” 

Thus, the conversation regarding a church’s identity and vision is meant to culminate in a short and pithy statement that gives clarity to the church’s discernment process.  This pithy statement is meant to be one that “sings,” i.e. it inspires people’s hearts and common action.  It provides clarity regarding who they are and what they are about.  The hope is that people can say one short and memorable sentence and all be on the same page, similar to the way I can write the word “elephant” and you have a clear picture in your mind of what animal I’m referring to.  This clear picture empowers an ongoing sense of where we are and where we are going.

 Last, a discussion of a church’s vision is dependent on leadership, and how leadership uses this statement over time.  I will unpack this statement in next week’s blog…so stay tuned!

*My definitions in this document are from a class with Dr. Craig Van Gelder in the Luther Seminary’s Congregational Mission and Leadership Doctor of Ministry Program.  Managing the Congregation:  Building Effective Systems to Serve People, by Shawchuck and Heuser also present material in chapter 5 and 6 which offer definitions and examples of the difference between a “mission” statement and a “vision” statement.

As many of you know, I traveled  two weeks ago to Louisville, KY for a “Transformational Summit” in my “tribe” of PC (USA).  Below is an interview I did that week with Philip Lotspeich, who convened this summit.  Philip is the Director of Church Growth for our denomination.  You can see the website he started at PresbyGrow.

Let me know in the comment section (or pop me an email) if you want to be kept up over time regarding the ongoing work that will come out of the summit.  In particular, we covenented to pray for a year every Thursday at noon for church transformation, and we covenanted to find 5 people to join us.  I’ve recruited two…any takers?

NOTE:  I mispronounced my denomination’s name in the opening of the interview–a disclaimer I need to state for all of you out there who are always trying to help me have greater accuracy about all things PCUSA. (That includes you, Christian Boyd!)  YES, I know that PCA is a DIFFERENT denomination!

For those not in my “tribe”: Presbytery= Judicatory.  Presbyter Executive= Judicatory staff (district superintendant, bishop, etc).  But you probably already knew that.  What national conversation is going on about church transformation in your tribe?

I’m reporting in from the icy, below-zero hinterlands of Minnesota at Luther Seminary.  We are all reporting in on the progress of our thesis writing/research. 

Many are doing action research within their own church or judicatory. I’m like a kid in a candy shop here! I’m learning about:

• Assessing the leadership capacity within a Presbytery toward missional transformation.   
• Helping a denomination “retradition” their traditions toward being missional practices.
• Increasing a congregation’s capacity for multi-racial/cultural ministry the Swedish/Norwegian heartland of Lutheran Minnesota.
• Developing missional communities of action within a Minneapolis urban congregation.
• Rethinking stewardship around a theology of abundance in a rural Iowan church. 

You get the idea.

Last week at the “Transformational Summit” for my tribe (Presbyterian) a consensus point was around learing communities.  We sensed that the way forward is developing learning communities—among pastors, churches, judicatories.  The idea is people/churches learning from each other, and then experimenting together. Reflection…Action…Reflection.  All of our research this week is taking one aspect of church life and trying something new…informed by social science research, in dialogue with the biblical/theological material. 

But more than the learning, is being with colleagues with whom I’ve journeyed the past 4 years of life, checking in for a week every six months.  Gary Simpson, who designed the cohort model, said he intentionally set it up this way. Last summer, as I was struggling through the theology of the reign of God, he asked me the following question.  “Has this cohort been a foretaste for you of the kingdom of God here on this earth?”   My answer was a resounding yes!  Despite cold temps in January and humid heat in July, it’s been a taste of heavenly friendship, care, synergy, collaboration, and challenge.

I highly recommend the program to those who love thinking about church’s transformation and missional engagement.  Doctor of Ministry, Congregational Mission and Leadership, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN.

Lastly, Gary Simpson has been one of our professors this week, whose area of focus has been the church in civil society.  He’s been challenging many of us this week to develop a theology of the church in the public sphere. (For example, community organizing would be one secular theory that the church has used as their lens for understanding the church’s role in the wider society.)  The Missional Church Consultation at Luther in November 08 focused on this issue, and the sessions are turned into a book, so I’ll let you know what that’s out.  For now, these are books Gary recommended to us:

Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared Power World, by Crosby and Bryson of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.

The Theory of Communicative Action, vol 1: Reason and Rationalization of Society, Habermans and McCarthy.

