Episcopal Church Foundation Vestry Papers - for leading congregations

Every field has its own language, words and phrases that have clear significance to insiders, but which are as clear as mud for everyone else. Richelle Thompson, who also writes for ECF Vital Practices, has frequently said that the Episcopal Church needs to watch its language, that our particular vocabulary (think “narthex” and “thurifer”) has a way of shutting everyone else out. We presume that visitors will know or want to know the intricacies of our denominational tongue, when all evidence points to the contrary.

For me, right now, the language that I am trying to wrap my mind around is that of organizational development. I frequently notice and am part of meetings where words like mission, goals, impact, and vision are used interchangeably. The presumption, I suppose, is that we’ve all got this vocabulary down, that the distinction between something being ‘holistic’ versus ‘synergistic’ is self-evident. It’s not. Or not for me, anyway. The end result is that our conversations can become ungrounded, they start to feel blurry and watered-down.

All this came to a fore for me a few weeks ago when I was asked to write a one page summary of my ‘vision’ for ECF’s Leadership Resources area. As the new program director for ECF Leadership Resources, it seemed appropriate that I should have such a thing, but first I needed to determine exactly what that word means. How is a vision statement different from a mission statement? What is its connection to short- and long-term impacts? And goals?

I realized I had to do some background work prior to writing anything down. In order to sort this all out, I turned to a prior blog post by Linda Buskirk about the difference between mission and vision, and I also read the chapter on vision in the classic leadership text The Leadership Challenge by Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner. From this reading, I determined that a one-page vision statement needs to paint a picture of the effect your work should have over the medium- to long-term. Kouzes and Posner asked readers to imagine what they’d like their area or organization to look like after ten years of being enthusiastically committed to that organization’s mission. Something about that question - perhaps the specificity of the time frame - helped me to start putting words down on paper.

Aside from this general definition, however, these resources contained two additional insights that I think may be beneficial to congregational leaders. First, both discussed the way that vision is connected to core values. For me, I firmly believe that the most creative and innovative work taking place in the Church is being realized at the grassroots, congregational level. Because of this, my vision has to do with creating an infrastructure for highlighting and sharing what is being developed in local contexts. ECF Vital Practices and the Fellowship Partners Program are two examples of this. Second, Kouzes and Posner note that contrary to the myth of the solitary visionary who goes up a mountain and returns with a vision for the organization/congregation, the most compelling visions are shared. They reflect the values, input, and insights of a whole team.

My one-pager is basically done, but it hasn’t been shared. Now that I’m clearer on what a vision is, and what it could be, I’m excited to start talking about it with my immediate team, having it pushed and challenged and opened up, in a way that only a group of committed people can do.