What I appreciated most from Zemke (besides her insight on \u201ctempered radicals\u201d and thoughts on dissent) was her connection with change and grief.\u00a0A few years ago I read Dr. Bridges Managing Transitions <\/em>which I found to be insightful, especially for church leaders. I have since recommended it widely. My experience agreed with Bridges assessment that most leaders focus exclusively on the \u201cchange\u201d. But his premise is that the success of any change is actually played on the \u201ctransition\u201d level. The change is the new direction, decision or circumstance; the transition is the psychological process of accepting the change.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n According to Bridges, the transition process has three phases of which none are linear or self-contained. The phases are as follows:<\/p>\n Seems straightforward enough. But what has stayed with me was the grieving process of any change. And Zemke states, \u201cAmericans do not grieve well.\u201d[3]<\/a> I agree and it is unfortunate that this has seeped into American Christian culture.\u00a0Change begins with an ending.<\/p>\n I have witnessed and spearheaded changes over the years at church, some big and some small relatively. I have seen a correlation between how well we attend to the ending and how quickly the new reality takes shape. But what makes it difficult for Christians to attend to something so unavoidable?\u00a0I wonder what makes grieving so counter-cultural, at least in circles I have found myself in. We understand grief better when it comes to the loss of someone we love. But Zemke is speaking of the more common, medium and small changes that make up the human experience. I offer a few thoughts on what has contributed to my own devaluing of grieving.<\/p>\n Focusing on loss conflicts with a theology of more. If \u201cup and to the right\u201d is the target then anything not in that direction (i.e. failure, loss, staff transition, etc) is often not acknowledged. We move on fast. We have to spin the story. Sometimes I wish we could get more comfortable as leaders with language such as \u201cwe hoped it had work but it didn\u2019t\u201d, \u201cwe were wrong about our assumptions\u201d, “this is hard”, “I’m sorry”. These admissions do not mix well with more, bigger, faster, better.<\/p>\n I also wonder if my sense of worth is overly tied to accomplishment and appearing successful. Is this perhaps a reason that endings are hard to honor? Do we equate endings with failure too closely? I have over-personalized failure certainly. If something ending or changing or not working is tied to my identity, I will feel threatened. And then it will be tempting to avoid.<\/p>\n And finally, I wonder if attending to loss simply has very little productivity value. Instead of taking the time to grieve, leaders keep accumulating hurts and losses secretly over years and decades. Forging ahead and working hard is doing something. Talking about the past accomplishes what?<\/p>\n Yes, we must move forward in life. But not practicing self-compassion by grieving will not be the short-cut it appears to be. Attending to our losses, changes, endings with Jesus is a worthy endeavor. And as a bonus, it may enable us to get to the new beginning sooner.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a>James Davison Hunter,\u00a0To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World<\/em>. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, 214-9.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Good-Grief-300x277.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n