In the past few days, the news has been dominated by an anonymous editorial written by "a senior official in the Trump administration." It suggests that many people appointed by the president are working to protect the country from the president's "worst inclinations." Like many people, I have found the entire affair fascinating, though I recognize there are some rather horrifying implications to the op-ed and some of its details.
One paragraph caught my eye, not only for its political implications, but for a trend in behavior that I have often observed in church settings.
One can imagine that the anonymous author, if pushed, could offer several reasons for not attempting to invoke the 25th Amendment. There aren't a majority of cabinet officials willing to sign a letter declaring the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. The effort to invoke the 25th Amendment would quickly become public, probably leading the president to "clean house." Even if the 25th Amendment were invoked, it is unlikely that 2/3 of both houses of Congress would vote to permanently strip the president of his powers. So we aren't going to do those things, but we will work around the edges to try to keep the ship afloat.
Such rationalization doesn't surprise me. I have encountered it in church settings many times. Even people empowered by their positions to take certain actions are often reluctant to do so if there is much opposition. If church leaders believe that a pastor or other leader is making bad decisions or, worse, is ineffective in the position, they will most often quietly work to counteract those decisions to try to keep the ship afloat. Rarely will they confront the pastor or other leader.
We called the pastor. We elected the officer. We asked them to serve, and they said, "yes." So we try to support them by simply staying out of their way. We don't want to get reputations for being difficult or obstinate.
Happily, church boards and decision-making groups usually have a different approach to management and oversight than other businesses or organizations. We strive for consensus. We try not to micromanage (at least on our best days) and allow others to carry out tasks in their own way.
However, churches also have boards and leadership positions that are filled with people who do not necessarily have extensive financial, personnel, or executive experience. And then we ask them to take oversight of finances, personnel, and the administration of the church or ministry.
Sometimes our leaders don't know the right questions to ask or when to ask them. They don't quite understand the best ways to evaluate staff, or they fear what would happen if the job position was suddenly empty. And, if they think there is a problem, they will usually try to fix it -- or at least fix part of it -- in an area they care about and understand. If the situation gets too uncomfortable, they will simply quit.
This is how small problems become big problems in the church. "We will do what we can" never seems to include using all of the authority given to people to offer effective and necessary oversight of ministers and church leaders. We shy away it. I should know. There have been times when I haven't wanted to rock the boat either... when I haven't wanted to be the guy who says "No" or the one who asks the uncomfortable question.
To be sure, there are people in the church who can point at abuses in the other direction. People who constantly attack ministers and church leaders. Church leaders who have completely unrealistic ideas about someone's job performance. These people like for boards to run smoothly and quietly, with few questions and challenges to their decisions. I understand this too. I've got some of these scars from past experience as well.
Church leaders need to be more proactive in trying to ensure that there is adequate and effective leadership and oversight. We can't simply imagine that calling the right pastor -- hiring the right person to take care of things -- is the end of the story. Even the right pastor needs oversight and support from other leaders. And we can't assume that every person we hire or call is the right person, despite our best efforts and intentions. Then that pastor or staff person really needs oversight and support.
I think that church leaders should help train board members and other leaders about what powers and authority they have and how to best use it. We need to not simply ask for votes where people endorse what we propose, but offer alternatives and point out what decisions are being made. (In settings where members have decision-making powers, for calling ministers, approving budgets, and the like, we need to do the same thing... even if it means that the meetings take longer or there are more of them.)
Sometimes, I think that most ministries and congregations have become overwhelmingly leader-dependent. We are waiting for a strong vision to follow. If no one steps up to the plate, we simply keep waiting. (And if the wrong person steps up to the plate, we simply hope we can wait until they get tired, distracted, or leave.) It is more difficult and time-consuming to create a team approach to vision and leadership. On a certain level, it is counter-cultural too. Without such a system of shared accountability, though, the church is weakening, and less able to withstand misguided leadership of the people we call and hire... and then leave to figure it all out "until -- one way or another -- it's over."
One paragraph caught my eye, not only for its political implications, but for a trend in behavior that I have often observed in church settings.
Given the instability witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until -- one way or another -- it's over.Presumably, people who have the ability "to steer the administration" would have to include cabinet secretaries. Cabinet secretaries, along with the vice-president, have the constitutional power according to the 25th Amendment to temporarily transfer presidential powers and authority to the vice-president. However, "we will do what we can" doesn't seem to include taking the admittedly drastic step that such leaders are empowered to take.