One could also google “Civil Society” and many websites are available for that stream.

Signing off from Snowy Minnesota!

That one of the questions I’ve been wrestling with this week, along with a group of others-who are described as a “think tank” assembled in the snowy heartland of my tribe, Presbyterian Church USA in Louisville, KY.  With the esteemed George Bullard to moderate, we sought to come up with answers to two questions:

1. What is congregational transformation?
2. What are the characteristics of a congregation that continually transforms?

Answering this is much like trying to get your arms around an elephant, or a slippery toddler who just emerged from the bath tub, but we are trying anyway.  How would you answer these two questions? 

Here’s some of the raw thinking from one of our sessions:

Definitions of congregational transformations:

“Intentional and continual turning of the body of Christ toward God and the community.”

“Congregational transformation is a continuing process of discernment of and spiritual orientation toward God’s preferred future and calling.”

“Funny, fun loving, and decisive disciple-making community characterized by rigorous spiritual practices.”

“A transformational congregation is awakened to the fact that their job is not to find out where God has been, but are asking themselves where God is working in their church and community, and how they can be a part of it.”

Some commonalities emerge in this first take.  Congregational transformation is more like a journey than a destination, therefore a church engages in this journey which then becomes ongoing.  The church intentionally sets out on this journey.  The journey begins with a conversion moment, summarized in the word awakening, or developing an orientation.  This conversion impacts a congregation’s self perception-they will never be the same again, they will never go back.  It’s not just one more “program” to add on, or one thing to do for a special season of time, but becomes who they are from now on.

In answer to question #2, here is a list of the characteristics, in order of most mentioned by the six groups:

• Has a vision which imagines the future as God sees it-6
• Focused inward and outward (nurturing and sending)- 5
• Experiments and takes risks- 5
• Relationships in the church are vital-   4
• Energy (filled with spiritual energy, contagious spirit)- 4
• Engaged in spiritual practices, high priority on discipleship- 4
• Conflict competent-people able to disagree, leadership able to take tough stands-3
• Permission giving culture- 3
• Leadership connected to God/empowered/has a vision- 3
• High level of participation and ability to move people to deeper levels of commitment- 2
• Embraces change (open to changes and opportunities)- 2
• Constantly on the move (organic-living, breathing)-  2
• Discerning/practices spiritual discernment- 2
• Reads their environment/context- 2
• Courageous-2
• Reaches new disciples- 2

How would you affirm or challenge these definitions?  What would you add to this list of characteristics? And most importantly,  Is your congregation on the journey of continual transformation?

“Exercising Leadership is an expression of your aliveness.  But your life juice—your creativity and daring, your curiosity and eagerness to question, your compassion and love for people—can seep away daily as you get beat up, put down, or silenced.”

Heifetz & Linsky, Leadership on the Line, p225

Watching the pomp and circumstance around President Obama’s inauguration was an odd moment for me.  I felt proud, when I usually feel a bit embarrassed, and hopeful when I usually feel a little cynical. The shame I sometimes feel at moments like this comes from a sense that Americans think we’re “all that…and then some.”  Obama’s paradoxical mix of humility and inspiration helped me feel like we have stuff to feel good about, and we have stuff to face and work on, so let’s get to it!  I feel a bit of life juice flowing back into my veins for this thing called politics in America.

Heifetz and Linsky end their book, Leadership on the Line, by encouraging leaders to cultivate what they call a “Sacred Heart.”  This is the courage to keep creativity, risk taking, openness to learn, a sense of wonder and innocence, love and compassion alive, even in your darkest days as a leader. President Obama kept a sense of sacred heart through a hard election, and therefore has restored a sense of sacred heart toward our nation for many.  Now the test will be whether he can do it through the harder part of governing.

The peril of leadership is that it can beat people down. The end impact of this is what Heifetz and Linsky call “Losing Heart.”  We create defense mechanisms to protect ourselves, and we dress them up in adult garb.  Innocence becomes cynicism which we dress up as “realism.”  Curiosity becomes arrogance which we dress up as “authoritative knowledge.”  Compassion becomes callousness which we dress up as “being thick-skinned.” 

