Report of the National Capital Area Emmaus Exploratory Committee November 6, 2006

Transcription

1 Report of the National Capital Area Emmaus Exploratory Committee November 6, 2006 Purpose: The purpose of the Exploratory Committee is to build a continuity of direction between the Board of Directors and the National Capital Area Emmaus (NCAE) Community. Key considerations are prayer, effective communication, sensitivity to the issues, and education. To accomplish this purpose, the goals established for the Committee were the following: - Study the benefits and challenges of embracing the National Model. - Understand the consequences of not accepting the changes National is requesting. - Present a written report to the Board of Directors which: o Makes recommendations and formulates viable solutions to the requested changes. o Suggests a methodology for a successful transition including an implementation timeline. o Closely examines alternatives. This report describes the Exploratory Committee s work to achieve the stated purpose and meet the goals set out by the Board of Directors. Background: The National Capital Area Emmaus community began organizing in With Team support from a Cursillo community, NCA Emmaus #1 was conducted in January, After six years of operation, NCA Emmaus was incorporated in Virginia in Since 1982, 132 weekends have been conducted and approximately 5,000 pilgrims have walked. The NCA Emmaus Community has been instrumental in the formation of nine other Emmaus communities in Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. Over the years, NCAE Boards of Directors have had periodic discussions with Upper Room (or National) representatives regarding weekend content and procedures. During that time, it was known and acknowledged by National that NCAE weekends were slightly different in content and method, but it was also acknowledged that the differences did not detract from the effectiveness of the weekend in bringing men and women to a closer relationship with Jesus Christ. As the NCAE community grew in size and experience, evolutionary changes suggested by the NCA Emmaus Community, were made to the weekend content. 1

2 These changes include the optional use of Clown Communion and, most recently, the use of outside entertainment during the Agape Feast. During the year 2000, responding to National s increased emphasis to standardize the Upper Room Walk to Emmaus, the NCAE Board of Directors commissioned a study to discover the intent and content of the National Emmaus Model and to compare it with the weekend model used by NCAE. The study identified several differences between the National Model organization and the NCAE weekend formats. Most of those differences remain today. In the six years since the study was accomplished, National has continued to emphasize its model and push for standardization. In response, NCAE began making some changes in 2002 but did not fully embrace the National Model. Additional changes in 2003 and 2004 moved the NCAE Community slightly closer to the National Model but the Board resisted further change. Mounting pressure from National took the form of an ultimatum in 2005: Comply with the National Model or terminate association with the Upper Room Walk to Emmaus. In a visit to NCAE, National representatives stated that NCAE could choose to comply, join another 4 th day organization, or develop its own program. Reacting to that ultimatum, the NCAE Board of Directors announced in late 2005 that in 2006, the Community would begin to implement a strategy designed to bring NCAE into compliance with National in three years. In the weeks following the announcement of pending changes to the weekends, many in the NCAE Community voiced their disappointment, dissatisfaction, and frustration over the decision to implement the National Model. The Board responded to the Community s reaction by establishing the Exploratory Committee. Discussion: The Exploratory Committee was established in the spring of The NCAE Community nominated members and then elected two clergy and seven lay persons to serve on the committee. The table below lists the members of the NCAE community who were elected and agreed to serve. Neal Ailstock, a current member of the Board was appointed by the Board to participate as a nonvoting member. Name Rev. Edwin Clever Rev. Richard Cobb Past Experience Pastor, Spiritual Director on numerous Emmaus and Chrysalis weekends. Former member of the Emmaus and Chrysalis Boards. Pastor, Spiritual Director on several Emmaus weekends. Former member of the Emmaus Board. 2

