The Relationship Cycle

One of the most useful models I've used over the years is the "Relationship Cycle." It's a way of understanding any relationship between or among people or between people and an organization they are part of.

The Relationship Cycle describes the normal and unavoidable sequence by which relationships are developed, expectations created, work begins, and then, in time, “rubs” crop up—bumps in the road, new opportunities not previously anticipated, personality clashes, new or revised processes that don’t quite work. 

It helps when the parish has institutional, structured ways of checking in, channeling concerns, and moving forward as new hopes and concerns emerge. If the parish has such processes for the whole parish it will be easier for a working group or committee to use similar methods in adapting and revising its work over time.  

Here's the current image I use for the model --

And here's a PDF of the image       And a PDF of the image along with a presentation of the model

You are welcome to use them in your work. Such use is to maintain the PDF as it is offered and to be provided without charge. Below this posting you'll find additional related resources for the use of the model.

Here is the image of the "Planned Renegotiation Cycle" of Sherwood and Glidewell that I was inspired by; it was presented in an Organization Development Workshop in the early 70s - 

 

Here's a 1998 version of their model on line - now called "Planned Renegotiation: the Pinch Model"  If you do a search you'll find variations of the model in use for work with couples, family businesses, and conflict management. You'll notice how new elements and word use appears and are located in different places in the various images. All fairly normal stuff in the evolution of a model.

Over time I found myself continuing to work with the basic image (a type of cycle) but radically shifted the content. By 1996 I had developed a significant different model. Even at that I felt a need to acknowledge how the Sherwood-Glidewell model had influenced me. So, I had a statement on the handout.

Someplace along the line I discovered that the statement was getting omitted. I assume I got careless. 

So, I hope if you make use of the Relationship Cycle you'll use the version in this posting that includes the acknowledgment.

Next?  Michelle Heyne and I are working on a series of books on "shaping the parish." One of them will include models and theories we have found especially useful. We want to offer the Relationship Cycle with specific reference to the parish church. 

 rag+

Related Resources

A Reflection Process    A Listening Parish

Correcting models for parish development

There are many useful theories and models of parish development, pastoral theology, and ascetical practice out there. Also some that are not so useful. It's easy to confuse the source of theories and models and to drift away from some of the essential understandings in models. 

Over the past year I've come across uses of my work that are being incorrectly presented or attributed to other writers or redone without acknowledgment. After so many years in the field I recognize this just happens. People lose track of where a model comes from, they make changes that they think an improvement without any discussion with the originator (so there's no opportunity to correct what may be a misread on their part), and on occasion it's simply sloppy work. I'm sure I've done all that myself.

Here are the models that have come to my attention in the past year or so.

Christian Life Model 

Here's an image of the model

This is something of a repeat of an earlier posting. I've heard from a several people that some of the Diocesan Church Development Institutes are continuing to make the same mistake. Too often the model is offered in a way that has the model used in flat, static manner. The elements get used as though they are headings for the task of developing a list of activities under each or possibly an assessment of that category. Of course you can do that and you may learn something in that process. 

The essential point of the model is that these elements are in a dynamic relationship with one another. They are a system. One element bounces off another, and in that action, both are changed.

The model is primarily an attempt to note certain dynamics that exist in the common life of a parish church and in the life of the individual Christian. In some ways I’ve contributed to the difficulty by providing assessing instruments in the books and in a variety of training programs.

Here are two examples of the interplay of elements. 

“Martin Thornton points to it in The Rock and the River and in his description offers a process and systems perspective: 'Moral action only flows from doctrinal truth by grace and faith, that is through prayer.'”

“The active relationship among Eucharist/Daily Office/Personal Devotions can be seen in how the Office is deepened and enriched by a person’s personal devotions, how all three influence one another, and how the Office and personal devotions are focused and completed in the Eucharist.”

For more on the model see Fill All Things: The Dynamics of Spirituality in the Parish Church 

Here's a one page PDF of the model.

