After a two week break we returned to our communal discussions on the transition process of Northbridge and the future of our faith community.

In the weeks since our last Sunday discussion the staff and leadership team had reviewed some of the potential reasons behind the ’stuckness’ that Northbridge seems to have experienced over the last few years that came out of the obstacles the community identified in our most recent community discussion.  This Sunday the staff presented a ’systemic look’ at this ’stuckness’ to the community and potential reasons for it.

Here is a brief review of the presentation on NB’s systemic ’stuckness’:

1.  Significant change in mission statement from pre-2006 to post-2006 leads to a significant change in how Northbridge wants to understand itself.

2.  Community aspirations, goals, and desires have remained remarkably stable over the last three year’s community discussions, planning conversations meaning…

3.  It may be more important to begin to look at next steps rather than continue to process what NB wants meaning…

4.  Our current mission statement may already adequately capture what we desire as a community.

Final stuckness thoughts…

1.  Stuckness is a sign of a symptom struggling to adjust to changes within it that are necessary; money, attendance are symptoms of the stuckness but not the real underlying problem.

2.  Change is upon us as a faith community…no matter what.

3.  Lack of making a decision is a decision.

4.  What decision do we want to make?

(If you would like a more detailed PowerPoint presentation of this please email Shane)

The staff then presented some preliminary options for Northbridge’s next steps in light of the aspirations, obstacles to reaching those aspirations, and the systemic challenges that Northbridge faces shared this morning.   It was noted that this signals a move from the initial ‘community processing time’ that we’ve been involved in to a more intentional ‘decision making process time’ for Northbridge’s next steps.

The options presented included two more ‘conservative’ options including:

  1. Moving to a ‘house church model’ in which the main gatherings would not be at a central meeting location but rather in individual homes taking a more ’small group’ feel for church (this would help with finances and minimize the responsibility of set-up on Sundays; this option may also have a possibility of a main monthly gathering to connect the small groups together).
  2. Decreasing the size of the room we use at the Community Center from the full meeting space to just  half the meeting space and then moving from a team of staff to one pastor (this option would allow for minimal change to NB and potentially allow for NB to continue without immediate financial stress when rent goes back up to the normal rate in September).

Two more progressive options were also presented that included:

  1. Looking for a church or community development corporation that has similar values that Northbridge could merge with (this would most likely entail a major change in the identity of Northbridge but would potentially allow for NB to try and meet some of its more progressive aspirations as well as potentially alleviating financial stress depending on the merger situation).
  2. Looking for a church or community center/development corporation that has space which Northbridge could share (potentially allowing for a better financial situation for NB, help NB try and meet its more progressive aspirations, allow for an adjustment in NB identity while still maintaining it in some desired forms).

After the presentation, the community was given time to respond with their questions, reflections, and comments.

Please continue to share your thoughts and comments on this blog with us.  The Sunday conversations will continue next week.

Shane