One aspect of Paul Borden’s approach to church growth which we have brushed against a few times but not yet directly addressed is his minimizing of the distinctiveness of the various denominations in order to impose a one-size-fits-all diagnosis and solution on the congregations he consults with. He goes so far as to openly state, “Our beliefs about God, Jesus Christ and God’s Church may need to change if we are to see our congregations change” (p.19). While this fits in very nicely with the popular secular opinion that all denominations, and even all religions, are merely different paths to the same goal, this approach is deeply troubling to those who do actually believe in the existence of absolute truth.
We are Seventh-day Adventists because we believe that the Adventist Church correctly interprets the Word of God and His intentions for our lives. We also believe that this makes the distinctive features of Adventism more correct and more desirable than those of other denominations or religions. We assume that Baptists would hold the same view of the Baptist Church, as would Methodists about the Methodist Church, Hindus about Hinduism, etc. Our point is not to get into a theological analysis about which denomination or religion is ultimately superior; our point at this moment is that one chooses to belong to a particular denomination or religion because one embraces the uniqueness of that group as being meaningful, significant, and superior to the alternatives. As such it is not desirable to dismiss those distinctive beliefs lightly. As Scripture says, “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:7-9). When an individual is confident that what they believe is true they should not be willing to sacrifice any portion of that truth for even so worthy a goal as more converts.
“When the church stand as God's chosen people should, they will be a peculiar people, zealous of good works. There will be no slackness, no concord with Belial. Oh that we could realize what God's people might now be, had they kept themselves in his love, without any compromise with evil, and had retained the peculiar character that distinguished them, and separated them from the world! In experience, in wisdom, in true holiness, they would be years in advance of what they now are. But as a people our obedience, our devotion, our spiritual attainments, are very far from being in proportion to our privileges, and to our sacred obligation to walk as children of the light” (Review and Herald, October 21, 1884 par. 22).
Apparently Borden was confronted with the same concerns when he began to bring in “outside experts” to consult with and train the Baptist congregations under his jurisdiction. “As one person in our denomination put it, if we keep letting them in we will lose our distinctiveness and heritage” (p.25).
Borden responded, “Since we have been declining and losing people and congregations, perhaps our distinctiveness and heritage need to be reevaluated by people from outside” (p.26). Now, if the “distinctiveness and heritage” being reevaluated are on the order of whether to have popcorn and fruit salad for supper every Saturday night we have no problem with soliciting outside opinions (assuming, of course, that someone would actually care enough to have an opinion on that subject). Cultural habits and human-made traditions without theological impact are open to scrutiny and alteration should they prove to be in the way of mission. Not open for reevaluation is anything on which there is a clear, “Thus says the Lord.”
"Another sin of the mind is that of extolling and deifying human reason, to the neglect of divine revelation. Here, too, we must 'gird up the loins of the mind.' We are living in an age when the minds of men are ever on the stretch for something new. Rightly, directed, and kept within proper limits, this desire is commendable. God has given us in his created works enough to excite thought and stimulate investigation. He does not desire men to be less acute, less inquiring, or less intelligent. But with all our aspirations, and in all our researches, we should remember that arrogance is not greatness, nor is conceit knowledge. Human pride is an evidence, not of strength, but of weakness. It reveals not wisdom, but folly. To exalt reason unduly is to abase it. To place the human in rivalry with the divine, is to make it contemptible" (Review and Herald, January 19, 1886 par. 11).
The task that now falls to us is to determine where this line between negotiable and nonnegotiable falls. More to the point in the current context, on which side of the line is church structure and governance?
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work, and to say what plans should be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body . . . . God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 9, pp. 260, 261).
“Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual conscience” (Review and Herald, vol. 50, No. 14, p.106).
We have doubtless all heard the saying that “if A equals B, and B equals C, then A must equal C.” In this case “A equals B” is that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is a decision by the General Conference in Session, which “should be submitted to by all without exception.” “B equals C” is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (which spells out the structure for Adventist congregations) is a product of the General Conference in Session, with a new edition issued each time a Session is held. (This happens every five years.) Therefore, “A equals C” is that the Church Manual should be submitted to by all without exception, unless it can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual conscience. This puts the structure of Adventist congregations squarely on the nonnegotiable side of the line.
The Spirit of Prophesy speaks of the unfortunate results of humans tampering with the structures and governments designed for them by God in the context of the Children of Israel demanding a king.
“The Hebrews demanded a king of Samuel, like the nations around them. By preferring a despotic monarch to the wise and mild government of God Himself, by the jurisdiction of His prophets, they showed a great want of faith in God, and confidence in His providence to raise them up rulers to lead and govern them. The children of Israel being peculiarly the people of God, their form of government was essentially different from all the nations around them. God had given them statutes and laws, and had chosen their rulers for them, and these leaders the people were to obey in the Lord. In all cases of difficulty and great perplexity, God was to be inquired of. Their demand for a king was a rebellious departure from God, their special leader. He knew that a king would not be best for His chosen people. . . . If they had a king, whose hearts was lifted up and not right with God, he would lead them away from Him, and cause them to rebel against Him. The Lord knew that no one could occupy the position of king, and receive the honors usually given to a king, without becoming exalted, and their ways seem right in their own eyes, while at the same time they were sinning against God.
“God had separated the Israelites from every other people, to make them His own peculiar treasure. But they, disregarding this high honor, eagerly desired to imitate the example of the heathen! And still the longing to conform to worldly practices and customs exists among the professed people of God. As they depart from the Lord they become ambitious for the gains and honors of the world. Christians are constantly seeking to imitate the practices of those who worship the god of this world. Many urge that by uniting with worldlings and conforming to their customs they might exert a stronger influence over the ungodly. But all who pursue this course thereby separate from the Source of their strength. Becoming the friends of the world, they are the enemies of God” (Conflict and Courage, p.146).
So where does all of this leave us? It should leave us with the conclusion that distinctiveness is not something to be ashamed of or minimized. It should also leave us looking to God. He has called us to be His “peculiar” people in any and every sense of that word which suits Him. We are to follow His lead, and not allow the current fads in human wisdom to lure us away from whatever peculiarity He has called us to.