Parish Life Cycle

The issue here is in part about crediting the actual developer - me; though the confusion goes further. Alice Mann's use of my diagram in her book is a very early version I was developing in the late 80s - early 90s. She offers appropriate credit. The College for Congregational Development (CCD) program then "adapts" the diagram using mostly material I developed after 1995.

Let's take a look at the confusion.

Here is Alice Mann's image of the life cycle in "Can Our Church Live?" In the "Notes" of her book she writes:

Chapter 1 1. Various writers have described the life cycle, including sociologists Martin Saarinen and Arlin Rothauge, and consultant Robert Gallagher. While the discussion in this section draws to some extent on each of these, the diagram comes from Gallagher.

I have handwritten notes from 1991 when I was still developing the model. At that point I was focusing on its use with non-profit organizations and their boards as well as work with parishes.

Below is the image used in my current version. And here's a PDF of my version of the Parish Life Cycle.  Please feel free to make copies and use it in your work. Added September 28, 2020 - an updated version of the Parish Life Cycle based on presentation notes over the years.

And here's the image of the model used by CCD. The PDF of the model on-line includes a note:"Adapted from Alice Mann's "Can Our Church Live: Redeveloping Congregations in Decline"  The mistaken credit and adaptation is obvious. I'd be glad for CCD to simply make use of my version using the PDF provided (no charge!)  

I think I understand what happened there. Someone missed Alice Mann's note on the source of the image. Then someone who was familiar with my version but maybe had lost track of the source made an adaptation. It happens. The point here is not to embarrass the CCD leaders but to communicate the story so all those who have been in CCD training over the years can correct their understanding. Hopefully CCD will correct the version used in its manual and on line.

Finally, Alice Mann's book "Can Our Church Live?" is worth reading for it's deeper explanation of life cycle issues. It's an excellent piece of work.

Organizational Diagnosis: Six Primary Elements of the System

This is another one from the College for Congregational Development (CCD). It appears that a model I developed in 1973 and revised in 1996 and 2006, was used as the template for a model. The CCD model noted elements as: strategy, structures, process, leadership, people and dynamics; with "culture and climate within and the environment outside. The image looks like this:

My earlier version looked like this:

Here's a PDF of the model. 

My hope is that CCD will add a note acknowledging the original source. The adaptations may, of course, have been made to highlight certain aspects that the program wanted to emphasize.  I see that as a reasonable adaptation.

Shape of the Parish

I came across it being used in one parish with no acknowledgement of the source and in a manner that suggested a poor grasp of the theory.  I'm not sure where the person picked this up.

It looked like this:

 

My primary categories had been maintained with the exception of the center ring --- they substituted "Mature Practitioner" for "Apostolic." It pretty much gets at the same thing with something of a slight tilt toward Martin Thornton's emphasis on proficiency of practice. 

You can compare it with the original Shape of the Parish Model (PDF).

I only got to see the diagram that had been presented. So, the presenter may have offered more of the complexity as well as given appropriate credit during the session. 

There was little wrong in the diagram itself. However, it does seem to suggest secondary points and not primary points. For example, it's true that people may move both ways -- you may grow in Christian proficiency and you may fall back in your practice. It happens. But it's not all that common. Generally people move forward. And even if they lapse in their practice they will not have entirely lost the competency they had gained. If you learned to say the Daily Office and did it for two years, you may stop the practice, but you still have the competency and can more easily return to it.