One can imagine that the anonymous author, if pushed, could offer several reasons for not attempting to invoke the 25th Amendment. There aren't a majority of cabinet officials willing to sign a letter declaring the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. The effort to invoke the 25th Amendment would quickly become public, probably leading the president to "clean house." Even if the 25th Amendment were invoked, it is unlikely that 2/3 of both houses of Congress would vote to permanently strip the president of his powers. So we aren't going to do those things, but we will work around the edges to try to keep the ship afloat.
Such rationalization doesn't surprise me. I have encountered it in church settings many times. Even people empowered by their positions to take certain actions are often reluctant to do so if there is much opposition. If church leaders believe that a pastor or other leader is making bad decisions or, worse, is ineffective in the position, they will most often quietly work to counteract those decisions to try to keep the ship afloat. Rarely will they confront the pastor or other leader.
We called the pastor. We elected the officer. We asked them to serve, and they said, "yes." So we try to support them by simply staying out of their way. We don't want to get reputations for being difficult or obstinate.
Happily, church boards and decision-making groups usually have a different approach to management and oversight than other businesses or organizations. We strive for consensus. We try not to micromanage (at least on our best days) and allow others to carry out tasks in their own way.
However, churches also have boards and leadership positions that are filled with people who do not necessarily have extensive financial, personnel, or executive experience. And then we ask them to take oversight of finances, personnel, and the administration of the church or ministry.
Sometimes our leaders don't know the right questions to ask or when to ask them. They don't quite understand the best ways to evaluate staff, or they fear what would happen if the job position was suddenly empty. And, if they think there is a problem, they will usually try to fix it -- or at least fix part of it -- in an area they care about and understand. If the situation gets too uncomfortable, they will simply quit.
This is how small problems become big problems in the church. "We will do what we can" never seems to include using all of the authority given to people to offer effective and necessary oversight of ministers and church leaders. We shy away it. I should know. There have been times when I haven't wanted to rock the boat either... when I haven't wanted to be the guy who says "No" or the one who asks the uncomfortable question.
To be sure, there are people in the church who can point at abuses in the other direction. People who constantly attack ministers and church leaders. Church leaders who have completely unrealistic ideas about someone's job performance. These people like for boards to run smoothly and quietly, with few questions and challenges to their decisions. I understand this too. I've got some of these scars from past experience as well.
Church leaders need to be more proactive in trying to ensure that there is adequate and effective leadership and oversight. We can't simply imagine that calling the right pastor -- hiring the right person to take care of things -- is the end of the story. Even the right pastor needs oversight and support from other leaders. And we can't assume that every person we hire or call is the right person, despite our best efforts and intentions. Then that pastor or staff person really needs oversight and support.
I think that church leaders should help train board members and other leaders about what powers and authority they have and how to best use it. We need to not simply ask for votes where people endorse what we propose, but offer alternatives and point out what decisions are being made. (In settings where members have decision-making powers, for calling ministers, approving budgets, and the like, we need to do the same thing... even if it means that the meetings take longer or there are more of them.)
Sometimes, I think that most ministries and congregations have become overwhelmingly leader-dependent. We are waiting for a strong vision to follow. If no one steps up to the plate, we simply keep waiting. (And if the wrong person steps up to the plate, we simply hope we can wait until they get tired, distracted, or leave.) It is more difficult and time-consuming to create a team approach to vision and leadership. On a certain level, it is counter-cultural too. Without such a system of shared accountability, though, the church is weakening, and less able to withstand misguided leadership of the people we call and hire... and then leave to figure it all out "until -- one way or another -- it's over."
Two thoughts as I read this: first, anonymity in leadership, whether federal or congregational, helps no one. By placing our names on thing we face the consequence of our actions in real and true ways. Second, part of congregational leadership that lacks the language, skill or ability to lead in certain circumstances has to do with the over-structuring of congregations and denominations and an over-proliferation of congregational models that privilege the experience of larger churches. Smaller congregations would do well to throw out most of the resources they can find by asking larger churches, and start from the ground up: what do we need to do, whose is it to do, and by doing this what are we saying (and not saying) about ourselves, our Jesus, and how our congregation shows that Jesus to the world?
ReplyDeleteAnd after I posted that, I realized Blogspot made my post anonymous. It's what I deserved for making my point in the first place!
DeleteI agree. And I wish that more congregational leaders focused on the what and why questions of ministry, in order to shape the who, when, and how. But I still worry that some of this is basically a reluctance to take ownership (and thus responsibility) of any actions and just hope that it all will work out if we just keep our heads down and "do the best we can."
ReplyDelete