Who sets the agenda?

I learnt many years ago that the most powerful person in a committee is not the necessarily the person in the Chair, but the one who sets the agenda - the selection of topics for discussion sets the boundaries within which you work.

So when Christians gather in church, they may say a creed, summarising their Christian beliefs, and in the sermon the word is preached - and all assent to their shared faith.

But what happens if you start with an individual's lived experience and let them set the agenda? We find one who is still overwhelmed by hurt from a past abusive relationship, another whose thoughts day and night are consumed by worry for a wayward child, and another who is busy working out how they can afford that house they have their eye on.

It's not that the same people in church saying the creed are deceitful; nor that in their daily lives they are heedless of God. But if there is no space for the church members to set the agenda and air their real and uppermost concerns, there is a disconnect between church and the rest of life! This isn't the fault of the ordinary church members; it's the responsibility of a church leadership who never dare let go of the agenda.

When and how in church do the church members have the opportunity to set the agenda, to talk about what is actually uppermost in their mind?

Of course, a church service isn't a therapy group where each person may talk about what is troubling them. And I trust that they do find in their meeting with God that their personal needs are heard, understood and met.

But the more strongly a church sets an agenda, a 'party line', the less people will feel free to be themselves, to bring their real needs, and the more people will present a false and acceptable front. In practice this means:

• the more structured the church is, the less the chaotic experience of people's everyday lives can be shared
• the more church is based on 'experience', the less people's honest questions can be spoken
• the more intellectually rigorous the church is, the less people's up and down experience will be voiced
• the more that questions have a clear and definite answer, the less room there is for our real doubts to surface

and the more people will present a false and 'acceptable' front at church.

Ultimately, keeping tight control of the agenda leads to boredom and falsity; but it also leads to an even more serious problem - it excludes people who are seeking:

• If your church appears to be full of 'respectable' people, how can those who know they are not respectable come in?
• If your church appears to be full of 'successful' people, how can those who feel a failure gain access?
• If your church appears to be full of people of strong faith, how can those with a faltering faith gain entrance?

How tragic if church is somewhere one cannot be honest (as if God is fooled!), and how tragic if those with messy lives, doubts and questions are kept out!

The more you want your church to be open to 'real' needy people, the more your church needs to reflect their experience - which probably means allowing for and accepting messy people with doubts, questions and plenty of real-life problems. Pretending these don't exist doesn't get rid of them; it merely shows that your God isn't as loving as you say.

Accepting each other's reality could sometimes lead to difficulty, disagreements and even the potential of conflict. But in the context of loving Christian relationships, it also leads to life!