"How can man be just with God? This is the one great question that most concerns mankind. Can human reasoning find an answer?--No; revelation alone can solve this all-important problem, can shed light upon the pathway of man's life. What folly, then, to turn from the one great source of light, the Sun of righteousness, to follow the feeble and uncertain light of human wisdom!" (Review and Herald, January 19, 1886 par. 12).
Friday, April 30, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Bullseye: A Different Medicine
In the previous chapter of this series we observed that, within the Adventist context at least, structure isn’t the problem. This chapter will further explore the Adventist governance structure and how it compares to both the Baptist structure Paul Borden describes and his concept of the ideal church structure.
“And, even American Baptists agree that their denominational structure does not work” (p.29).
We aren’t Baptists, and we don’t claim to be experts on Baptist structure or opinions, but for the sake of argument we are going to assume that this statement is accurate. (The following description of Baptist polity is based exclusively on descriptions provided by Paul Borden. We apologize for any inaccuracy.) Under the Baptist structure, each congregation is an independent entity. It may voluntarily cooperate with other congregations or the higher structure, but it is under no obligation to do so if it is not so inclined. Also, the higher structure has no power or control over the congregation. Baptist congregations hire their pastors and all other paid staff directly. These paid personnel are described as being overseen by numerous boards and/or committees who take no active part in the ministry tasks they monitor, but who act as monetary gatekeepers and strategy assessors. There is, therefore, a separation between the authority to initiate ministry activities and the responsibility for carrying them out. Since the paid personnel are hired and fired by the congregation they must keep in mind the politics and preferences of the congregation in their actions. Borden mentions that as part of his interaction with congregations as a regional leader, “Often I have gone to board meetings and asked the pastor ahead of time what I needed to say that, if the pastor said it, might lead the board to consider dismissing the pastor” (p.109).
So how does Borden’s ideal structure function?
“We turned right side up the biblical model of congregational ministry. This meant that leaders were not hired to do the ministry. Instead they were employed to lead the congregation and equip the saints to do the work of ministry” (p.95).
“The board needed to give up control of leading the congregation to the pastor and the pastor’s staff members. The pastors and the staff members had to give up the control of the ministry to the laity of the congregation. This meant that the congregation needed to be led by staff members who saw their jobs as developing lay people to be disciples and leaders of ministries. Staff members were to equip people for the work of ministry rather than conducting the ministry themselves. The pastor and staff members were to be leaders who developed leaders, who in turn developed more leaders” (p.91).
“This new structure also meant a new way of looking at church boards. Their responsibility was to govern, not manage or lead. They were to focus on the ends of ministry, goals set by the pastor and the pastor’s staff members, not the means of ministry. The day-to-day conduct of ministry became the responsibility of staff members. Board members were taught that their job in relation to the pastor and pastor’s staff members were to be their protectors and cheerleaders. The board also held the pastor accountable each year for the missional goals that had been set by the pastor with the board’s approval. However, the board was not to become involved in the management of the ministry. In fact we encouraged congregations to dissolve all committees and task forces. We encouraged a tradeoff between the effective accomplishment of a mission versus a bureaucracy that gave everyone a say regardless of whether ministry was accomplished effectively or not. In larger congregations we urged the pastor to hire an administrator who would oversee a team of people (both paid and volunteer) to handle many administrative responsibilities. However, this administrator reported to the pastor, not the board” (pp.95, 96).
“Usually after a congregational consultation we encouraged congregations to have smaller boards of no more than three to seven people” (p.118).
To summarize, three to seven people sit on a board that has only two tasks: praise and protect the pastor and see that the pastor follows through on what he says he will do. (Presumably if the pastor does not do what he says he will they have the power to fire him.) The pastor, in turn, is responsible for coming up with big ideas about what the church will accomplish, choosing staff members to whom he can delegate the work, and then making sure they do it. These staff members choose members of the congregation to whom they can pass along this delegation of work and teach these volunteers how to do the work and train others. While called “staff members,” the individuals who answer to the pastor are not necessarily paid personnel.
“This new structure required that congregations of fifty, seventy, or 100 should be staff led. Most staff members were not paid, and if they were not retired they had full-time employment at other jobs during the week. These people were required to set behavioral, specific, and measurable goals for their respective areas of ministry. However, they were also given the complete authority, including the spending of their departmental budget allotments without special permission, to carry out their responsibilities. We trained them to recruit a team of individuals, they would develop as disciples and leaders to work with them. However, we made it quite clear that each staff member would be held accountable for the goals that had been established, not the team. It was, and continues to be, amazing how lay volunteers act when they are treated respectfully as staff members who are given the freedom to direct their ministries in relation to goals. They recruit whomever they want to be on their team and are responsible to see that these individuals get the training they need to be effective in ministry. These staff members no longer see themselves as volunteers, but as people ministering alongside the pastor to accomplish the mission and vision of the congregation. By the way, it is possible to fire such staff members if they fail to meet their goals” (p.96).
It is important to note at this point that creation and administration of the budget is done exclusively by the pastor. If the board of three to seven people believe he is being unreasonable in this regard they may take him to task after the fact, but there are no preventive checks and balances to protect against misuse or even absconding with funds. Such measures would hamper his “freedom to lead.”
“We believed in strong leadership, which meant that once the mission was adopted and once the vision was cast the leader needed to be given the freedom to lead. This meant the leader could not be second-guessed all the time for what she or he was doing to bring a change that would implement the mission and achieve the vision. It meant the leader could not be encumbered with bureaucratic restrictions that either inhibited what needed to be accomplished or slowed it down as it was going through channels. The leader did need to be held accountable, but that accountability needed to be one that related to the accomplishment of goals and results, not the process by which these goals and results were achieved” (p.135).
So how does the Adventist structure vary from either the Baptist system or Borden’s ideal system? The Adventist system is incredibly similar to Borden’s ideal system. There are no passive committees or boards. Everyone elected to the church board is there because they are tasked with the active leadership of a particular ministry. Functionally an Adventist church board meeting is designed to be a staff meeting in which individuals with specific active ministry responsibilities make and coordinate plans and keep each other accountable. (See our earlier post, The Right Way, for a more detailed description of how an Adventist church board functions.) When the size of the ministry warrants it, these ministry leaders have their own “staff” who are elected to assist with the ministry. These subordinates make up the “committee” or “council” for that particular ministry. These committees or councils meet formally or informally, regularly or irregularly, as the ministry leader sees a need in order to accomplish the ministry with which they are tasked. Ministry leaders have considerable discretion over their departmental budgets. Most congregations have safeguards that if a single expenditure is going to exceed a predetermined dollar amount it must be approved by the board, treasurer, or finance committee, but such approval is nearly automatic so long as the expenditure truly pertains to ministry. Unless this dollar amount limitation is tripped, the ministry leader needs no advance authorization to spend their budget.