3 Jan Niehoff Numerous Chrysalis and Emmaus weekends, former Chrysalis and Emmaus Rectora / Weekend Lay Director and former member of the Chrysalis Board Cindy Rogers Numerous Chrysalis and Emmaus weekends, former weekend Rectora / Weekend Lay Director, former member of the Board and former Community Lay Director Carolyn Tidd Numerous Chrysalis and Emmaus weekends, former weekend Rectora / Weekend Lay Director, former member of the Board and former Community Lay Director Al Barbier Numerous Emmaus weekends and former Rector / Weekend Lay Director Joe Forrer Numerous Chrysalis and Emmaus weekends and former Rector / Weekend Lay Director Jake Jacobs Several Chrysalis and Emmaus weekends, currently serving as Community Applications coordinator and database manager. Steve Russ Numerous Chrysalis and Emmaus weekends and former Rector / Weekend Lay Director and Music Director for both communities The first meeting of the Committee was held in May 2006, at which time the Board presented the Committee with its charter. The charter was the output of an Exploratory Team Design Meeting held by several Board members on March 13, 2006 (see attachment). At that first meeting in May, the committee decided that it would meet monthly. Monthly meetings were held at Messiah UMC in Springfield VA. Also, the committee decided that it would add a fourth option to the three given to NCAE by National. The committee wanted to explore the option of a compromise with National, continuing to hope that National would lessen its demand for strict model compliance and allow NCAE to hold on to some of its original content and process. One of the main concerns of the committee was the best way to inform the NCAE Community of its progress. The committee decided that sharing information at monthly Gatherings, through Holynet, and in the Fourth Day Journal would be the best means of informing the greatest number of community members. Additionally, a Town Hall meeting would provide an opportunity to discuss the committee s findings and obtain feedback from the community. At a second meeting in May, the committee developed the following vision statement: 3

4 - The vision of the committee is to Explore, Nurture, and Discern. Expanding the three terms, the committee intended to: o Explore the future options of the National Capital Area Emmaus o Nurture the board and community and they in turn would nurture the exploratory committee to provide unity in NCAE o Discern God s will for the future of NCAE Also at the second meeting in May, the committee divided its members into four subcommittees to review the four available options. The four subcommittees and their membership were as follows: 1. Comply with National s directives: Richard Cobb, Carolyn Tidd, Jan Niehoff 2. Align ourselves with another community: Steve Russ, Cindy Rogers 3. Establish our own community: Joe Forrer, Al Barbier, Neal Ailstock 4. Create a compromise of processes: Edwin Clever, Jake Jacobs Each subcommittee was asked to explore its assigned option and report its progress and findings at subsequent meetings. Committee meetings in July and August focused on the subcommittees reports. As the committee began meeting and discussing the situation in NCAE, frustration and disappointment with National s hard line approach were often discussed. As a result, the idea of creating a compromise that was acceptable to National was very appealing. The committee hoped that a compromise solution would allow NCAE to continue to use some of its existing content such as Mananitas and the process for Dying Moments. The subcommittee exploring compromise drafted several suggestions that could be discussed with National should it agree that strict compliance with the National Model was not required. To further explore National s commitment to strict compliance, the committee drafted a letter to National for signature by the NCAE Community Lay Director. Another objective of the letter was to get the stated ultimatum of comply or leave in writing as this ultimatum was received verbally. In June of 2006, Mr. Greg Engroff, the Upper Room Walk to Emmaus North East Regional Representative, attended NCA Emmaus #131 as an observer. After the weekend, Mr. Engroff wrote a letter to NCAE reporting on his evaluation of the weekend (see attachment). He complemented NCAE for the quality of the pilgrims and the spirit filled way in which the team conducted the weekend. He acknowledged that the outcome of the weekend was excellent by writing, What your Community and teams are doing is authentic, spiritual and moves the pilgrims to a closer relationship with Christ. But, in addition to the accolades, Mr. Engroff added that the weekend was not the Upper Room Walk to Emmaus, and that changes should be initiated immediately to bring NCAE in compliance with the National Model if NCAE wanted to remain an Upper Room Walk to Emmaus Community. Mr. Engroff s letter, reaffirming previous discussions with 4

