- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I stumbled upon this article through a friend’s FB page. I was struck by how often Ray and others have mentioned how many of our issues are not unique to our church. I was fascinated by this article and especially by the comments that follow. The issue with callings and burnout is not unique to us! Other churches are having the same issue and those folks are not even faced with the never say no to a calling pressure. A lot of food for thought in this article and the comments. I came away with gratitude for our church structure in some areas. Here is the link. I am interested to hear some of your thoughts after you read this. http://holysoup.com/2014/11/12/the-rise-of-the-dones/ Excellent article!!!! Summarizes my thoughts exactly. The questions at the end of the article are dead on. I started a thread here where I developed my own philosophy of volunteer “recruitment” and ended with a set of questions very similar to the ones at the end of the article. This was as I tried to bring on volunteers into a non-religious community organization. I ask those questions regularly of people when I orient them to volunteer positions outside the church. I have received a much higher success rate in people following through on their work. How would our Bishops react if you said this?…
Quote:I would like to serve in the church, but I would like it to overlap with some of my personal goals. I would like to work alongside talented leaders so I can progress in my ability to eventually be capable of taking on a leadership position in my work, while also serving the Lord”
Also, in our church, it’s actually taboo to go into the Bishop and say ‘I would like to serve in position “x” ‘. I remember doing that earlier in my church life, and I was counseled about not seeking position!.
The article also highlights the fact that the rising generation doesn’t have the same sense of “duty” as the baby boomers. And I don’t think this is all bad either. Co-missioning a person’s personal interests with the interests of the organization is a much more enlightened and motivating leadership style than the “serve where placed” model we currently have in place. It develops people in ways that matter, and creates high levels of engagement and commitment.
But co-missioning is not all chuckles and giggles…there are times when people THINK they have a passion for something, take on the responsibility, and then find its not for them — and stop functioning.
There are also jobs that no one wants to do in any organization. You can’t always co-mission. Sometimes you just need someone, or you, as a leader, have to let the job stay undone, or do it yourself, and it can be taxing.
What do you do during these times? How do you fill those holes in your ward or organization when no one has a passion for the job? How do you do it in a way that respects the agency, and prevents burn-out over the long-term?
I think that our church has one thing working different and that is that we are a very participating church. If you are considered, “active” you would think a week of just plop, pray, and pay would be an “easy” week. Many of the callings that we give people are very time challenging. But in no way am I saying we are not affected by this same phenomenon. I would even say personally I am just TIRED most of the time (work, church, family, home/car maintenance, life). Vacation are often rushed. Such is life. I even had a call that I hinted I would like, but after a dozen years of doing it – I was burned out crisp as overcooked bacon.
Quote:
It’s time to listen.Even as I’m writing this today, another high-capacity lay leader emailed me with his decision to leave his church. He’s done. Like many others I know, he’s also a nationally known Christian leader. But he’s done. Your church, even if it’s one of the rare growing ones, is sitting on a ticking time bomb. The exodus of the Dones, the rise of the Nones, and the disappearance of the Millennials do not look good for a church afraid to listen.
It’s not too late to start.I don’t know where the balance is between being a listening church and a top-down, prophet-speaks-for-God church, but I don’t think we’ve found it yet. It’s not that I think leadership doesn’t listen at all, but they seem loathe to acknowledge that they do, or to reveal any of the workings of the feedback process.
Quote:
I don’t know where the balance is between being a listening church and a top-down, prophet-speaks-for-God church, but I don’t think we’ve found it yet. It’s not that I think leadership doesn’t listen at all, but they seem loathe to acknowledge that they do, or to reveal any of the workings of the feedback process.We have the seeds of it in the councils — we got a lot of training about how you have to listen to your councils, and then make decisions off that. However, I have seen no evidence that this is formalized beyond individual councils at the local, area or world level. For example, I don’t see top leaders listening to the local membership beyond speculation that some of the changes are a result of the bloggernacle.
The idea of a top leadership that listens to the front line people is not new. Corporations do it all the time — and if the church is good at anything, it’s good at acting like a corporation. But the culture doesnt’ allow it.
1) Covenants that promote leader worship and the “Emporer’s New Clothes” phenomenon.
2) When local membership complains about local leaders, it normally leads to a “support your local leaders” lecture and no sense that concerns have been heard and addressed.
3) The emphasis on obedience, and statements like ‘if you don’t accept your local leaders then you don’t accept Christ”.