Unlike Borden’s ideal system, in the Adventist system congregations don’t hire, pay, or fire their pastors. Pastors are hired, paid, and fired by the conference. (The conference also owns all local church property and requires remittance of all tithe funds.) The separation between paycheck source and ministry focus allows pastors to give the sort of unpleasant-but-necessary exhortations Borden admits a Baptist pastor could be dismissed for uttering, among other advantages, but it also has a significant impact on the accountability dynamic he prescribes. In order for a board or other entity to hold an individual accountable they must have some sort of power over that individual. In a perfect world if the board said to the individual, “You need to be working harder on this,” or “We aren’t satisfied with your performance on that,” the individual would immediately work to fix the problem. Realistically, unless the accountability body has some sort of hold over the individual they may not pay much heed to the accountability body. Borden’s ideal system assumes the continuation of the Baptist practice of the pastor being employed directly by the congregation. In this scenario an accountability board does have a hold over the pastor—namely the ability to terminate their employment. Since Adventist congregations do not employ their pastors directly this aspect of Borden’s system doesn’t work in an Adventist context.
“Three key concepts relating to structure must always be kept together in the structure and cannot be separated. Those concepts are authority, responsibility, and accountability. Any individual who is given a specific responsibility must be given adequate authority to accomplish the task. That individual must then be held accountable to ascertain that the responsibility has been fulfilled. Separating authority from responsibility creates frustration, and if accountability is absent, often creates ineffectiveness. Giving someone both authority and responsibility without demanding accountability is both dangerous and foolishness” (p.127).
The Adventist system achieves accountability through the peer pressure of making ministry leaders answer to each other (and the congregation through the electoral process) and by requiring the pastor to get approval for his decisions from the church board. The power to approve or disapprove of his plans is the only hold an Adventist congregation has over its pastor. To adopt in an Adventist congregation the Borden model of giving the pastor complete freedom to do ministry as he sees fit and then have a separate board which inquires about his accomplishments effectively creates the very problem Borden warns against—having authority and responsibility without accountability. This is because under the Adventist system of pastoral hiring an accountability body that looks at performance after the fact is impotent. Even more significant, giving a pastor that degree of freedom is not sanctioned by either biblical precedent or the Spirit of Prophesy.
“Notwithstanding the fact that Paul was personally taught by God, he had no strained ideas of individual responsibility. While looking to God for direct guidance, he was ever ready to recognize the authority vested in the body of believers united in church fellowship. He felt the need of counsel, and when matters of importance arose, he was glad to lay these before the church and to unite with his brethren in seeking God for wisdom to make right decisions. Even ‘the spirits of the prophets,’ he declared, ‘are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.’ 1 Corinthians 14:32, 33. With Peter, he taught that all united in church capacity should be ‘subject one to another.’ 1 Peter 5:5” (Acts of the Apostles, p.200).
“When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man. God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man's mind and one man's judgment” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p.493).
The bottom line is that while Borden’s ideal structure may benefit Baptists it is not useful for Adventists to attempt to apply its configurations of authority and accountability exactly as he prescribes them. To use a medical metaphor, giving the blood-thinning medicine prescribed for a heart attack patient to someone suffering from ulcers would not heal the ulcers; it would make them worse. Borden’s prescriptions might be just what the doctor ordered for Baptist congregations, but they only exacerbate Adventist problems.
“Congregations are scared to death to put authority and responsibility together because most believe it will create organizational monsters with dictatorial leaders. This fear is well founded, if there is not clear and powerful accountability” (p.142).
“And, even American Baptists agree that their denominational structure does not work” (p.29).
We aren’t Baptists, and we don’t claim to be experts on Baptist structure or opinions, but for the sake of argument we are going to assume that this statement is accurate. (The following description of Baptist polity is based exclusively on descriptions provided by Paul Borden. We apologize for any inaccuracy.) Under the Baptist structure, each congregation is an independent entity. It may voluntarily cooperate with other congregations or the higher structure, but it is under no obligation to do so if it is not so inclined. Also, the higher structure has no power or control over the congregation. Baptist congregations hire their pastors and all other paid staff directly. These paid personnel are described as being overseen by numerous boards and/or committees who take no active part in the ministry tasks they monitor, but who act as monetary gatekeepers and strategy assessors. There is, therefore, a separation between the authority to initiate ministry activities and the responsibility for carrying them out. Since the paid personnel are hired and fired by the congregation they must keep in mind the politics and preferences of the congregation in their actions. Borden mentions that as part of his interaction with congregations as a regional leader, “Often I have gone to board meetings and asked the pastor ahead of time what I needed to say that, if the pastor said it, might lead the board to consider dismissing the pastor” (p.109).
So how does Borden’s ideal structure function?
“We turned right side up the biblical model of congregational ministry. This meant that leaders were not hired to do the ministry. Instead they were employed to lead the congregation and equip the saints to do the work of ministry” (p.95).
“The board needed to give up control of leading the congregation to the pastor and the pastor’s staff members. The pastors and the staff members had to give up the control of the ministry to the laity of the congregation. This meant that the congregation needed to be led by staff members who saw their jobs as developing lay people to be disciples and leaders of ministries. Staff members were to equip people for the work of ministry rather than conducting the ministry themselves. The pastor and staff members were to be leaders who developed leaders, who in turn developed more leaders” (p.91).
“This new structure also meant a new way of looking at church boards. Their responsibility was to govern, not manage or lead. They were to focus on the ends of ministry, goals set by the pastor and the pastor’s staff members, not the means of ministry. The day-to-day conduct of ministry became the responsibility of staff members. Board members were taught that their job in relation to the pastor and pastor’s staff members were to be their protectors and cheerleaders. The board also held the pastor accountable each year for the missional goals that had been set by the pastor with the board’s approval. However, the board was not to become involved in the management of the ministry. In fact we encouraged congregations to dissolve all committees and task forces. We encouraged a tradeoff between the effective accomplishment of a mission versus a bureaucracy that gave everyone a say regardless of whether ministry was accomplished effectively or not. In larger congregations we urged the pastor to hire an administrator who would oversee a team of people (both paid and volunteer) to handle many administrative responsibilities. However, this administrator reported to the pastor, not the board” (pp.95, 96).
