<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: To have more UUs, improve general health?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boyinthebands.com/archives/to-have-more-uus-improve-general-health/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boyinthebands.com/archives/to-have-more-uus-improve-general-health/</link>
	<description>Scott Wells on the practice of Christian faith</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:54:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: PeaceBang</title>
		<link>http://boyinthebands.com/archives/to-have-more-uus-improve-general-health/comment-page-1/#comment-37675</link>
		<dc:creator>PeaceBang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2007 23:43:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boyinthebands.com/archives/to-have-more-uus-improve-general-health/#comment-37675</guid>
		<description>Oh boy, did you just say a mouthful.

It has been a serious discipline of mine not to have my head spun around by every Latest Thing promoted by the Association.  It's very tempting, because to jump on whatever bandwagon is going by is lauded, and you get to feel like a real insider and team player.  But most of what's out there -- however well-meaning-- is ephemera.  Meanwhile, the deep and sustaining practices and ways of thinking that can strengthen our ministries are not regularly explored. Or if they are, they're perpetually re-packaged and given some snazzy new name.  It's all distracting and linguistically confusing and very little of it strengthens congregational life and faith practice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh boy, did you just say a mouthful.</p>
<p>It has been a serious discipline of mine not to have my head spun around by every Latest Thing promoted by the Association.  It&#8217;s very tempting, because to jump on whatever bandwagon is going by is lauded, and you get to feel like a real insider and team player.  But most of what&#8217;s out there &#8212; however well-meaning&#8211; is ephemera.  Meanwhile, the deep and sustaining practices and ways of thinking that can strengthen our ministries are not regularly explored. Or if they are, they&#8217;re perpetually re-packaged and given some snazzy new name.  It&#8217;s all distracting and linguistically confusing and very little of it strengthens congregational life and faith practice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derek</title>
		<link>http://boyinthebands.com/archives/to-have-more-uus-improve-general-health/comment-page-1/#comment-37655</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2007 15:02:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boyinthebands.com/archives/to-have-more-uus-improve-general-health/#comment-37655</guid>
		<description>I would also be skeptical of the Carver Model of governance, and I have already begun to see its strains.  When I was on a District committee our District moved to the Carver Model of policy governance.  The Board set policies that were WAY out of step with the committee's capacity for action.  The committees did little to achieve those end-goals, and voila, NOTHING was accomplished. 

For example, the Board set a policy for the Extension Committee that there should be one new church plant per year.  The Committee debated endlessly about how to make this a reality.  Four years later they may still be debating how to get this done, and no new churches have been planted.  I got fed up with the attempt to craft a perfect plan of action, and quit the committee.

Church planting has a certain zen to it.  At some point you have to let go of thinking about it.  There is no policy that will perfectly match the reality.  There is either do, or don't do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would also be skeptical of the Carver Model of governance, and I have already begun to see its strains.  When I was on a District committee our District moved to the Carver Model of policy governance.  The Board set policies that were WAY out of step with the committee&#8217;s capacity for action.  The committees did little to achieve those end-goals, and voila, NOTHING was accomplished. </p>
<p>For example, the Board set a policy for the Extension Committee that there should be one new church plant per year.  The Committee debated endlessly about how to make this a reality.  Four years later they may still be debating how to get this done, and no new churches have been planted.  I got fed up with the attempt to craft a perfect plan of action, and quit the committee.</p>
<p>Church planting has a certain zen to it.  At some point you have to let go of thinking about it.  There is no policy that will perfectly match the reality.  There is either do, or don&#8217;t do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