A corporation often has its leaders fly around to local units, and hold open discussions about certain issues. They can do engagement surveys remotely. All the technology and know-how is there — our church just chooses not to do it openly given the box in which they’ve placed themself by claiming that everything is inspired, that leaders speak for God, etcetera.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:
I don’t know where the balance is between being a listening church and a top-down, prophet-speaks-for-God church, but I don’t think we’ve found it yet. It’s not that I think leadership doesn’t listen at all, but they seem loathe to acknowledge that they do, or to reveal any of the workings of the feedback process.We have the seeds of it in the councils — we got a lot of training about how you have to listen to your councils, and then make decisions off that. However, I have seen no evidence that this is formalized beyond individual councils at the local, area or world level. For example, I don’t see top leaders listening to the local membership beyond speculation that some of the changes are a result of the bloggernacle.
The idea of a top leadership that listens to the front line people is not new. Corporations do it all the time — and if the church is good at anything, it’s good at acting like a corporation. But the culture doesnt’ allow it.
1) Covenants that promote leader worship and the “Emporer’s New Clothes” phenomenon.
2) When local membership complains about local leaders, it normally leads to a “support your local leaders” lecture and no sense that concerns have been heard and addressed.
3) The emphasis on obedience, and statements like ‘if you don’t accept your local leaders then you don’t accept Christ”.
A corporation often has its leaders fly around to local units, and hold open discussions about certain issues. They can do engagement surveys remotely. All the technology and know-how is there — our church just chooses not to do it openly given the box in which they’ve placed themself by claiming that everything is inspired, that leaders speak for God, etcetera.
I was about to write some of the same points. I am an engineer by heart, but also trained and experienced as a manager for decades in a
verylarge corporation. With those years of working in such an environment I have learned the importance of listening to those ‘under’ you (that sounds a bit derogatory, but not meant to be so). I have seen management chains that do and don’t do it and the fallout below can be night and day. I do agree that leaders have kind of painted themselves into the “don’t bother us, God will tell us if any changes are needed.” Sometimes even if a change isn’t needed, it can be helpful above to know more what is going on. Sometimes a slight adjustment or wording can go a long way. On the other hand, having such a variety of world-wide leaders in the lower levels (bishops and such) I would not be excited about going through all of the “feedback” that would come back. But having said that, I don’t know how likely almost any message is to get to SLC by just telling your EQ pres or you Bishop – or even a lesser extent your RS pres.
I do agree with your 3 points. In fact one of the biggest changes my faith crisis / transition has made in me is that relationship with how I look at my local leaders as generally quite separate from my relationship with Christ and God. I used to see them almost as one in the same. Now I see them only minorly connected. Luckily I have had some good leaders as of late. They are actually generally quite good about receiving feedback.
Quote:
I do agree with your 3 points. In fact one of the biggest changes my faith crisis / transition has made in me is that relationship with how I look at my local leaders as generally quite separate from my relationship with Christ and God. I used to see them almost as one in the same. Now I see them only minorly connected.This is exactly what I think. Since my first encounter with an egocentric Stake President who didn’t exemplify the values of the organization, I’ve had a really hard time believing the leaders and the head of the church as as unified with God as talks teach us to believe. Since then, repeated experiences like my first one have gradually pushed me to the point that I see them as managers, not inspired leaders.
And then, so much else of your commitment unravels as a result.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I’ll have to skim the comments when I have more time. afterall wrote:I was fascinated by this article and especially by the comments that follow. The issue with callings and burnout is not unique to us! Other churches are having the same issue and those folks are not even faced with the never say no to a calling pressure.
Yes, I wouldn’t have figured that to be the case. Many churches I attended before joining the church were extremely light in the commitment department. Church was attend once a week for an hour and then forgot about until the next Sunday. Maybe the article is only speaking about the more committed people?
Unfortunately I think parts of the article fall into some of the same traps that may be pushing people toward being done with organized religion.
Quote:For the church, this phenomenon sets up a growing danger. The very people on whom a church relies for lay leadership, service and financial support, are going away.
Quote:The exodus of the Dones, the rise of the Nones, and the disappearance of the Millennials do not look good for a church afraid to listen.
It does require reading between some lines but it seems like the concern is for the church, the organization. Dangers… for the church. Where will the church get the support? The church’s outlook doesn’t look good. So. What. What about the dangers for the dones? What about their support and their outlook? Why does it always have to come back to the church?