“Usually after a congregational consultation we encouraged congregations to have smaller boards of no more than three to seven people” (p.118).
To summarize, three to seven people sit on a board that has only two tasks: praise and protect the pastor and see that the pastor follows through on what he says he will do. (Presumably if the pastor does not do what he says he will they have the power to fire him.) The pastor, in turn, is responsible for coming up with big ideas about what the church will accomplish, choosing staff members to whom he can delegate the work, and then making sure they do it. These staff members choose members of the congregation to whom they can pass along this delegation of work and teach these volunteers how to do the work and train others. While called “staff members,” the individuals who answer to the pastor are not necessarily paid personnel.
“This new structure required that congregations of fifty, seventy, or 100 should be staff led. Most staff members were not paid, and if they were not retired they had full-time employment at other jobs during the week. These people were required to set behavioral, specific, and measurable goals for their respective areas of ministry. However, they were also given the complete authority, including the spending of their departmental budget allotments without special permission, to carry out their responsibilities. We trained them to recruit a team of individuals, they would develop as disciples and leaders to work with them. However, we made it quite clear that each staff member would be held accountable for the goals that had been established, not the team. It was, and continues to be, amazing how lay volunteers act when they are treated respectfully as staff members who are given the freedom to direct their ministries in relation to goals. They recruit whomever they want to be on their team and are responsible to see that these individuals get the training they need to be effective in ministry. These staff members no longer see themselves as volunteers, but as people ministering alongside the pastor to accomplish the mission and vision of the congregation. By the way, it is possible to fire such staff members if they fail to meet their goals” (p.96).
It is important to note at this point that creation and administration of the budget is done exclusively by the pastor. If the board of three to seven people believe he is being unreasonable in this regard they may take him to task after the fact, but there are no preventive checks and balances to protect against misuse or even absconding with funds. Such measures would hamper his “freedom to lead.”
“We believed in strong leadership, which meant that once the mission was adopted and once the vision was cast the leader needed to be given the freedom to lead. This meant the leader could not be second-guessed all the time for what she or he was doing to bring a change that would implement the mission and achieve the vision. It meant the leader could not be encumbered with bureaucratic restrictions that either inhibited what needed to be accomplished or slowed it down as it was going through channels. The leader did need to be held accountable, but that accountability needed to be one that related to the accomplishment of goals and results, not the process by which these goals and results were achieved” (p.135).
So how does the Adventist structure vary from either the Baptist system or Borden’s ideal system? The Adventist system is incredibly similar to Borden’s ideal system. There are no passive committees or boards. Everyone elected to the church board is there because they are tasked with the active leadership of a particular ministry. Functionally an Adventist church board meeting is designed to be a staff meeting in which individuals with specific active ministry responsibilities make and coordinate plans and keep each other accountable. (See our earlier post, The Right Way, for a more detailed description of how an Adventist church board functions.) When the size of the ministry warrants it, these ministry leaders have their own “staff” who are elected to assist with the ministry. These subordinates make up the “committee” or “council” for that particular ministry. These committees or councils meet formally or informally, regularly or irregularly, as the ministry leader sees a need in order to accomplish the ministry with which they are tasked. Ministry leaders have considerable discretion over their departmental budgets. Most congregations have safeguards that if a single expenditure is going to exceed a predetermined dollar amount it must be approved by the board, treasurer, or finance committee, but such approval is nearly automatic so long as the expenditure truly pertains to ministry. Unless this dollar amount limitation is tripped, the ministry leader needs no advance authorization to spend their budget.
Unlike Borden’s ideal system, in the Adventist system congregations don’t hire, pay, or fire their pastors. Pastors are hired, paid, and fired by the conference. (The conference also owns all local church property and requires remittance of all tithe funds.) The separation between paycheck source and ministry focus allows pastors to give the sort of unpleasant-but-necessary exhortations Borden admits a Baptist pastor could be dismissed for uttering, among other advantages, but it also has a significant impact on the accountability dynamic he prescribes. In order for a board or other entity to hold an individual accountable they must have some sort of power over that individual. In a perfect world if the board said to the individual, “You need to be working harder on this,” or “We aren’t satisfied with your performance on that,” the individual would immediately work to fix the problem. Realistically, unless the accountability body has some sort of hold over the individual they may not pay much heed to the accountability body. Borden’s ideal system assumes the continuation of the Baptist practice of the pastor being employed directly by the congregation. In this scenario an accountability board does have a hold over the pastor—namely the ability to terminate their employment. Since Adventist congregations do not employ their pastors directly this aspect of Borden’s system doesn’t work in an Adventist context.
“Three key concepts relating to structure must always be kept together in the structure and cannot be separated. Those concepts are authority, responsibility, and accountability. Any individual who is given a specific responsibility must be given adequate authority to accomplish the task. That individual must then be held accountable to ascertain that the responsibility has been fulfilled. Separating authority from responsibility creates frustration, and if accountability is absent, often creates ineffectiveness. Giving someone both authority and responsibility without demanding accountability is both dangerous and foolishness” (p.127).
The Adventist system achieves accountability through the peer pressure of making ministry leaders answer to each other (and the congregation through the electoral process) and by requiring the pastor to get approval for his decisions from the church board. The power to approve or disapprove of his plans is the only hold an Adventist congregation has over its pastor. To adopt in an Adventist congregation the Borden model of giving the pastor complete freedom to do ministry as he sees fit and then have a separate board which inquires about his accomplishments effectively creates the very problem Borden warns against—having authority and responsibility without accountability. This is because under the Adventist system of pastoral hiring an accountability body that looks at performance after the fact is impotent. Even more significant, giving a pastor that degree of freedom is not sanctioned by either biblical precedent or the Spirit of Prophesy.
“Notwithstanding the fact that Paul was personally taught by God, he had no strained ideas of individual responsibility. While looking to God for direct guidance, he was ever ready to recognize the authority vested in the body of believers united in church fellowship. He felt the need of counsel, and when matters of importance arose, he was glad to lay these before the church and to unite with his brethren in seeking God for wisdom to make right decisions. Even ‘the spirits of the prophets,’ he declared, ‘are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.’ 1 Corinthians 14:32, 33. With Peter, he taught that all united in church capacity should be ‘subject one to another.’ 1 Peter 5:5” (Acts of the Apostles, p.200).
