Too many introverts in leadership positions [See Eric Hanson on "inward focus."] leads to books and discussions like this wherein the introverts throw the responsibility on the congregants — on the sheep they are supposed to lead. That failure doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked and it won’t work to build the church. If you aren’t willing to forcefully, publicly and unequivocally proclaim Jesus as God — by, for example only, cold-calling hostile doors — then the sheep know you’re a manager not a leader. Once they know you want to manage them, they will manage right back: trying to foist responsibility on you. It’s a secular approach with which they are completely familiar.

If, on the other hand, you want examples of leadership that works, spend your Sundays in the non-denominational churches growing in your communities.

Jesus’ gospel — the proclamation of the story of God is alive and growing but not in venues like the Alban Institute (no disrespect intended). It’s out on the street.

I apologize, sincerely and repeatedly, for the sharpness of this post. But I am zealous for the Christ and I wish my church were.

Where is Christ? Where is Holy Communion? Where are the benefits of baptism, or absolution or the powerful Gospel Word? No where in this article.

It’s anthropocentric. The genuine Christian faith is Christo-centric; grace through faith-centric; sacramentally-focused and all these come to us, not nakedly, but in an historical context known as the Mass or Divine Liturgy. I see nothing of value in this article, except a lot of happy thoughts that put all the burden on “us” to do what we don’t have the ability to do: build Christ’s church.

After 27 years serving in this community, I find that the very same unhealthy “inward focus” which church congregations often suffer from, also afflicts individuals and households, causing them to be “people blind” and unconcerned about the struggles of others. May the grace of God flow through all of us in Christ. May we be like Him; the one who called a “hated tax collector” to be a disciple; who ministered grace and forgiveness to the “outcast” woman at the well”, and who cared even for the crowds lest they “feint along the way”.

The pattern we encourage in spiritual formation is to notice and to name and to keep on noticing and naming, seeking patterns that help us discern what God’s doing and calling us to. As Eleanor noted, so many mainline folks need help with the naming, the language. Reclaiming our faith language in new ways seems crucial to me, as well as borrowing more ordinary parlance. Language forms us as we use it, and for too long we’ve abandoned our language because of how others define it. Perhaps liturgy is one place to begin reclaiming and redefining?

I served a congregation similar to what Amy has described, very small, having lost nearly all families through some nasty schisms. However, it had reached the point where those left had been through it all and were committed to each other and to the church. While worshiping perhaps 30 on a Sunday, 25 came to an evangelism workshop! The moderator always remembered the challenge, “If your door closed tomorrow, who would notice?” Their focus began to move from survival and anxiety to enjoying each other, reaching out to the community because they have something worth sharing, valuing faithfulness over success. One key in the renewal of energy was the establishment of a women’s prayer/support group. A short-term group chose to continue indefinitely. Many noted that after years in the church, this was the first time they felt truly known and close with others. They were learning to speak their hearts through faith language. I will never forget how, after one evening when we laid hands on each member one at a time and I offered a blessing, they then had me sit down and laid hands on me and prayed ALOUD for me! They began doing projects in/for the church, and did a dramatic reading for Easter worship. They were transformed! Will the church survive, and grow in numbers? Who knows? But they are being faithful now, and they know it. That’s what matters.

So I guess that’s what comes to mind when I consider Lamont’s question — which church, and why? Each congregation just needs to be itself, to draw upon the gifts of its tradition and the resources available through its denominational structures as they becomes authentic in their setting. Why choose one church over another? Hopefully that will be about matters of individual choice and tastes of the visitor, selecting from among a variety of living, healthy, welcoming churches!

Rev. Dr. Paul O. Bischoff, Ph.D.