Quote:After sitting through countless sermons and Bible studies, they feel they’ve heard it all.
So find and translate some golden plates to spice things up. Take some initiative.
😈 LookingHard wrote:But in no way am I saying we are not affected by this same phenomenon. I would even say personally I am just TIRED most of the time (work, church, family, home/car maintenance, life). Vacation are often rushed. Such is life. I even had a call that I hinted I would like, but after a dozen years of doing it – I was burned out crisp as overcooked bacon.
I think we all feel you. Life is busy, life is stressful. Work for more and more hours, squeeze activities into every available slot of free time, feeling like you need a vacation from your vacation in order to unwind, etc. …and then church comes along and
addsto that already stressful life. Time to take my filter off.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this article. I associate with friends of many faiths and I have noticed an increasing trend of expectation for my friends to be involved in what we term “callings” in our faith practice. Many of the churches call these jobs ministries and strongly encourage their attendees to pick their ministry. That is one option that Silent Dawning brought up….picking our areas of interest and gifting. Men outside the church often have greater passion for Boy Scouts than many LDS men. I feel our church leaders do try to do some listening, but may be guilty of staying in their bubble of “the trusted ones” too much. How many of you have ever been asked to participate in a church survey? The people I know personally who have were clearly handpicked. What kind of survey is that when the participants are handpicked?
There is a FB survey going around now that is being carried out through a university regarding gender in the church. Some church members posted it around feeling believing members should definitely be participating to influence the results. Other members were cautioning not to get involved in it. I liked that it at least had areas where you could actually write out what you thought about different issues, so that you were not just stuck with questions that did not quite nail down your opinions.
afterall wrote:I feel our church leaders do try to do some listening, but may be guilty of staying in their bubble of “the trusted ones” too much.
Often true. And some I think want to listen, but then see it through the only lens they know how, “they just don’t have enough faith”, etc.
afterall wrote:How many of you have ever been asked to participate in a church survey? The people I know personally who have were clearly handpicked. What kind of survey is that when the participants are handpicked?
Like when I heard something about the 12 bringing in 3 women to ask about how women feel within the church. I had to laugh. I think there are some women that are already screaming how they feel. I am sure there are tons of contented women in the church, but asking 3 of those you would get a different answer than if you asked 3 women that are on the board of directors for Ordain Women!
I think there are different personality types, and some equate “busy” with success or importance. I have friends in other religions that want that “needed” feeling and volunteer to do things, which I think is way cool…since they aren’t called and told they should do those things, they just do it. They are of that personality that has capacity and desire to stay busy. While other friends just don’t, and don’t get callings and don’t want them, they are good people too, just like their quiet family time and protect it. In the LDS culture…it seems there is peer pressure to be “anxiously engaged”, and an organizational structure that everyone needs the word, a friend, and a responsibility. There is not as much understanding of the personality type that does not enjoy the “being involved” constantly.
Quote:I think there are different personality types, and some equate “busy” with success or importance. I have friends in other religions that want that “needed” feeling and volunteer to do things, which I think is way cool…since they aren’t called and told they should do those things, they just do it. They are of that personality that has capacity and desire to stay busy. While other friends just don’t, and don’t get callings and don’t want them, they are good people too, just like their quiet family time and protect it.
In the LDS culture…it seems there is peer pressure to be “anxiously engaged”, and an organizational structure that everyone needs the word, a friend, and a responsibility. There is not as much understanding of the personality type that does not enjoy the “being involved” constantly.
Amen! I am of the latter and struggle with the whole “busy for its own sake” idea.
I’m the busy type that gets a certain amount of self-esteem from being busy. I value it in other people as well — but only if the busy-ness is efficient and effective. I have found that much of what we do in church service is not effective. Just busy. When I was HPGL, visiting all 200 people on my list was busy without being effective. And the phrase “if you spend all your days crying repentence and bring save one soul unto me, how great will be your joy in heaven” may well turn out to be false.
If I spend all my days crying repentence, and see only one person join the church, I’d lament what “could have been” — the opportunity cost. There is so much more to serving humanity than missionary work in the church, setting up chairs for events in which you have no interest or stake. And there are a TON of places in the world at large that need your talents — many of which go undeveloped, and languishing as we pursue age-old programs that need revamping.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.