“When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man. God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man's mind and one man's judgment” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p.493).
The bottom line is that while Borden’s ideal structure may benefit Baptists it is not useful for Adventists to attempt to apply its configurations of authority and accountability exactly as he prescribes them. To use a medical metaphor, giving the blood-thinning medicine prescribed for a heart attack patient to someone suffering from ulcers would not heal the ulcers; it would make them worse. Borden’s prescriptions might be just what the doctor ordered for Baptist congregations, but they only exacerbate Adventist problems.
“Congregations are scared to death to put authority and responsibility together because most believe it will create organizational monsters with dictatorial leaders. This fear is well founded, if there is not clear and powerful accountability” (p.142).
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Bullseye: Change for Change's Sake
“The creation of new structures will never produce renewal in an organization. Renewal is instigated with a new mission, a compelling vision, and the adoption of new values. However, the change process is never ultimately achieved or solidified without the adoption of a new structure. In fact I would go further and suggest that the adoption of a new structure that is consistent with new mission, vision, and values accelerates the change process. Also failure to adopt a new structure will eventually stifle the implementation of a new mission and vision” (pp.125, 126).
In other words, Paul Borden advocates change simply for change’s sake. He views structure as a merely human institution that is fair game for alteration on the grounds that it won’t do any harm and might do some good. This gratuitous change comes with the added benefit that along the way you’ll be able to identify who’s willing to jump on your bandwagon and who isn’t.
“Therefore a change in structure is a tangible way of determining whether or not people are either embracing or denying new missions, visions, and values. A new structure is both a lightning rod and a thermometer of how well people are accepting or rejecting change. In other words, changes in structures create stress in people and that stress reveals where they stand in relation to the new changes. This phenomenon is why changes in structure that are aligned with new missions, visions, and values are so crucial” (p.126).
The problem with this theory is that being opposed to changes in structure doesn’t automatically mean that one is also opposed to “new missions, visions, and values,” or vice versa. Unfortunately, Borden doesn’t make any distinction between those who desire church growth but also have intellectual and spiritual concerns about the process and those who simply like things the way they are and don’t want to change. Anyone who raises an objection of any kind is classified as “rejecting change.”
As we will discuss later in this series, knowing who is or is not in favor of the changes being made is significant to Borden’s strategy because he advocates actively excluding objectors from having any say at all in the congregation, if possible. This leaves the pastor surrounded by “yes men,” or “cheerleaders,” as Borden puts it. In order to create this dictator’s utopia of unquestioned authority Borden is happy to let leaders bend the rules of their denominations.
“None of the changes I see as fundamental will occur without changes in structure. In some denominations this is harder to do than in others… However, in such cases there may be the need to create shadow structures that are usable and effective, even if they are not recognized officially” (p.18).
Borden assumes that all congregations and denominations, though perhaps possessed of some cosmetic or traditional differences, are essentially the same in terms of attitudes and functionality. He also assumes that all congregations and denominations are facing exactly the same problem in their attempts to grow.
“All current polity systems perpetuate models of governance that lead to organizational hierarchies (some through position and others through tenure) and create bureaucracies. These models of organization are rejected in almost all organizations today except for the church. Almost every congregation I have ever consulted with has told me that their one problem, unique to congregations with their polity, is that they have too many committees. Congregations think that this issue, which is usually described in a polity context, is unique to them. They do not realize that their congregation is simply reflecting what their denomination and judicatories are already doing. Each congregation sees itself imprisoned by their structure and wish they had the structure of another polity when it comes to organization” (p.140).
The practice of ascribing all of a congregation’s problems to a faulty structure has a certain allure. Structures don’t have any feelings to be hurt; no pride to be wounded by being told that they are not performing well. Changes in structure are easy to make and easy to point to as a measure of accomplishment. The difficulty with this approach is that, within the Adventist context at least, structure isn’t the problem. The entire denomination uses the same structure throughout the world. In some places the work is booming and in others it is not. What this tells us is that the problem is not with the effectiveness of the structure, but rather the commitment and effectiveness of the people leading the congregation.
“The fifth issue that is crucial to producing fundamental change in dysfunctional congregations is to create a new structure that is aligned with the new outward focused mission and vision. To do this, you need to do something with the current structure that has contributed to and supports the current state of plateau and decline” (94, 95).
There are two questions Borden fails to ask in making this assertion. The first is whether the congregation in question is strictly adhering to the structure that it claims to follow. (If it is not, the dysfunction could very well be with the implementation of the structure, not its basic makeup.) The second is whether the problem truly lies with the structure or the people. (Changing the structure won’t improve anything if the change that is needed is with the hearts of the people.) As Borden himself states, the creation of new structures will never produce renewal in an organization. If a congregation or pastor is not successful in soul-winning efforts the remedy is not structural change, but personal introspection:
“Here, ministers of Christ, is your Pattern. You are to copy the life and character of the Master. Humility, meekness, and love are to be revealed in your character as they were in his. Your labors need not be without marked results. If they are fruitless you should investigate your own case,--examine yourselves whether you be in the faith. If Christ abide in your hearts, you will go forth, weeping, bearing precious seed, and will doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing your sheaves with you. You who have labored year after year, and have seen no souls brought to the knowledge of the truth, no churches raised up and organized, should change your manner of labor. You should fast and pray. You should lay the matter before your brethren, and solicit their counsel and prayers, lest you be self-deceived, and, what is more, deceive others also” (Review and Herald, October 21, 1884 par. 18).
In other words, Paul Borden advocates change simply for change’s sake. He views structure as a merely human institution that is fair game for alteration on the grounds that it won’t do any harm and might do some good. This gratuitous change comes with the added benefit that along the way you’ll be able to identify who’s willing to jump on your bandwagon and who isn’t.
“Therefore a change in structure is a tangible way of determining whether or not people are either embracing or denying new missions, visions, and values. A new structure is both a lightning rod and a thermometer of how well people are accepting or rejecting change. In other words, changes in structures create stress in people and that stress reveals where they stand in relation to the new changes. This phenomenon is why changes in structure that are aligned with new missions, visions, and values are so crucial” (p.126).
