Comments on: Sheep and goats http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/09/27/sheep-and-goats/ One part facial hair. Two parts moxy. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:20:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: John Cullinan http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/09/27/sheep-and-goats/#comment-4109 John Cullinan Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:53:11 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/09/27/sheep-and-goats/#comment-4109 I've learned to take Durall with a grain (or more) of salt. I enjoyed the book while I was reading it, his assessment of the current state of the church sounds reasonable (when it's in front of you), and his vision of the future is intriguing. However, when he came to my internship site as a consultant it became clear to me that he's far too wedded to his general assesment of the current state of the church to able to see specific individual churches clearly. All his work is done through the lens of <i>The Almost Church</i>. By his return visit, he was quoting chapter and verse from his book, while saying very little about the actual state of the congregation he was contracted to observe. He seems to be much more invested in being "right" than in being constructive. (I'll admit, he did bring about some useful changes in the congregation. They were, however, small changes compared to my sense that he couldn't, or just wouldn't, look at the individual congregation without superimposing his pre-judged notion of "contemporary UUism" onto it.) I’ve learned to take Durall with a grain (or more) of salt.

I enjoyed the book while I was reading it, his assessment of the current state of the church sounds reasonable (when it’s in front of you), and his vision of the future is intriguing.

However, when he came to my internship site as a consultant it became clear to me that he’s far too wedded to his general assesment of the current state of the church to able to see specific individual churches clearly. All his work is done through the lens of The Almost Church. By his return visit, he was quoting chapter and verse from his book, while saying very little about the actual state of the congregation he was contracted to observe.

He seems to be much more invested in being “right” than in being constructive.

(I’ll admit, he did bring about some useful changes in the congregation. They were, however, small changes compared to my sense that he couldn’t, or just wouldn’t, look at the individual congregation without superimposing his pre-judged notion of “contemporary UUism” onto it.)

]]>