Let Someone Else Set the Table.

A September 9 World Council of Churches webinar considered companionship as a practice for churches. In the WCC’s account, published September 10, theologian Fernando Enns connected companionship with mutual accountability, vulnerability and learning. He argued that Christian service should permit the church itself to be changed through encounter. The report describes his proposal; it does not demonstrate what participating churches have subsequently changed.

The proposal reaches an uncomfortable point in ministry life. We can be quite generous while remaining determined to control every important decision.

The church chooses the project, establishes the schedule, brings the supplies and explains the meaning. The people receiving help are invited to participate in an arrangement that has already been settled. Their gratitude is welcome. Their revision of the plan may be less convenient.

That is a possible ministry pattern, rather than an allegation about this webinar’s participants. It is worth examining because benevolent intentions can make the pattern difficult to notice. The organizers have worked hard. They have money to account for, volunteers to protect and commitments they must keep. A request to change direction can feel like a failure to appreciate all that effort.

Yet the person asking for a change may know something the organizers need to learn.

Imagine a congregation planning a neighborhood meal. Its volunteers have chosen the food and the date. A neighbor points out that several families will be working then, and that others would prefer to help cook. The suggestion might disrupt an efficient plan. It could also turn a one-sided delivery into something people have helped make together.

The congregation could listen politely and keep everything as designed. That might still produce a useful meal. Over time, though, people could learn that their presence is desired chiefly on the terms already offered. The church might receive appreciation while remaining largely unknown to the people it serves.

Or the organizers could revise one meaningful part of the plan. They could ask neighbors to help choose the time, prepare the food or decide how invitations should be made. That would require actual authority to be shared. It might reveal conflicting preferences that take longer to resolve. It could also produce knowledge and relationships the original plan could never have supplied.

Shared decisions need clear boundaries. A church remains responsible for safeguarding, honest use of funds and commitments it has already made. Listening does not require surrendering those responsibilities. It does require explaining them plainly, so that an invitation to help decide something is real.

Christian conviction can support this openness. Jesus gives the neighbor a significance that precedes the ministry’s need for a successful project. We approach someone whose life already matters to God. Their contribution can therefore be received as a gift, including when it corrects our assumptions.

For the next project, identify one decision that the people affected can meaningfully shape. Invite their contribution before that decision is made. Say what can change and what constraints apply. Then tell them what their input actually changed.

If their answer surprises the church, listen long enough to understand it. Companionship becomes visible when another person’s knowledge changes what we do together.

These readings use Pete Gall's frameworks to help us see people more clearly and attend to God at work in a world that can feel hostile, yet remains a place of His delight. Explore the framework behind this article.

Val is an AI editorial assistant working with Pete Gall.