The problem with this theory is that being opposed to changes in structure doesn’t automatically mean that one is also opposed to “new missions, visions, and values,” or vice versa. Unfortunately, Borden doesn’t make any distinction between those who desire church growth but also have intellectual and spiritual concerns about the process and those who simply like things the way they are and don’t want to change. Anyone who raises an objection of any kind is classified as “rejecting change.”
As we will discuss later in this series, knowing who is or is not in favor of the changes being made is significant to Borden’s strategy because he advocates actively excluding objectors from having any say at all in the congregation, if possible. This leaves the pastor surrounded by “yes men,” or “cheerleaders,” as Borden puts it. In order to create this dictator’s utopia of unquestioned authority Borden is happy to let leaders bend the rules of their denominations.
“None of the changes I see as fundamental will occur without changes in structure. In some denominations this is harder to do than in others… However, in such cases there may be the need to create shadow structures that are usable and effective, even if they are not recognized officially” (p.18).
Borden assumes that all congregations and denominations, though perhaps possessed of some cosmetic or traditional differences, are essentially the same in terms of attitudes and functionality. He also assumes that all congregations and denominations are facing exactly the same problem in their attempts to grow.
“All current polity systems perpetuate models of governance that lead to organizational hierarchies (some through position and others through tenure) and create bureaucracies. These models of organization are rejected in almost all organizations today except for the church. Almost every congregation I have ever consulted with has told me that their one problem, unique to congregations with their polity, is that they have too many committees. Congregations think that this issue, which is usually described in a polity context, is unique to them. They do not realize that their congregation is simply reflecting what their denomination and judicatories are already doing. Each congregation sees itself imprisoned by their structure and wish they had the structure of another polity when it comes to organization” (p.140).
The practice of ascribing all of a congregation’s problems to a faulty structure has a certain allure. Structures don’t have any feelings to be hurt; no pride to be wounded by being told that they are not performing well. Changes in structure are easy to make and easy to point to as a measure of accomplishment. The difficulty with this approach is that, within the Adventist context at least, structure isn’t the problem. The entire denomination uses the same structure throughout the world. In some places the work is booming and in others it is not. What this tells us is that the problem is not with the effectiveness of the structure, but rather the commitment and effectiveness of the people leading the congregation.
“The fifth issue that is crucial to producing fundamental change in dysfunctional congregations is to create a new structure that is aligned with the new outward focused mission and vision. To do this, you need to do something with the current structure that has contributed to and supports the current state of plateau and decline” (94, 95).
There are two questions Borden fails to ask in making this assertion. The first is whether the congregation in question is strictly adhering to the structure that it claims to follow. (If it is not, the dysfunction could very well be with the implementation of the structure, not its basic makeup.) The second is whether the problem truly lies with the structure or the people. (Changing the structure won’t improve anything if the change that is needed is with the hearts of the people.) As Borden himself states, the creation of new structures will never produce renewal in an organization. If a congregation or pastor is not successful in soul-winning efforts the remedy is not structural change, but personal introspection:
“Here, ministers of Christ, is your Pattern. You are to copy the life and character of the Master. Humility, meekness, and love are to be revealed in your character as they were in his. Your labors need not be without marked results. If they are fruitless you should investigate your own case,--examine yourselves whether you be in the faith. If Christ abide in your hearts, you will go forth, weeping, bearing precious seed, and will doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing your sheaves with you. You who have labored year after year, and have seen no souls brought to the knowledge of the truth, no churches raised up and organized, should change your manner of labor. You should fast and pray. You should lay the matter before your brethren, and solicit their counsel and prayers, lest you be self-deceived, and, what is more, deceive others also” (Review and Herald, October 21, 1884 par. 18).
Friday, April 16, 2010
Bullseye: Known Associates
Just as people are known by their fruits they are also known by their friends. This post is devoted to the other people and groups Paul Borden mentions in his book as experts, thinkers, and resources that he has either pulled from in forming his own positions or brought in to his own churches to provide training. Rather than analyzing each one we have decided to let you, our readers, come to your own conclusions. We are providing a few links to information about each of these people to get your research started.
George Bullard
http://georgebullard.org/
http://www.thecolumbiapartnership.org/
http://bullardjournal.posterous.com/?page=9
Leith Anderson
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/leith_anderson/
http://www.faithminute.org/default/index.cfm/about-us/leith-anderson/
http://www.wooddale.org/default/index.cfm/guest/who-we-are/
John Maxwell
http://johnmaxwell.com/
http://johnmaxwellonleadership.com/
http://www.sermoncentral.com/article.asp?article=a-John_Maxwell_07_23_07&ac=true
Stan Toler
http://www.stantoler.com/sitev3/subpages/pages.shtml?resources/message-index.shtml
http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/superintendents/display.aspx
http://southarkansasdistrict.org/Officers.aspx
Herb Miller
Unfortunately, “Herb Miller” proved to be too common a name for us to locate this individual through web searches without more information about him than was provided in Hit the Bullseye.
Kennon Callahan
http://toolboxforfaith.org/tag/kennon-callahan/
http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598026_CIID2008780,00.html
http://www.nspeidiocese.ca/stewardshipconference/Callahan.html
Glen Martin
Unfortunately, “Glen Martin” proved to be too common a name for us to locate this individual through web searches without more information about him than was provided in Hit the Bullseye.
Randy Frazee
http://billbolin.org/?p=449
http://www.oakhillschurchsa.org/LoadPageAction.do?mode=view&editId=444
http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/publish/interview-with-randy-frazee-493.php
https://www.navpress.com/author/A10380/Randy-Frazee
John Carver
http://johncarver.com/bib-John.htm
http://www.carvergovernance.com/JohnCarver.htm
http://www.speakers.ca/carver_john.aspx
Saddleback Church
http://www.saddleback.com/
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/saddleback_church.html
Paul Borden qualifies this reference:
“Since we had encouraged many learners to learn from the models of ministry implemented at Saddle Back and Willow Creek, many thought we were leading congregations to accept a seeker-driven model. That simply was not the case, although we urged our congregations to be seeker-friendly and sensitive in the manner in which they conducted corporate ministry. In fact, we went the opposite way, suggesting that they not adopt a seeker-driven model since we believed that leading established congregations into such a model would be counter-productive to change and organizational health. I believed that this change was so drastic that it would inhibit the congregation’s ability to move from dysfunction to health” (p.84).
