IMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH
SPECIAL CONGREGATIONAL MEETING
MARCH 9, 2003
6:00 p.m.

Pastor Rick opened with a prayer, and we began the meeting with a potluck dinner.

Wayne Christiansen called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.  He advised that preliminary planning reports resulting from the Bridgebuilders process have already been distributed.  We are working on these issues, and requesting that if there are any questions, suggestions or ideas, please bring them to a Council representative.

He provided an overview of the Bridgebuilder Program to date.  The steps included:

1.      Entry into the program via Council/Synod Meeting with Pastors John Schleicher and Clay Bates on March 5, 2002.

2.      Education through a “Learning Event” facilitated by Pastors John Schleicher and Marcie Miller on June 22, 2002.

3.      One-on-one interviews conducted by Pastors John Schleicher and Marcie Miller on June 24 & 25, 2002.

4.      Action Report from Pastors John & Marcie to the Congregation on September 8, 2002.  Action Plan Process team members named.

5.      Planning, which included an initial workshop on September 14, 2002, Action Plan Process Team met to establish issues and develop initial goals on September 23, 2002, focus groups met to finalize format on September 29, 2002, an Open Focus Group meeting was held for the entire congregation to attend on November 10, 2002, and the Final Action Process Plan was completed for approval by the Council on January 12, 2002.

6.      An Aftercare Planning Meeting was held with Pastor John, Pastor Rick, Karen Eichelberger, Den Graeber, Wayne Christiansen, Mary Gehlhaar and Kelly White on February 26, 2003.  Additional upcoming meetings include March 23, 2003, on reconciliation of issues related to the departure of Pastor Cindy, and a Service of Healing will be held on March 30, 2003.

The Bridgebuilder Action Planning Process Committee, through participation in educational workshops, strategic planning groups, focus group presentations and feedback, have concluded the following issues to be primary concerns:

            ISSUE #1 – Communication/Conflict

            ISSUE #2 – Compelling Vision/Identity

            ISSUE #3 – Youth

Additionally, a strong majority embraces the creation of a Mutual Ministry Support Committee.  The Bridgebuilders, in conjunction with the Council, didn’t find it necessary to reinvent the wheel, as this process had been worked on previously.  This item is being handled as a separate issue, and a new proposal was distributed at the conclusion of this meeting.  Additionally, it will be distributed during regular Sunday services over the next few weeks, with a formal presentation made between services and during coffee hour.  On April 27, 2003 there will be an informational meeting regarding the proposed document, in preparation for a Congregational Meeting to be held on May 4, 2003 for discussion and voting on the Mutual Ministries Task Force recommendation.

There will be an Aftercare Meeting on March 23, 2003 facilitated by Pastor Schleicher along with Pastor Rick, addressing the departure of Pastor Cindy.

The meeting then became a question and answer period.

Question: The Youth report discussed the Youth & Family Ministries Task Force.  Are you looking to find new people, or simply start over?   

Answer: The Youth subcommittee did not feel it was their place to assume previous volunteers still wanted to serve.  It would be great if they wanted to return.  This subcommittee viewed a report that probably wasn’t presented to the congregation in a formal way.  It was a good document, but needs to be brought before the congregation again, and reviewed again; to be sure it is still appropriate. 

Question:  What happens once this report is accepted? 

Answer:  Once it’s accepted, we will start with the Aftercare Programs.  Additionally, we will be moving forward with the formalization of the documents previously distributed regarding the ISSUES mentioned above (Communication, Vision, Youth and Mutual Ministries Support Task Force).  These plans will be lead by the Council, but open to anyone and everyone who wants to participate. 

Question: What are we talking about?  Approving the report or all of the recommendations?

Answer:  We are voting on the report itself, not the individual recommendations (which are the preliminary work).  We need to accept the Bridgebuilders report so that we can make the statement “we agree, these are the areas of concern, now let’s start resolving them.”  This vote is permission for us to go forward.

Remark:  As a relatively new member, I agree with the Issues brought forward by Bridgebuilders; they are the three main complaints I have.  Communication is inadequate, the Youth program needs to be the focus - they are not the future, they are the church today.  I commend the Bridgebuilders for looking at communication, vision, and youth, and I will wholeheartedly speak up, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Question: With these 3 areas that we’re looking at, I find our structure to be very cumbersome.  The committee activity is hard.  Does the potential to restructure fall under one of these activities?

Answer:  We hope so – communication and vision each could touch it.  We need to review our Bylaws and consider streamlining our structure.  I don’t know where this is going to lead us.

Remark:  I want to talk about communication.  Members also have to be accountable to all the information that is available.  Every new member receives a packet that includes a copy of our Constitution and Bylaws.  However, I agree that we need to improve on providing information to visitors.

Remark:  We started coming 5-6 years ago, and were attracted based on the number of families and youth.  I joined the Council last year because I saw the deterioration of the youth program.  We hired Pastor Cindy thinking she was youth orientated, but she wasn’t.  I’m a firm believer that we need to move quickly to move forward with a youth and/or family ministry pastor; the sooner the better.  I plan to get aggressive as a council member to move this along.  What do you think?

