Visioning

Hamo reflects on Bonhoeffer's comment about visionary thinking.  First the Bonhoeffer quote, and then a portion of Hamo's comment.

“God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together. When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first an accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.” (Life Together)

From Hamo,

How do you know if your vision is from God or is just something that you would like to achieve - especially when there is an element of pressure to keep on coming up with ‘vision’?

Read his whole comment here, along with the others.

The question of visions is an important one.  A vision is inherently visual, unlike a mission which can simply be an abstract idea. But a vision is in essence foresight.  It is seeing into the future.

I know a bit about this because I've spent the past dozen years helping churches and other organizations develop a vision for the future.  I do agree with Bonhoeffer.  His book Life Together provides a nice counter-balance to the muscular individualism of the health and wealth gospel that is so easily found in churches today. 

Leadership Character and Visions
For me the issue isn't whether God hates visions, but rather human character in community.  When through some occurrence we get a glimpse of the larger world of God's presence, it is quite easy to feel like we have progressed in maturity. We may think, "God has granted me this vision because I'm now prepared for greater things."  I don't think that is typically the case.

Our Western individualism shields us from what I find is the real nature of the church.  For example from the same Bonhoeffer book, Life Together.

But God has put this Word in the mouth of men in order that it may be communicated to other men. When one person is struck by the Word, he speaks it to others. God has willed that we should seek and find His living Word in the witness of a brother, in the mouth of man. Therefore, the Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s Word to him. He needs him again and again when he becomes uncertain and discouraged, for by himself he cannot help himself without belying the truth. He needs his brother man as a bearer and proclaimer of the divine word of salvation. He needs his brother solely because of Jesus Christ. The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother, his own heart is uncertain, his brother’s is sure.

Note that first statement, the Word is not for me, but for you. We speak, not for our benefit, but for others.  If I have a vision, it isn't for me, but for the church. I am a vessel, a simple container, who pours what has been poured into me out for others' benefit.

How this works in the life of the church in the context of visioning projects is simple.  The church is not one person's voice, but the collective voice of the Holy Spirit speaking individually through the whole body.  If we structure the church whereby there is only one authoritative voice, then you end up with Bonhoeffer's criticism.

All too often church leaders fall into the trap of thinking that our vision for the church is Godly, when it is simply the enthusiasm of ego rush.  The counter-balance to the over-exercised ego is the humility of listening to the whole church for wisdom from God.  I know, I know, God speaks through the officers of the church who are elected by the people. Its the same deal. A minority elite can just be just as egotistical about their vision for the church as the individual.  And so can the whole church. It is a question of intentional recognition of our need for humility.

The problem isn't really individualism, but rather hubris.  It is a character issue, and only in a structure where there is both freedom and discipline can balance be found. So, if I have a vision for the future of my church, I must be willing to let the collective voice of congregation test it and distill it down to what is truly by God's spirit.  This is why it is so important to have formal, structured opportunities for informal conversation in the church. 

The Place for Visions in the Church
The other thing I want to say about this is to describe precisely what I see as a church's vision.  For a long time I have spoken of it as a picture of the congregation at the height of its impact.  My thinking has progressed as I've tried to understand the relationship between a Vision statement and a Mission and a Vision statement. 

A mission statement connects the Idea of a church's mission and all that goes into that, with the structure of the church.  There needs to be an agreement between the conceptualization of your mission in a set of ideas of identity, purpose and impact, and the structure of the church. If you are becoming a missional church, and don't have a mission or outreach budget, then there is an incongruence between your mission and your structure.

A values statement is ideas that connect people together. Values act as the core beliefs of the culture of the church.  They are the glue that creates the bond that enables the church to hold together through times of change and conflict.  If you are not clear about your values, then most likely your church will have completing values operating.

A vision statement, therefore, brings the structure of your mission together with the community of your relationships.  It is a picture of what is possible when these people committed to this mission working through this structure seek to have an impact as a church. 

I see these three connectors as powerful tools for uniting a congregation for its ministry.  So, you see visioning in this sense is far away from the egotistical vision that Bonhoeffer criticizes.

HT: Bill Kinnon

Comments

[Ed Brenegar]

Dennis,
In a sense, what we have are two circles. One with Ideas, Relationships and Structure, and the other with Mission, Vision and Values. Depending on a variety of considerations, the individual congregation will gravitate toward one of the three, more than the other. If we changed the language in the first to Beliefs, Relationships and Church Structure, you can see what we are dealing with are three different conceptions of what a church is. For some the primary emphasis is on the beliefs of the church. Whether it is Scripture, theology or the creeds, being clear and correct in our believes can easily become the primary focus of the church. Structurally, a church that is more institution that community will be focused on process, programs and the governing structure of the church. And then theree are some churches that are minimalist on both, and value the fellowship of the church over everything else. I think these three can fit within each of the size transitions models. Some are more likely than others, but I don't see it as a given than a family church will be solely focused on their relationships. Or a larger church on structure.
So, for argument's sake we see a congregation fitting in one more than the others. To find balance, they need to address the other two. The way to do this is to look at the Mission, Values and Vision piece. They are connections. So you can ask the question, how do our beliefs as a church factor into how we function as a church organization. The form or structure follows the function or mission of the church. Same with the values piece. How do our beliefs impact our relationships. From that discussion a set of values emerge that become the bond that unifies the congregation. I suggest reading Jim Collins and Barry Posner's book Built To Last about the relationship between values and cultural practices. Very relevant for the church.
Finally, if your mission and values are clear, and you ask the four impact questions then from that discussion should emerge a clear sense of what the church's impact should be. That becomes a church's vision.
How do you do this? It is going to be different from each church. What is important is that all six points on the two circles have some clarity so that the church knows where it stands.
Hope this helps. This is a work in progress, and I'm learning more and more as I test this with groups.

[DennisS]

I'm starting to see the value of vision, mission, and values - and how they are at the helm, regardless the size of ship (community).

I'm working on these personally right now. Next will be working on them with the Session. Can you say a little about how this is best done in community? I'm assuming this is not at all to be authoritarian (which Bonhoeffer was railing about), but a participatory process.

Are there significant differences in (re-)establishing vision, mission, and values among the various sizes of congregations? (Family, Pastor, Program sizes.) I'm thinking of waiting until January (changes in Elders) to begin the process.