Note, however, that he is not disagreeing with the approach of Saddleback, just experiencing concern that it could be too radical and destructive for his congregations.
George Bullard
http://georgebullard.org/
http://www.thecolumbiapartnership.org/
http://bullardjournal.posterous.com/?page=9
Leith Anderson
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/leith_anderson/
http://www.faithminute.org/default/index.cfm/about-us/leith-anderson/
http://www.wooddale.org/default/index.cfm/guest/who-we-are/
John Maxwell
http://johnmaxwell.com/
http://johnmaxwellonleadership.com/
http://www.sermoncentral.com/article.asp?article=a-John_Maxwell_07_23_07&ac=true
Stan Toler
http://www.stantoler.com/sitev3/subpages/pages.shtml?resources/message-index.shtml
http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/superintendents/display.aspx
http://southarkansasdistrict.org/Officers.aspx
Herb Miller
Unfortunately, “Herb Miller” proved to be too common a name for us to locate this individual through web searches without more information about him than was provided in Hit the Bullseye.
Kennon Callahan
http://toolboxforfaith.org/tag/kennon-callahan/
http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598026_CIID2008780,00.html
http://www.nspeidiocese.ca/stewardshipconference/Callahan.html
Glen Martin
Unfortunately, “Glen Martin” proved to be too common a name for us to locate this individual through web searches without more information about him than was provided in Hit the Bullseye.
Randy Frazee
http://billbolin.org/?p=449
http://www.oakhillschurchsa.org/LoadPageAction.do?mode=view&editId=444
http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/publish/interview-with-randy-frazee-493.php
https://www.navpress.com/author/A10380/Randy-Frazee
John Carver
http://johncarver.com/bib-John.htm
http://www.carvergovernance.com/JohnCarver.htm
http://www.speakers.ca/carver_john.aspx
Saddleback Church
http://www.saddleback.com/
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/saddleback_church.html
Paul Borden qualifies this reference:
“Since we had encouraged many learners to learn from the models of ministry implemented at Saddle Back and Willow Creek, many thought we were leading congregations to accept a seeker-driven model. That simply was not the case, although we urged our congregations to be seeker-friendly and sensitive in the manner in which they conducted corporate ministry. In fact, we went the opposite way, suggesting that they not adopt a seeker-driven model since we believed that leading established congregations into such a model would be counter-productive to change and organizational health. I believed that this change was so drastic that it would inhibit the congregation’s ability to move from dysfunction to health” (p.84).
Note, however, that he is not disagreeing with the approach of Saddleback, just experiencing concern that it could be too radical and destructive for his congregations.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Bullseye: Things We Agree On
Paul Borden’s philosophies on church health and growth are at the heart of the changes being pushed at Takoma Park and throughout the Potomac Conference, and consequently ought to be given a thorough examination. This post starts a new series devoted to doing just that. Paul Borden spells out his philosophies in his book, Hit the Bullseye, and we will be examining this volume in detail. We begin with the points he makes that we agree with, namely the need for accountability, honesty, and urgency. (Unless otherwise noted, all quotes in this series are from Hit the Bullseye.)
“In many denominational and congregational entities there is little counting (other than for budgets), few do ministry accounting, and almost no one is held accountable for anything” (p.36).
“We knew that we could not (and should not) measure conversions…However, we could measure the practices for which we can take more responsibility” (pp.36, 37).
“We have often confused the method of ministry with the nature of the message, and when there have been no results we have honored the faithfulness of the messenger” (p.38).
The Adventist Church in North America has become too forgiving of mediocrity and lack of follow-through from its leaders, both paid and volunteer. We need to get back in the habit of making plans to spread the gospel and be a positive influence in our communities.
“Would that we as a people might realize how much is pending upon our earnestness and fidelity in the service of Christ. All who realize their accountability to God, will be burden-bearers in the church. There can be no such thing as a lazy Christian, though there are many indolent professors of Christianity. While Christ's followers will realize their own weakness, they will cry earnestly to God for strength, that they may be workers together with him. They will constantly seek to become better men and better women, that they may more faithfully perform the work which he has committed to their hands” (Review and Herald, January 19, 1886 par. 5).
“Teach your children that nothing is to be withheld from God, that all their gifts are to be used to promote His glory. Teach them to cherish a sense of their accountability to use wisely their intrusted capabilities, improving and perfecting them by use. They are accountable for the judicious exercise of every faculty” (Signs of the Times, October 18, 1899 par. 6).
Once we have made plans we must follow through with executing them and evaluating the effectiveness both of the plan itself and those specific individuals tasked with seeing it accomplished. Ineffective plans should be abandoned and ineffective individuals either trained for greater effectiveness or given other tasks for which they are more suited. Accomplishing this accountability requires the use of another principle: honesty. Everyone has talents to use for God, but that does not automatically mean that they are using those talents to the best advantage in whatever position they might currently hold.
“Yet while listening and showing respect I wanted the pastor to observe that I did not back away from the truth” (p.112).
“Loyalty is important and valuable if people are loyal to the right cause. Also, a loyalty that is not critical of that to which the person is being loyal may be a human value but it surely is not a spiritual one. If my child commits murder, I will still love and support my child while recognizing that my loyalty to my child does not interfere with the legal system that seeks to bring justice to the situation” (p.73, bold supplied).
Love may be blind, but as Borden says, loyalty should not be. And it doesn’t cease to be loyalty when it is submitted to intellectual scrutiny. Desiring the best for our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ should not prevent us from discerning what they are or are not skilled at, or when they are speaking truth and when error.
“Therefore, you discover what a group’s values are by looking at their behavior; how they spend money, how they treat people, what they do most consistently, what they fail to do unless forced. The values are best seen when the group faces some kind of stress, and then you see how people within the group behave and make decisions” (p.70).
It’s a simple enough principle. “Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them,” (Matthew 7:20). What we do speaks far more loudly about what we believe or value than anything we say, and we as Adventists should be doing far more than we are in living out our belief in the nearness of the second coming.
“Yet the majority of people in our congregations believed that one’s informed faith in Jesus Christ did make an eternal difference” (p.138).
“The lack of mission urgency in North America means that denominational leaders think they still have time to develop modest, incremental strategic plans to tinker with polity, and time afterwards to then go about mission” (p.139).