5 National, was sufficient to convince the committee that any hope for a compromise solution was not a reality. The letter also provided the written confirmation of the comply or leave ultimatum. A second option explored by the committee considered the possibility of joining another 4 th Day organization. The subcommittee exploring this option concentrated on two possibilities, Great Banquet and Tres Dias. Of the two, the Tres Dias weekend model was closer to the NCAE model. After learning about the two alternate weekend models and discussing potential issues involved with moving the NCAE community from one organization to another, the committee decided that this option was not viable. A primary reason for eliminating this option was that the committee could not assure NCAE that it would not face compliance issues in a new Fourth Day organization. After four meetings, the committee acknowledged that there were only two viable options: Adopt the National Model or develop an independent NCAE program. The subcommittee exploring the option of compliance with National was familiar with all the changes NCAE would have to undergo. The committee discussed the implications of those changes. At one point, the subcommittee considered inviting members of neighboring communities who follow the National Model to come and share their experiences. After discussing this idea further, the committee decided not to hold this meeting because the committee already accepted as fact, the effectiveness of the National Model. The only thing the committee may have learned from other communities is exactly how strictly they follow the National Model. While this information might have been interesting, it was not a consideration or concern of the committee. Within the NCAE community, required change to the National Model became recognized as changes to Agape, elimination of Clown Communion, Candlelight instead of Mananitas, changes to Dying Moments, and adoption of National s Manuals. While it appears that the majority of the NCAE community takes exception to changes to Dying Moments and Mananitas, it was clear that they did not comprehend the significance and impact of total compliance with the National Manuals. The committee decided that information must be provided to the community and that the Town Hall meeting was the proper forum. The final option, to develop our own NCAE program, occupied a significant amount of the committee s time because of the implications of moving away from the Upper Room Program. At the same time, implications for the Chrysalis Community were considered. To aid and advise, the committee immediately sought the assistance of an attorney who is also a member of the community. Primary legal concerns centered around copyright of terminology, written materials such as manuals, outlines, guidelines, and devotional material, funds, etc. The committee also established a dialogue with another community that had recently separated from National. Information received from that community was extremely helpful as it provided a different perspective and valuable advice. 5

6 Findings: 1. The National Model and NCAE Model are both effective at bringing men and women to a stronger and more personal relationship with Jesus Christ. 2. The National Model is used effectively by many communities throughout the country and testimony from those who have walked and those who have served attest to its effectiveness. 3. Experience within the community testifies to the fact that the weekend model used by NCAE is also effective. Additionally, written acknowledgement most recently received from Mr. Greg Engroff, the National Representative who observed NCA Emmaus #131, testifies to the effectiveness of the NCAE weekend model. 4. The NCAE program is not the Upper Room Walk to Emmaus. This fact, clearly stated in the report from Mr. Engroff, supports the same verbal claim by National. 5. NCAE has never been in compliance with the National Model. In 1982, as NCAE prepared for its first weekend, National was informed of differences between the NCAE weekend and the National model. Those differences were approved by National and have remained part of the NCAE weekend. 6. The findings of the 2000 National Model Committee are still valid. 7. In the last two or three years, National has become more insistent on enforcing communities compliance with the National Model. NCAE is now under an ultimatum to comply or leave. 8. The National Model Board Structure and operating procedures will likely place stress on the NCAE community. NCAE staffs the Board with 12 individuals. The National Model requires approximately 30 members plus many additional individuals to fill subcommittee positions. At present, it is difficult to get two year commitments from candidate NCAE Board members. The National Model calls for three years. NCAE conducts weekends with 24 people on site. The upper room process requires many more. 9. National s insistence on strict compliance is viewed by the committee as the beginnings of movement toward denominational dominance. Conforming to the National Model would likely not be the end of dictated change. 10. NCAE values the ecumenical flavor of its weekends and its ability to attract pilgrims from many denominations. 6

7 11. The Upper Room s rationale for a standard model, so that people feel welcome in any community, is questionable. NCAE has members who have been involved in many different communities. 12. There are only two viable options for NCAE: Total compliance with the National Model or continuing with our own program. 13. The NCAE Community has experienced a steady decline in pilgrim and team applications as well as attendance at regular events. While not a definitive cause, the decline appears to coincide with talk of, and actual weekend, changes. Recommendation: Of the three options given to NCAE, this committee, by unanimous vote, recommends the following: 1. NCAE formulate its own weekend program. The committee determined that a two-phase implementation plan would be appropriate. Phase I of the Implementation Plan will be delivered with this report. Phase II requires more detail planning. The target for delivery of Phase II of the Implementation Plan is the December Board meeting. 2. Immediate steps be taken to heal the Spirit of the Community by moving forward with a decision. Respectfully Submitted for the Exploratory Committee, Al Barbier 7