The problem with cynicism, arrogance and callousness is that, while these things protect us from further hurt, they also undermine our ability to lead. Psychologist might label the “losing heart” syndrome as burnout, and people in ministry are especially prone to this.  A pastor once told me, “I knew I needed help when I felt absolutely nothing for my people and their painful life situations.” Callousness.  When I used to play the guitar a lot, I developed thick calluses on the end of my fingers, which meant I felt nothing when pressing down a string for hours on end. That served me well in my musical endeavors.  But insensitivity does not serve a leader well. Our eyes gloss over when people open their hearts to us.  We infuse others with despair instead of encouragement.

Cynicism runs deep in my family, so this has always been a spiritual struggle for me as a leader. I see the end result of resentment in my ancestors, so I work hard to avoid that fate. I have my cynical days, but I give myself the grace that the overall direction in my life is one of hope and perseverance.  As I work with churches in the area of leading change, I can slip into cynicism.  When I despair over the state of the church and her short-sighted efforts at change (which often seems like so much “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic,”) I consider a pastor who once said, “Like a might glacier moves the church of Jesus Christ!”  A glacier is majestic and yes, it does move, albeit very slowly.

Theologically I seek to maintain wonder by reflecting on Jesus who came preaching that the “kingdom of God is near you.” It is a kingdom where the modus operandi is love, justice and mercy for human failing and suffering. The church was created by God as a sign, instrument, and foretaste of this kingdom. A sign can be a beautiful, creative work of art that communicates in powerful ways.  Or a sign can be small, functional, and hard to read, but when traveling down the road needing direction, functional still works!

What Scripture and theology help cultivate a “sacred heart” for you?   

“To anchor ourselves in the turbulent seas of the various roles we take in life…we have found it profoundly important to distinguish between the self, which we can anchor, and our roles, which we cannot.”   

Heifetz & Linsky, Leadership on the Line, pg 186

There is a temptation for leaders to define themselves by their roles, even though these roles come and go throughout life.  A pastor could have the ideal career—receive their first call right out of seminary, go from one church to the next in a constant forward progression—yet eventually this pastor would face the inevitable retirement from the pastorate, and the need to define life outside that role.  A life where phone calls don’t get returned as easily, and adulation for sermons well preached are not a regular staple of one’s diet.

Disruptions like retirement, losing one’s job, illness, or taking time off to raise a child can all force a separation of self from role. These times of transition help leaders face whether they’ve been able to anchor themselves, rather than depend solely on their role for a sense of joy, esteem, and well-being.

Heifetz and Linsky point out the benefits for leaders who can anchor themselves within their various roles.  This enables the leader to do tough things, lead adaptive change, maintain equanimity through praise and criticism, and enjoy life more along the way. Church leaders today are under much pressure due to changes in the wider culture.  More and more their jobs are threatened.  They are the scapegoat to blame for these changes in the culture and the impact the changes have had on the local congregation. These are times that call forth clergy anchored in a solid sense of self before God, distinguished from role.

Anchoring one’s self is easier said than done.  I experienced this when I left parish ministry to do full-time graduate work five years ago.  I missed the active life of a leader embedded in an ongoing community. As a consultant now, I feel the Eric Liddell sense of, “When I run (consult) I feel God’s pleasure,” but I still miss the life of a leader embedded in ONE ongoing community.  I think I always will.  It’s forced me to delve deeply in anchoring myself in God in a new way.

So Stephanie, the extrovert, joined a meditation group a year ago in another tribe (aka the Jesuits).  This week I’m doing a 6 day “Commuter Retreat” based on Ignatian spirituality with Father Max Oliva from “Spirituality at Work.”  We meet for one hour a day for six days, in the middle of the busy work day. I’m having aha moments and breakthroughs.  I’m meditating each day on a phrase Father Max has used since his early days as a novitiate, “God loves me and nothing else matters.”

One way I’m seeking to anchor myself is in prayer.  Beatrice Bruteau in an article called “Prayer and Identity” suggests that prayer is to transform our sense of identity.  Commenting on this, Father Max writes, “Prayer helps us to clarify who we are to ourselves, beyond the roles we play, beyond what describes us, to a deeper dimension of selfhood.”*

Are you able to distinguish between self and role(s)?  What helps you anchor yourself?

Heifetz and Linsky offer these three ways to consider:  (1) Distinguish self from role, (2) Keep confidants but don’t confuse them with allies (people in your organization who may share your goals, but at times have their own needs/agenda), and (3) Seek sanctuary.

*Max Oliva, S.J., Free to Pray, Free to Love, 1994, p15.