There's also a possible problem with the note, " 'Mature' doesn't equal "more developed Christians.' " Actually it does. However, it helps if you understand the whole model and the ascetical theology underlying it. In Thornton's Remnant Theory the center is "the remnant" -- those who are proficient in the practices of Christian faith. It's those who know how to run the race with some competence. In Shape of the Parish the center is the "Apostolic" -- those who are proficient in the same sense as Thornton's approach and also those who are at home in the pathways of grace. In just those ways those at the center are "more developed Christians." And if the reference behind using the word "mature" is Saint Paul -- that would suggest an even higher norm. A few examples -

 Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking; rather, be infants in evil, but in thinking be adults.1 Corinthians 14:20  

 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, Ephesians 4:14-15

until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. Ephesians 4:13 

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. Hebrews 5:12-14

A collegue saw this, "I am concerned that the note on the model may create a serious misunderstanding and misapplication of the model.  The Shape of the Parish Model makes clear that those at the center are more proficient Christians. I'm not sure what "developed" means in the note, but the Apostolic are more committed and adept practitioners of the faith because they live by the Church's Rule. If they aren't more developed Christians, what does it mean that they are "mature"?  Emotionally mature? Intellectually mature?  Mature in an idiosyncratic way the rector finds pleasing?  Not maintaining the distinction between proficiency borne of practice and Rule and being, for example, likable or pleasant falsely implies that where you are in the rings makes no difference to your spiritual life, and tends to create an artificial impression of flatness in the parish's shape."  My colleague's comment gets at a very important issue -- there is in the  church a tendency to confuse our oneness in Christ, our all being members of the Body of Christ, with the implication that there is no importance to the difference among us in regard to the stages of faith. That would simply be a lie. It would undercut all our work in spiritual guidance.

My preference would be that even when offering a diagram like this the presenter would include a notation on the sheet about the developer of the model. Without that someone in the room picks it up and uses it in another setting. Both the complexity of the model and the name of the developer are likely to disappear. 

                           ----------------------------------------------

I'm offering this posting because it appears that the questionable use of some of these models has been going on for a number of years. Therefore there could be hundreds even thousands of people who have a false understanding of the source of the models and the complexity that the models are attempting to highlight.

My primary concern has to do with helping parishioners have a variety of models and theories they can use to better understand the parish church and shape their parish for a healthier more faithful life. My secondary issue is that I believe that it's important to respect the hard work that goes into developing theory and models. Including my work. Many of us doing that work earn part of our living from it. 

rag+

Likes - Concerns - Wishes Process

To assess, talk, and prioritize

This is a group method that provides structure to what can be a chaotic and time consuming piece of work. 

For example:

The parish treasurer has given a financial report. We all know what follows next. People are either silent or the one or two money nerds start asking questions no one else has any interest in. Or worst yet, a vestry member unhappy with the rector uses this as an opportunity to attack, maybe bluntly, maybe with an attempt to appear reasonable while undercutting the rector's priorities. 

We can do better. First, let's begin with the assumption that the financial report is only offered 3 or 4 times per year. And also let's assume the report isn't given a routine placement on the agenda, i.e., always after the minutes. The design of any vestry meeting needs to pay attention to the group's energy and generally place the most important items early. 

So, the treasurer has made the report. And those designing this particular meeting have decided they'd like to generate a thoughtful conversation around the report. (Note - there's no need to use the method every time. On occasion the standard, "Any questions or comments?" is adequate; at others times you may want to use another structured process.)

Have a spectrum or two written on newsprint (easel pads) in front of the group. The spectrum would include a range of responses -- "Parish finances seem in great shape" to "This is generally encouraging but I have a few concerns" to "Sounds like our financial situation is a disaster."

Responding to a spectrum such as this helps members stop and think about what they have heard. Especially if they have been told in advance that they will be asked to respond to the report in this manner. 

"Likes - Concerns - Wishes" is written on three separate sheets of newsprint (can all be on one if space doesn't permit three sheets). The group brainstorms their ideas for each category and then prioritizes. The group discusses the top items.

How the process works

Here's more detail on the process:

1. Have the process in front of the group on easel pads and in their hands as a worksheet (see below for sample worksheets). 

The outline is -

A spectrum -  1 to 6 (or other) and descriptions at least at the two ends, e.g., "Very Low" .. "Very High" or other descriptions.

