Creating a Culture of Listening and Respect

by Jon Anderson

 

Until we moved to another city a few years ago, my wife and I were part of a large church for over 25 years. For the last 14 of those years, I served as an elder. During that time, our church went through several critical seasons. Two of those seasons went better than the others. There was more trust in the leadership, more unity and joy. The congregants also felt safe asking questions and presenting differing opinions without being ostracized. We shared a strong sense of vision and direction. While the vision and direction was made clear by the leadership, that was NOT the first step that made it so successful. The first step was to make sure everyone had a voice in how to move forward.

Sometimes, when leadership presents a vision or new initiative to the congregation as a directive, some of the congregation work against it because they feel “dictated” to instead of considered. Instead, we decided to present ideas for vision or initiative as just that… an idea to be considered, debated, fine-tuned, or even rejected outright.

What we did in those two particular seasons was provide opportunities for everyone in the congregation to voice their questions, concerns, and suggestions. Many churches can get this part wrong. Giving out an anonymous survey or questionnaire might have seemed like a safe way to let everyone feel like they had input. However, it was more likely to raise even more questions and mistrust, because they could not see the process of how or if their input was truly considered.

Instead, we designated a few convenient and optional sign-up times to host town hall discussions. But instead of the traditional arrangement of giving anyone two minutes at the podium, we randomly assigned each of the attendees to a discussion group of three to eight people. In the first few minutes of the group meeting, the group had been instructed to elect a spokesperson to write down a summary of each person’s input. We used a timer at each table so that people were given equal time to speak. Three minutes per person was ample and helped keep discussions out of the proverbial weeds.

After the allotted time was up, the spokespeople took turns summarizing the input from each person in the small group to a facilitator who was most likely seen by all as wise and unbiased. That facilitator posted a short synopsis from each participant on a whiteboard for all to see. All of the input was compiled into a document for the leadership to consider until they reached a consensus. By reviewing all of the input the elders had several options:

• The elders could have scrapped the idea in its entirety; 
• Omit and/or add elements; or
• Accept the proposal in its entirety. 

The revised vision could have ended up looking like something completely different or less effective. However, even the best idea would have been sabotaged if everyone did not have a sense of contribution. If consensus was reached, that was great. If not, it was time to do more listening.

Yes, there was opportunity for the vision or plan to get watered down to something that seemed less powerful than the original idea. But the collective idea became more powerful than the original idea because everyone felt heard and had a sense of being part of that new idea. Maybe even more importantly, it transformed the congregation into a community that listened to and respected each other. 

Even is there is no major vision or new plan on the immediate horizon, this process is worth practicing two or three times a year in every church family. With this new way of learning to listen and process, every church family has a much better chance of successfully moving into the future.

About the Author