The Rev. W. Joseph Mann: Is Your “Health” Cup Half Empty or Half Full?
I recently attend a remarkable summit on health and spirituality hosted in Raleigh by the North Carolina Council of Churches. Some 200 people from various communities and communions in North Carolina gathered to talk about how churches can contribute to health. The keynote address was given by Gary Gunderson from Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare in Memphis. Gary has worked for years in the general area of public health and its intersection with faith, and is renowned for his achievements. He addressed the group on the themes of his book, Leading Causes of Life: Five Fundamentals to Change the Way You Live Your Life (Abington Press, 2009), co-written with The Rev. Larry Pray.
In the book and in his address, Gary argues that too much attention has been paid to the leading causes of death. We know those causes, and we tend to focus our energy on these deficits. In doing so, we forfeit the strength of our assets. So Gary delineates Christian assets to counter the deficits – what he calls the five causes of life: connection, coherence, agency, blessing, hope.
- By connection he means the ways people in churches live into community—“a thick weave of relationships.”
- Coherence means meaning and purpose in life—a world of meaning. The church offers such coherence as it tells and lives the Gospel of Jesus Christ and narrates his life, death, and resurrection.
- Agency has to do with the “human capacity to do.” Agency exists when an individual feels some empowerment and ability to affect the world.
- Blessing is a little more difficult term to explain, but it means “generativity”, our understanding that all Christians have been placed in families that can span generations and eons. So we praise famous men and women and pray for the future eschatological connection of all who live today and will live tomorrow.
- Finally, Christians live in hope, a hope that sustains us and enables us to continue the networking of relationships in and through the church.
Gary’s work relates closely to John McKnight’s thoughts on asset-based community development. McKnight, like Gunderson, criticizes the way that social reformers tend to move into a community and determine that a community lacks things: schools are failing; there are too many drug addicts; too many teenage girls are having babies out of wedlock; crime is rampant. Instead, McKnight writes that the glass is not half empty but half full. His research looks at a community not in terms of its deficits but of its assets, and maps them: the presence of Scout troops, underground organizations, churches, nonprofits, and key individuals who are making positive contributions. Creating solutions that expand on a community’s assets – on its strengths – is a far superior thing than complaining about its deficits.
We who are invested in clergy health could see the glass as half empty. We all know the spiraling costs for health care and the burdens these costs place on individual pastors and on churches. We are all becoming familiar with our clergy health deficits, and how as a group, we pastors are not as well in many ways as the rest of the population in North Carolina. But it is not a Pollyannaish thought to also say we have great assets. We have connection, coherence, agency, blessing, and hope – these are basic parts of the church’s life. The glass is half full when we reclaim Wesleyan community and accountability. We have assets of hope when we remember our call first to be disciples of Jesus Christ and then to ordained ministry, trusting in the One who makes all things whole.
So perhaps the real challenge lies in recognizing there are two glasses. There are parts of our communal and individual lives that have fallen short of the glory of God. Because of this, confession and renewal remain part of our Christian vocabulary. But we do not live in fear, for through Christ, we are more than conquerors. Ultimately the glass is full, even over-flowing.
The Rev. W. Joseph Mann
Executive Director
Leadership Education at Duke Divinity

Comments
Nice article but rather ivory
1. Connection. Intellectually yes, but practially no for clergy and their spouses are some of the loneliest people of any profession given our closely involved our lives as pastors and lives as clergy family are intertwined with parish life. Given the lact of trust among many clergy within the same denomination, the sense of connection is often just not there. If connection were true then clergy would receive the same health benefits from attending church that statistics show is true of laity. If connection as well as agency were true in practice, then the report the Circuit Rider came out with abount how angry UM clergy spouses are would never have been written.
2. Coherence is there but it's often dulled by not having a life beyond one's responsibilities in the parish.
3. Agency is another are where its a sitution of intellectually yes but in actual experience no which has been discussed at length and is another area along with connection where improvement is needed for health to increase as well.
4. Blessing is really difficult to define and grasp other than in the context of Hebrews 11 and 12 where we are encouraged to run the race with the spiritual conception by faith of a spiritual olympic stadium of the faithful of the OT and NT plus the faithful of the church both written about in church history and those whose faithfulness is not reported in books. That's true and it's a wonderful truth to reflect upon and inspire our faith in light of Hebrews 11 and 12, but tough to hold on to when experiencing abuse from toxic churches and the pastor's health ends up but a reflection of the same state of the congregation.
Living in hope as defined as the networking of relationships in and through the church is questionable again in practice other than to a very limited degree with the lack of connection, i.e. loneliness, and the lack of agency, i.e. feeling free to have a life very often means finding one's best networking of friends among those in and through the church which is not in one's own denomination, again because of the trust issue.
We can be positive about strengths and see the potential for change and life, but if the ground is rocks; a body's strengths are basically gone; a communities possible people of hope and restoration have fled out of fear and for the protection of their families from the influence that almost ruined their lives; it will see the same results of trying one church growth program after another as if each church body has the health and strength to be able to and want to grow. We must face the rocks like we face the presence of cancer. We must face the reality of the weeds like we face the presence of life threatening diseases which we immunize people against. We must face the reality of shallow and sometimes sick ground like dealing with fallow ground that needs breaking up, insecticide, and fertilizer to make it able to grow crops again. All in all I think the most positive and realitistic approach to clergy and church health is seen in what the ascended Christ said to the seven churches. To very few, he spoke only praise or only correction, but the majority Jesus' words were a mixture of both praise and rebuke.
Add new comment