Three categories: Likes - Concerns - Wishes -- best on three separate sheets of newsprint but can be done on one page.

2. Have people come forward and place a mark on the spectrum

This gives the group a broad sense of its response. It may also shape the work and conversation that follows. If the response was all "6" there may not be much to say or the group may want to focus on "Likes" to see what elements are most significant in gaining such a high rating. If a few "concerns" are listed the group will be able to keep those concerns in perspective because it knows that the overall satisfaction rate is high. 

Having them come forward tends to increase the group's energy. Even small amounts of movement can be useful.

3. Brainstorm in each category. The method that allows for a sense of both order and adaptability is to start with "Likes" but to allow people to break out of that category if what comes to mind is something in another category. Once that is recorded the facilitator can bring the group back to "Likes." 

Remind the group of the norms for brainstorming:

• Offer whatever idea comes to mind. We want as many ideas as possible.  We want ideas that seem obvious and we want ideas that may seem “far out”.
• No discussion or evaluation of anyone’s ideas as we are gathering them.  Keep the ideas coming in a stream. We want to keep the team’s energy up and focused on producing as many ideas as possible.

Use as many sheets of newsprint as needed. It will help the flow if several sheets are hung across the wall at the beginning.  That will avoid an interruption because of the need to hang more newsprint. It may be useful to set a time limit for how long you will brainstorm.

If the group is larger than 10, try using two people at the newsprint, the lead facilitator and a supporting recorder. The two facilitators take turns receiving ideas and writing them on newsprint.  This tends to help pick up the pace.

It may be useful to give people a few minutes on their own to use the worksheet to make notes. If you are concerned that people may be hesitant to speak you might try having them talk in 2s or 3s for 5 minutes about what they "Like."  Then invite them to offer their ideas to be recorded on the newsprint.

4. Prioritize. You may want to do that in each category or you could invite them to do all the categories at the same time. For example, "Please come up to the newsprint sheets and place a check or X next to the three items, in any category, you see as most important"

The number of check marks you suggest will depend on the number of items on the newsprint.

The prioritization question is important to consider. For example, most important or most useful, or easiest to change or act upon, or what can be done quickly.

5. The facilitator circles the highest priorities, then invites discussion.

6. Next steps: Depending on the work being done, you may or may not want to generate a "next steps" list.

Variations

System assessment - Looking at the overall functioning of the system, a parish, organization, group, the vestry

Program assessment - Focusing on a specific program or ministry, e.g., greeting and hospitality, security and hospitality, adult formation, etc. 

Proposal - Used when a proposal for action is in front of a decision making group. The proposal is presented and question for clarification answered. Then the group is invited to use the spectrum -- might look like this - "I'm ready to move forward on this now!"... ""I'm pretty much OK with this but would like to offer a few suggestions"..."I think this is generally the right direction but we need to do substantial work on it"..."I think we should drop this now."

Leadership ownership - Frequently the leadership's "buy in" is essential if improvements are to succeed. And on occasion the leader has to agree if anything can happen. That would be the case in regard to liturgical matters in a parish. In such cases, give the leader(s) a different color marker from everyone else. That allows the group to have a focused conversation if the leader is seeing and expressing realities and ideas important to the leader.

Expert input - On occasion you'll be working in an field in which there are people with expertise to offer. Have the expert use a different color marker in the prioritizing process. Make sure they are "an expert" not just someone who has read a few books or taken a class. Depending on the expert's relationship to the group you might not want them to offer their own ideas during the brainstorming and just participate in the prioritizing part of the work. In the conversation that follows time should be provided for the "expert" to comment. That should come after the whole group has had a few minutes to make its own general observations on the prioritized results.

