Gretchen and Gary dialogue about groups

I'm transferring this email exchange into the blog, just for ease of referring back to the discussion:

Me: (in reference to Gary's message above about small groups)

I guess that I see this step a bit differently than dividing people into groups to change their minds…J

I see it as a necessary piece of getting to discussion of what people value – something that cannot happen in large groups. The informality of the small group and a gradual move into the discussion of welcome and (we can’t avoid it) LGBT people would hopefully lead to some sense of safety that would allow people to open up and share their feelings, especially with the help of a facilitator whose job it would be to make sure that the group discussion doesn’t dissolve into debate or negativity.

Without creating space and time for those small group discussions to really find out where people are at, I worry that those who are having problems with the whole idea will simply get lost in the masses of those who are fine with RIC. And my goal would be that EVERYONE attend a group – invited specifically – not just those who will agree. We would need to carefully explain the purpose of the groups as exploration – not proselytizing or decision-making.

So, I see the groups as a method for finding out how the congregation feels and explore those feelings in a safe setting – not based on ANY assumptions. There is no better way than in face-to-face discussions.

Does that make any sense?

Gary writes:

Your feedback is very much appreciated. It is thoughtful, it does make sense, and I think the plan will be strengthened by our discussion of the next step moving forward.

First of all, please don't think I view this as a decision either inviting the congregation to help craft the affirmation of welcome or hosting the small group discussions. I do see the benefits of small group discussion. My question is if this should be our next step.

Gretchen, I believe you identified the following goals:

1) Inviting everyone and having them attend a group discussion

2) Discovering what the congregation values as individuals in the group setting

3) Determining how the congregation feels about explicitly welcoming GLBT in a safe space the group provides through the facilitator

4) Insuring all have the opportunity to be heard and that know their opinion counts

5) Explaining the purpose of the groups as exploration – not proselytizing or decision-making

The benefits of the small group sessions are strong assuming:

1) Everyone who is invited will attend. Based on invitational events I have seen in the past this is unlikely. If it is billed as an RIC event those who do not agree may not attend, simply hoping it goes away. Logistical issue: Are we going to continue to invite people who don't attend their initial group discussion?

2) All perspectives will be heard. Those against GLBT inclusion may be uncomfortable speaking out (I am thinking of our Living Faithfully sessions here)

3) We are not proselytizing or decision-making. If we show a DVD like "The Bible Tells Me So" at a hosted gathering we might view it as exploration but others may view it differently.

I'll come clean. I may have a distorted view of hosted groups based on invitation. There was a decision that every member would have the opportunity to meet a member of council a couple of years ago. We never met our council member simply because of that person's schedule. Yet as we heard about the meetings others were having, we felt left out.

An invitational meeting by zip code didn't go well for us either. The idea is that the meeting will be in geographic proximity but ours put us with members who lived far away from us (there few members in our particular zip code). We didn't attend when we realized how much time it would take to get there.

We understood what happened each time. Still, logistics have been problematic in the past and might be here.

Again, I don't feel the hosted small group is unworkable. I do see the benefits of inviting members to begin to craft our Affirmation of Welcome first because:

1) All can be invited at once. Emailed and/or mailed, an invitation can arrive at the same time. Depending on the small groups will stretch out the time before members get involved

2) Feedback can be anonymous. Anonymity is likely the most comfortable feedback for someone who is afraid of the RIC process.

3) We can quickly gain some information we do not have now. It will take months for all the groups to meet. The invitation will allow for quicker response. We may find there is not the opposition we anticipate and can adjust our plan accordingly.

4) The congregation can take action immediately. They can do something tangible that contributes to RIC discernment in helping create the Affirmation of Welcome.

5) There can be welcoming issues outside of GLBT we can address as quickly. We can talk about whether this can duck GLBT inclusion. I don't see that.

6) Who is invited? The congregational mailing list is by family. The group invitations may be trickier. Who do we invite? Will parents feel comfortable with their teens in these small groups? What if we encourage teens to attend if parents don't feel comfortable?

So, everyone, feel comfortable to weigh in on where our next step should be. If someone sees the benefit getting advice from LCNA on this decision, let's talk about that as well. All the issues associated with each step need to be ironed out anyway.