Remark: I want to commend those who participated in the Bridgebuilder process, and want you to realize it’s been exactly one year since the Synod representatives came and met with our council.  It’s a phenomenal process, and I don’t know any other organization that could have done it any quicker.  I know there’s a lot of impatience out there to move on, but recognize how quickly we got here.  One year ago, we didn’t know where to go.  Hundreds of people participated in that process.  Thank you.

Remark: When we first started 18 years ago, this church was awesome to new people.  It’s been 10 years of frustration with the youth program for me.  I fear for younger kids.  I want them to have the same things I did, but I realize it’s a different world.  I’m ready to move forward, and I’m willing to do whatever I can to contribute to the betterment.  The one thing we need to remember is that we can’t be all things to all people.  If we are traditional, then that’s who we are.  If we want to be avant garde, that’s okay too.  But we need to figure out who we are, and quit apologizing.  That’s part of our vision.

Remark: I feel that the vision for this church is that we should be intercessory prayers.  Jeannie Boerger-Dixon has been teaching a class on praying, and that’s been great.  We need to pray together as a unit – one for the other.  God’s in control, and He knows what’s going to happen.  Start with prayer, and start by praying for the little children.

Remark: I’m in a unique position as I operate a non-denominational worship center.  All of the recent youth directors of this church have come to me, and they each have been frustrated in the past.  Remember that you can’t have any one person be all things to youth.  They may connect well with one group, but not the others.  Scott Weaver was marvelous with fringe kids (not connected at all), but people with connected kids complained frequently.  Sometimes I feel that when there is a youth director or assistant pastor of youth in place, people get comfortable dropping their children into the laps of these individuals.  It is the responsibility of the parents to be there for their children.  I would suggest that we have a person in place to coordinate the communication here, such as accepting deposits, keeping track of details, but not necessarily responsible for chaperoning, etc.  Broaden your scope to keep this in mind.  Maybe there is a different way to do things.  I hope that within this structure there is the ability to look outside the boxes for new possibilities.  Don’t put a new face on an old problem.

Remark: We’ve been here for 25 years, and involved with the youth program for 12 years.  If there was a complaint, it was that there was a definitive lack of parental involvement.  It was wonderful that we did a lot, and I won’t regret those years, we still get hugs 12 years later.  I cherish that.  My son grew up in this church, but he didn’t fit in Scott’s radar.  I feel that this church failed him, except for Pastor Rick.  I hope in time he comes around to the way I want him to be (as far as his church life).  We’ve talked for many years that we need a youth program, and I couldn’t agree more – but it takes 100% of this congregation.  It won’t survive, thrive & grow without it.  My daughter needs a youth program and she’s 14 years old.  We need to be there for her & every other child. 

Remark:  My new secretary is the wife of the past director of the Oneida Bible Church.  I’ve been picking her brain, because that was one of the youth groups that our son would go to, because his friends would invite him.  Our daughter attends another youth group in Lansing with a friend from school.  She confirms that the parents need to be involved.  They got so active that those individuals got burned out.  I think what we need to do is to get ideas from successful, exciting youth programs.  We need to support whoever it is in charge.

Pastor Rick: Please review the Vision Statement document.  I sense that the folks on this team are saying to themselves: as you approve the action plan from the Bridgebuilders and what’s in that action plan, then you are also giving the go ahead to the various subgroups to work on and implement their ideas.  The vision group came up with a process that we want to use to develop a concise, clear vision statement under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  We envision this as a “looping” process, whereas this team takes the responses from the surveys, interviews and focus groups.  We will then write a statement, and loop it out to the Council to critique and discuss, then bring it back to us.  We’ll re-write & loop it back to Council again, as many times as necessary, until we have something that we believe is God’s vision.  Then we’ll bring it out to the various groups in the congregation, so there will be opportunities for members of our congregation to view and comment on it.  We will bring it back to refine and re-write, then back to Council, then back to the congregation for final approval.  On behalf of the vision group, I would be willing to hear open or private comments about that, because right now if you approve the plan, you’re going to approve that process as well.  Prayer is absolutely a part of that process.  We are a four-person team; we are not objecting to others who want to be a part of it.  We are inviting you if you would like to be.  However, we don’t want to be more than 7.

Remark: The council has already broken up into 3 different groups that are working on the 3 Issues.  The bottom of the youth statement gives contact people.  One of the goals of the communication group is to not have any surprises, and to try to make things as known as possible.  The more input we can get from congregational members; the better we are going to be.  If we approve the Bridgebuilder plan tonight, these groups are going to start making some changes, communication probably quicker than the others.  We can use all the input we can get – I encourage you to talk to your friends, the people in church, and please have them get with us.  We should have a visitor packet to explain what we are all about.  There is a lot to be done, but everybody’s got to help.

MOTION by Fred Gehlhaar, SECONDED by Mike Proper:

THAT WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BRIDGEBUILDERS AND PROMISE CONGREGATIONAL SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL AND ITS RECOMMENDATIONS.

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MOTION by Orv Erickson, SECONDED by Matt Cermak:

            TO ADJOURN THIS CONGREGATIONAL MEETING

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

We closed by singing the Doxology.

Respectfully submitted,

Note: Copies of committee minutes and reports, as referred to in the Council Minutes, can be obtained in the church office.