Large group - This might be a parish meeting or other large group gathering. Try breaking the large group into smaller groups of 5 - 7 people. Each group does the "Likes - Concerns - Wishes Process." The groups report back by just highlighting the prioritized items. The facilitator and a few others look for similar ideas and note them without trying to say that they are the same thing; that can easily set off a feeling of being discounted. Better to explore the difference in phrasing between ideas. An alternative, especially if you will only have three or four sub-groups is to have the groups do everything except the prioritizing. Then allow people to wander the room, looking at each groups work, and place their prioritization marks on any item from any group. It is messier.

          An example - three diocesan groups during a search process

Channeling Process - From Fill All Things -- "Parishes require more ways to identify and focus on needed conversations and issues than just yearly leadership gatherings. Some have established a “channeling process” that allows the parish to gather people’s concerns, new ideas, and insights about emerging issues and put them in a channel, a pathway, toward decisions and action. One way of doing that is at every third vestry meeting, and at most meetings of the parish community, set aside time to have small groups record on newsprint “concerns” and “wish we would do” lists. Share the lists and have the whole group prioritize items. If the group is small and/or has good group discipline and skills, this could be done as a whole group. The process can be done about the totally of parish life or a segment. The key is for the community and its leaders to carefully listen and respond. We don’t want to miss opportunities or to allow issues to fester or become centers of anxiety."

       Channeling PDF

In using these processes you may find it helpful to explore their place in the spiritual life of the parish community. See Chapter Five in both  In Your Holy Spirit: Shaping the Parish through Spiritual Practice and In Your Holy Spirit: Traditional Spiritual Practices in Today's Christian Life   Also see Chapter Three: The Benedictine Promise in Fill All Things: The Dynamics of Spirituality in the Parish Church

Worksheets

In Word (you can modify the wording to fit your situation)

Meetings    Organization   Parish

Development of the process

I first designed and used the process back in the early 1970s. The starting point for me was learning how to use a communication skill called "itemized response." I was working for Metropolitan Associates of Philadelphia (MAP), an industrial mission, supported by a variety of denominations. The work included teaching group problem solving processes to people who understood their daily life ministry to include changing the organizations they worked within -- government, medical, education, etc. The training included communication skills.

There was a sequence we used:

1. Paraphrase - say back to the speaker what you heard them say.  The goal is to accurately grasp the content of their idea. You may either repeat exactly what was said or you may summarize, restate the essence of what the speaker said. A useful method is to begin your response with “I hear you saying ...”

2. Itemized Response - this involves giving a full response to a person’s idea by telling them what you like/appreciate/can use in their idea and what concerns you about the idea.  The assumption here is that it helps the group’s work when we enable participation and seek what may be of value in each idea.  Itemized Response helps: keep unformed but possibly useful ideas alive, establish a supportive group climate, and helps us see the fullness of an idea. A useful method is to frame your responses using the following: “What I like about it is ....”  then “What concerns me is ...”   

The training also included ways of eliciting more fanciful ideas. That was to help groups break out of the limitations of linear thought. We wanted to give "permission" for people to offer ideas that were more imaginative, even absurd on first take.

I found myself combining the processes when I worked with parishes in the diocese; "Likes - Concerns - Wishes" emerged. It was also used in the program that developed into the Church Development Institute. It's in early CDI participant manuals.

As I worked with more non-church organizations and a variety of church systems, the process was adapted to fit a variety of needs.

Thousands of people have been trained in using the process and thousands of others have made use of it in vestry meetings and NPO boards and staffs. 

 rag+

With the help of imperfect, self-interested, and narrow-minded persons

What am I for? To glorify God – to praise, reverence, and serve Him.  How am I to do it? By a consecration of my whole life, not just in nice religious surroundings or by well organized social work, but in the drudgery, the monotony, the rough and tumble of the common life. With the help of imperfect, self-interested, and narrow-minded persons – baffled by hostility and misunderstanding – I am to glorify God in and through all the demands on my love, courage, and patience, all the confusing disillusionment and sufferings that culminate in Gethsemane and the Cross.   From "Inner Grace and Outward Sign" - Evelyn Underhill retreat in 1927

My parish

I love my parish -- prayerful, graceful, progressive, big hearted, kind, and all with incense.

