In all the congregations I have served the membership was often quite busy in the community doing a wide variety of caring ministries without them being organized by the Church. Indeed the "good" that we did was often never attributed to people's faith at all.

As I saw it my role was to nurture them in spirit and form them more deeply in the faith so that they could share, when appropriate, how it was that Jesus sent them about the work they were doing.

Our people were some of the leaven in the broader community, quietly and without trumpeting building up the broader community on a number of fronts.

Some indeed yearn for a visible parish identified ministry. They often get frustrated when others are too busy doing other ministry to be part of a common one. So the concept, however attractive becomes a force of separation and disappointment.

Do the work of Christ, forget branding it with some parish's name. Clergy can nurture and resource the people to expand ministries, rather than being somehow the designated do-gooder for the parish.

I share your concern, Jim. While much has been and can be said about too much emphasis on the individual, especially in the U.S., the effort among churchpeople to combat that often seems to take a wrong turn.

There's a big difference between post-adolescent "me-ism" and seeing and caring for individuals as unique persons, in accordance with both our Episcopal Baptismal Covenant (respecting the dignity of every human being) and the ways in which Jesus Christ himself ministered to the individuals he encountered. One problem with the institutional church today is that "success" and even "health" are often measured in terms of visible and ongoing outreach or mission "programs." They tend to be seen as the meat of interesting and compelling parochial and diocesan reports, and are. of course, appealing not only for what they aim to accomplish but also to give churches the sense that they are doing something tangible (and measurable) to make a difference in the world. While it is important to be always looking for ways to make a difference and especially to reach out to all sorts of people in the greater community in need, it also should be important to recognize and encourage what individuals do on their own to live out Christian discipleship and to minister to those indviduals' spiritual needs, which may arise in both their private lives and in their attempts to meet the needs of others.

What I found interesting awhile back was a series of essays, from a very conservative perspective, criticizing Rick Warren and his Purpose-Driven approach. One in particular (at http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/rick-warrens-purpose-driven-church-and-management-theory/), said something similar to what you said about your former parish:

"Criteria in church-based assessments are likely to measure:

- Extent of congregation’s growth in numbers or increase in funds – lack of growth is failure.

- How many church members volunteered time to church or charity?

- How much time did each spend and how often?

So, what about those who might not have the intelligence or perceived talent to help transform their local church? I’m talking about the believing high-school dropout who is a responsible and loving parent or an aged, lifelong church member who is house-bound. And what about those who are unable to volunteer at church because they care for an aging parent and work during the day? Will there be a place for them in this man-made construct?"

Both this and the self-study and criticism done by Willow Creek (last year, was it?) makes me wonder if there is something that both those on the progressive and conservative sides of the theological spectrum (shorthand, for lack of better terms), can learn from this kind of critique of the "successful" evangelical churches, at least the mega-church models. So many in the mainline churches still seem to be wrapped up in the notion of "programs" and the quest for the "program" or "corporate" - sized congregation (supposedly in the name of evangelism but often barely masking anxiety about declining numbers and the funds that go with them -- for "mission" programs, educational and social programs, and the buildings we think we need to house them and our worship spaces). But is this the best way to nurture and recognize individual transformation and discipleship?

Finally, while there is much talk about post-modern or post-Christendom culture, the need to appeal to and engage younger generations (i.e. younger than us graying Baby Boomers currently largely in charge of institutional churches), there does not seem to be much thought given to how a program-oriented approach may be at odds with the social habits and ways of thinking among those living in very fluid networks for work, social life, communications, etc. In this world of rapid texting, twittering, IM-ing, Facebook and similar posting, we are, in some ways, accustomed to greater intimacy and informality than ever before. Many teens and twenty-somethings have been "programmed" nearly to death by their schools and parents and may well be seeking ways of being and talking in faith communities that are characterized more by close relationships and communications with others on an individual basis, rather than a must-join-up for-this-or-that-program approach characterized by a hierarchal, highly organized corporate kind of structure and the behaviors that go with it.

And if so, what does this mean for pastoral care or even parish-as-a-whole care for individual spiritual needs and formation? Should we be designing, administering, and measuring parish life largely in terms of the size and quality of program-type mission work or should we be looking to help individuals grow in their spiritual lives and go out and find their own ways of recognizing others' needs and reaching out to people, either on an individual basis or, where there is interest, time, need, or talent, in the context of social, political, or other kinds of community work, which may not be sponsored by any religious organziation or institution? I'm not suggesting we should abandon mission work or suddenly shift our focus to just individuals, but I think we do need to get away from "doing church" primarily with committees and programs, especially when our primary concern (whether we admit to ourselves or not) may be to simply advertise church brand-name busyness.

For at least some parishes, perhaps "small" and intimate is just as good or not better than program-focused ones. Maybe life-giving faith communities need not be deeply involved in programs to nurture and sustain Christian discipleship. There may be some, on the other hand, who need or want close identification with parish-led programs, and such programs may well help some people to recognize community needs they might not otherwise see or act upon. But identity as Christians and as a community of faith should not, I think, be based primarily on developing and maintaining programs. There are many different ways of being community, and I don't think that recognizing the individuality of the members of the Body of Christ and eschewing corporate or army-style organization necessarily leads to self-centeredness, separation, or division.

I'd like to add an observation about money and giving to parallel Kathryn and Michael's good comments about time. When we make "stewardship" a code for giving money to the church, we ignore (so fail to bless and give thanks for) other ways that people are generous. How many congregations invite people to look at relief and development giving, educational giving, environmental activist giving, arts giving, political and lobbying giving, justice and advocacy giving and ask how any of these may be an expression of faithful generosity and think about how any of us prioritizes among them and includes them with our commitment to our parish church?

I have much appreciated both the article, the "rebuttal" and the comments above. I am not as well versed either in theology nor ecclesiastical discourse to comment intelligently on this topic except to reflect I am a single person, I have multiple blogs which at times bothers me as many blogs do seem so "me, me, me." Our small congregation is very mission oriented to our neighborhood in particular. As I read all this, I recalled St. Francis “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” The necessity to quantify and measure all we do is a sad borrowing from business. We are to be about God's business - She will qualify and quantify what is necessary. We need to go about acting out our faith every day. Thank you.

Silverwalking - please sign your name next you post. ~ed.