We are also of the left. I'd say we were "the Democratic Party at prayer" but that might suggest we were more conservative than we are. Conservatives and moderates keep a low profile. Our acceptance-challenge isn't about race, class, gender, orientation or immigration status. When our preachers list the sins related to how these groupings are treated, I sometimes think, "Yes, but that's not really our sin."  Of course it is "really our sin" as we share in the history and culture of this society. But there's more.

When the chant goes forth -- "From all blindness of heart; from pride, vainglory, and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice; and from all want of charity" - "Good Lord, deliver us." -- my guess is that many of us in the parish know what our blindness protects us from; what our "want of charity" is about. Thank God we are not like them -- the "deplorables", the bitter ones, "clinging to guns or religion or an antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment."

If parishes have a Type, we are very much an introverted parish. There is an inner life here. People do say the Office and go to confession. Evelyn Underhill is the third reading at Evening Prayer on Wednesday. I do believe that there are many who "get it" even if we rarely speak of it.

Of the left

When I was in the Young People's Fellowship of my parish Janice and I were the only two whose families were voting for Adlai Stevenson. When I was a sophomore I joined CORE and YPSL (Congress of Racial Equality and the Young People's Socialist League -of the Socialist Party). The "Yipsel" card was a deep red. When it arrived in the mail, my mother, an FDR Democrat, said, "Try to not get hurt."  Later it was SDS and the anti racism movement. Then DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). I mostly went along as much of the left moved into an odd mix of common good-individualism-identity politics. You have to live someplace. Even if it leaves you slightly off balance.

I've often been uncomfortable with my denomination's tendency to take its moral theology from the DPs platform. My being "of the left" was my path, a path that emerged, and was fed, out of prayer, study and civic action. I think I always knew it wasn't "the Truth."  Other Christians, even more prayerful and thoughtful than me, came to other conclusions and acted in other directions. We all see through a glass, darkly. 

My danger

Such thoughts, nurtured in prayer and reflection, have helped me keep some perspective in recent years. I need to be held by a faith that is bigger than my politics and my denomination.

There is also a spiritual danger that comes along with such thoughts.

God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax-collector.

I've positioned myself as a moderate, reasonable leftist. And that's true. I don't easily get swept up in the latest fad of the left. I read conservative writers. I change my views as I learn and see other ways. 

All true. There's truth and grace in that. And there's also blindness and "want of charity."

Parish pathologies

When I was doing a lot of consulting, on occasion, after I'd worked with a parish for enough time that some trust existed, I'd use an intervention along these line:

Me: What's your parish pathology?  

Them: Silence (usually)

Me: Okay, but if you had a parish pathology, what would it be?

Them: Oh that. Yes, what we do is ...

They would tell stories about their reserve getting expressed as coldness toward people they didn't like or understand; about a pattern of pushing out of the parish people they were uncomfortable with; about being caught up on a success treadmill that pushed their children too hard; about a legacy of explicit racism, about a tendency toward conflict avoidance that resulted in a denial of justice and truth; and on and on. There's always sin and human limitation. Always. 

It's very difficult for a parish to see its sin and limitations. Hard to acknowledge them. It's never easy to throw ourselves upon the Mercy. 

Evelyn Underhill

So, I invite you to join me and read Blessed Evelyn again -- slowly, in prayer. Bring yourself, and me, my parish and your parish along in your lectio.

What am I for? To glorify God – to praise, reverence, and serve Him.  How am I to do it? By a consecration of my whole life, not just in nice religious surroundings or by well organized social work, but in the drudgery, the monotony, the rough and tumble of the common life. With the help of imperfect, self-interested, and narrow-minded persons – baffled by hostility and misunderstanding – I am to glorify God in and through all the demands on my love, courage, and patience, all the confusing disillusionment and sufferings that culminate in Gethsemane and the Cross.   From "Inner Grace and Outward Sign" - Evelyn Underhill retreat in 1927 

rag+

Guns: And, to make a right beginning

How can we have the necessary conversation? There is so much fear and anger; suspicion and mistrust.

The demagogues of the left and the right are controlling our conversation, our ability to actually save lives. We need a better way.

How to begin?

How about beginning where you have some ability, however limited, to effect things. Let's start with the parish -- your parish.

What can you do today? This week. Now.

1. Get on Amazon and create a trauma kit.

Once you have the kits -- make sure people know where the supplies are stored. In the kit - CPR mask, tournquet, gauze, stop the bleed bandages

Or buy a kit from Stop the Bleed

2. Arrange for a training session at the church. Inform members of resources in your area.

Stop the Bleed offers free classes at hospitals across the nation.  

Homeland Security, fire and police departments, and others offer active shooter classes

Run, Hide, Fight videos are available on line

Most areas have training available for CPR and AED

3. Parish priests -- sign up for safe handling handgun classes.

The initial training is often about 3 hours. I'd suggest taking additional classes for at least a total of 15 hours of training. Check reviews; some places are better than others. If you have never handled a gun it's time to remove the mystery for yourself. You need to know what guns can do and not do if you are to be heard by people who own guns.

4. Avoid empty symbols

Both sides of the debate are into empty symbols. It's not only that they are ineffective -- they stop the needed conversation. To avoid insulting people you disagree with you will need to learn what shuts them down.

Focusing on the empty symbols does nothing useful while taking our attention away from what may be useful. For example, the "gun free zone" signs. Put one up and some will feel like they "won" and others that they "lost" - but no one who has thought it through will feel safer or be safer. Instead actually work on parish safety and security actions that might make us safer -- electrical wiring and safe storage on the one hand, greeters walking the grounds from time to time and being trained in Stop the Bleed, AED and CPR.

Help people work with the facts. Including those that support the other side. A news article today calling for more gun control made a point about  the FBI data that only 13% of mass shootings (Jan 2009 - July 2015) took place in gun free zone public spaces. Mass shootings defined as an event when at least 4 people are killed by gun fire. Not mentioned in the article was the fact that a number of the larger scale shootings have been in such zones.

5. Priests can make clear to the baptized that there are reasonable moral grounds for deciding to not have a gun and to have a gun.

Also, that as a priest it is not your job to push people to accept your moral conclusion on all the social issues. It is your job to help people live in the pathways of grace, in prayer and the church's teachings, and then to obey their informed conscience. And by all means act on your informed conscience – act for more gun control, act for more gun safety, act to protect the rights of self-defense and gun ownership – inform and obey your conscience.

In Morning Prayer today we said Psalm 31. Verse 18 reads "Let the lying lips to be put to silence that speak against the righteous with arrogance,  distain and contempt."

Clergy need to say aloud, "The righteous include people who own and carry guns and people who would like to see more restriction on gun ownership." 

6. Encourage citizen action on the part of the baptized.

The church sometimes seems to get carried away with hearing itself talk. There's a shooting and bishops flock to the cameras. That won't stop.

At the parish level we can persist in the church's tradition. Each of the baptized, as a citizen, has a voice to offer. Act upon your informed conscience. We might help members of the Body live within the Church's Rule rooted in Thornton’s thinking in Pastoral Theology: 'Moral action only flows from doctrinal truth by grace and faith, that is through prayer.'

     

7. Help members have the data and understand what the concerns and interests are of people they disagree with.

Here are two reports: America's Complex Relationship with Guns ( Pew Report) and Majority of Americans Hold Incorrect Assumptions about Guns (NPR report)   Resources on Active Shooter situations: FBI, A Study of Active Shooter Incidents, there are also many reports on line on specific cases (Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, etc)

For example:

• 42% live in a household with a gun
• Gun owners and non gun owners agree that children need to be talked with about gun safety; that guns should be kept in a locked place; that gun owners should take gun safety courses; that mentally ill and people on the no fly list should be stopped from having guns; and that background checks should include gun shows.
• 30% of adults own a gun and another 36% could see owning one in the future. About 70% have fired a gun. One in six gun owners have used the gun for self defense. Seven in ten owners have taken a safety course.
• 64% of Americans say that most people should be able to own a gun.
• Most Americans would tighten up gun control laws
• No one with a concealed carry permit has stopped a large mass shooting yet. There are incidents almost weekly where a person doing concealed carry has saved someone else's life.

If people are to have the needed conversation they need to have access to the facts. That may help ground the discussion in reality instead of illusions.  People are going to have guns in this country. That's not going away anytime soon. Talk about how the Court's judgement on the 2nd Amendment is mistaken goes no where. You might begin with establishing ground upon which just about all will stand together -- schools should be safe places; the amount of gun violence is far too high; we share feelings of grief and horror after each of these large scale shootings.

8. Begin to plan for a thoughtful, structured conversation in the parish

You might start with those able and willing to have such a conversation. An open meeting isn't likely to go well. Have some norms: we are hear to listen to one another; we will listen with open hearts and respect; the priest will ring a bell to call us into stillness and silence from time to time and whenever the priest believes we are shutting down our listening, and so on.

Consider conversations such as:

• Where are the places that some agreement across lines may be possible? We will now set aside our perfect answers to the problem. 
• In an active shooter situation it will take between 5 and 15 minutes before the first responders arrive (depending on where you live). Most of these shootings are over in three minutes. People with arterial bleeding can die before help arrives. What are your thoughts and feelings regarding someone in the congregation who was carrying a concealed gun and engaged the shooter? How prepared would the church be to render first aid in the time before help arrives? 
• We'll read a report on a real case. The conversation will begin with -- what surprised you? what did you learn? What in the report suggests things we should do as a parish (if anything)?
• What shuts down the ability of people on both sides to hear one another? What are the trigger words and expressions? There was an article recently in the Federalist that included this sentence -- "Stop bickering, virtue-signaling, and trying to figure out conspiracy theories and details."  How do the people on "my side" engage in this things?
• How can we talk with our children about these situations? A Newshour segment 
• What about teachers with guns? Texas story  CO story  Detroit story   Debate  Sen. Chris Murphy & Education Secretary Betsy DeVos   Giffords Law Center  Educators take firearms training 
• Then shift the conversation from "teachers" to "resource officers/security." Would it be okay for them to have concealed handguns? How about if they had to receive as much formal gun training as police officers (40 - 60 hours).?

You might take a look at Respect First, Then Gun Control by David Brooks. He offers a few ideas for such conversations. He mentions Better Angels, an organization working to reduce polarization and help people talk with one another.

If people are uninformed about how American democratic politics works -- Have a couple of classes on the basics. Use some examples -- The closest you can get at the moment may be the work of the Common Sense Coalition on immigration reform. The group has met in Senator Susan Collins office trying to find a solution to the DACA situation. 

9. Prayer and worship must be protected as our common ground

In many parishes during the Vietnam War the Prayers of the People became a battleground. Someone would pray for "national repentance for our pursuit of this unjust war" and someone would respond with "for an increase in true patriotism within the parish."

Use the Prayer Book. Invite people to live in the Rule of the Church (Eucharist, Office, and Reflection/Personal Devotions that fit their temperament and circumstances); let members know that when there is a large scale mass shooting the church will be open for reflection and prayer.

  

Do not manipulate ascetical practice to fit your political views. Let the practices remain accessible for all. So no “give up guns for Lent.” That’s no better than “learn to shoot for Lent."

Intercession and thanksgiving: The lives lost

If the Church is to speak prophetically in and to the political order, it must do so on the basis of sound theology and profound prayer as well as accurate data and careful analysis. Kenneth Leech

Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Philippians 4:8

rag+