“…the epitome of service in congregational life is leading ministries that equip new disciples to make more disciples and train them to become leaders” (p.142).
“Let not a day pass in which you do not realize your accountability to work for God, an accountability placed on you by the death of His Son in your behalf. Let not a day pass on which you do not try to heal the wounds that sin has made. Always be found working on the broad plan of God's love” (Pacific Union Recorder, March 13, 1902 par. 6).
“In many denominational and congregational entities there is little counting (other than for budgets), few do ministry accounting, and almost no one is held accountable for anything” (p.36).
“We knew that we could not (and should not) measure conversions…However, we could measure the practices for which we can take more responsibility” (pp.36, 37).
“We have often confused the method of ministry with the nature of the message, and when there have been no results we have honored the faithfulness of the messenger” (p.38).
The Adventist Church in North America has become too forgiving of mediocrity and lack of follow-through from its leaders, both paid and volunteer. We need to get back in the habit of making plans to spread the gospel and be a positive influence in our communities.
“Would that we as a people might realize how much is pending upon our earnestness and fidelity in the service of Christ. All who realize their accountability to God, will be burden-bearers in the church. There can be no such thing as a lazy Christian, though there are many indolent professors of Christianity. While Christ's followers will realize their own weakness, they will cry earnestly to God for strength, that they may be workers together with him. They will constantly seek to become better men and better women, that they may more faithfully perform the work which he has committed to their hands” (Review and Herald, January 19, 1886 par. 5).
“Teach your children that nothing is to be withheld from God, that all their gifts are to be used to promote His glory. Teach them to cherish a sense of their accountability to use wisely their intrusted capabilities, improving and perfecting them by use. They are accountable for the judicious exercise of every faculty” (Signs of the Times, October 18, 1899 par. 6).
Once we have made plans we must follow through with executing them and evaluating the effectiveness both of the plan itself and those specific individuals tasked with seeing it accomplished. Ineffective plans should be abandoned and ineffective individuals either trained for greater effectiveness or given other tasks for which they are more suited. Accomplishing this accountability requires the use of another principle: honesty. Everyone has talents to use for God, but that does not automatically mean that they are using those talents to the best advantage in whatever position they might currently hold.
“Yet while listening and showing respect I wanted the pastor to observe that I did not back away from the truth” (p.112).
“Loyalty is important and valuable if people are loyal to the right cause. Also, a loyalty that is not critical of that to which the person is being loyal may be a human value but it surely is not a spiritual one. If my child commits murder, I will still love and support my child while recognizing that my loyalty to my child does not interfere with the legal system that seeks to bring justice to the situation” (p.73, bold supplied).
Love may be blind, but as Borden says, loyalty should not be. And it doesn’t cease to be loyalty when it is submitted to intellectual scrutiny. Desiring the best for our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ should not prevent us from discerning what they are or are not skilled at, or when they are speaking truth and when error.
“Therefore, you discover what a group’s values are by looking at their behavior; how they spend money, how they treat people, what they do most consistently, what they fail to do unless forced. The values are best seen when the group faces some kind of stress, and then you see how people within the group behave and make decisions” (p.70).
It’s a simple enough principle. “Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them,” (Matthew 7:20). What we do speaks far more loudly about what we believe or value than anything we say, and we as Adventists should be doing far more than we are in living out our belief in the nearness of the second coming.
“Yet the majority of people in our congregations believed that one’s informed faith in Jesus Christ did make an eternal difference” (p.138).
“The lack of mission urgency in North America means that denominational leaders think they still have time to develop modest, incremental strategic plans to tinker with polity, and time afterwards to then go about mission” (p.139).
“…the epitome of service in congregational life is leading ministries that equip new disciples to make more disciples and train them to become leaders” (p.142).
“Let not a day pass in which you do not realize your accountability to work for God, an accountability placed on you by the death of His Son in your behalf. Let not a day pass on which you do not try to heal the wounds that sin has made. Always be found working on the broad plan of God's love” (Pacific Union Recorder, March 13, 1902 par. 6).
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 68
After the Group and Pastor DeSilva had each presented their positions to the Executive Committee the meeting was opened for the committee members to ask questions of clarification from either group of presenters. The first major group of questions was directed toward Pastor DeSilva. He was asked how long the new system of governance had been in place and how it was dealing with the eight duties the Church Manual requires the church board to perform, particularly the duty of handling church finances. He responded that the changes had begun in September of 2007, but that the ministries board was really just a continuation of the preexisting church board and performed all the duties the Church Manual requires of a church board. Pastor DeSilva asserted that the requirement for management of church finances was covered by having the chair of the finance committee as a member of the ministries board.
The Group was asked whether it was the name “church ministries board” that we were objecting to, and whether it wasn’t really otherwise already a church board, since many of the people who ought to be on a church board were members of the ministries board. Sister L responded that the problem was not with the name, but with the function. Despite Pastor DeSilva’s claim that the ministries board is performing all the duties specified by the Manual, the official duty list for the ministries board that he prepared falls far short of the Manual’s requirements. She continued that the only part of a governance system that holds up is that which is written down—intent can’t be bottled and passed from person to person. In order for the ministries board to be functioning like a proper church board the official written job description would have to correspond exactly to what is stipulated by the Manual, with all other committees specified as reporting to the ministries board.
Pastor DeSilva was asked whether the ministries board had veto power over reports of the finance committee, and he said that it did. He also observed that the Church Manual makes no specific mention of finance committees, but that in practice bigger churches enlarge the position of treasurer into an entire finance committee. The Group was asked whether having the chair of the finance committee be part of the ministries board didn’t take care of the Manual’s requirement. Sister L answered that the Manual requires the church board to have financial oversight, not merely a member from the finance committee, and reiterated that to be in harmony with the Manual the formal duty list for the ministries board would have to include church finances.
One particularly interesting exchange occurred between Pastor DeSilva and Elder Weigley, the Columbia Union president, who was present at the meeting. Elder Weigley observed that the primary difference between the previous governance and the new Paul Borden system at Takoma Park is that the new system has all committees answer directly to the business meeting, where before they all answered to the church board, which then reported to the business meeting. Pastor DeSilva tried to distance himself from the assertion that Takoma Park’s new system used Paul Borden’s model of governance. He claimed that under Paul Borden’s model the pastor has final authority in the church and chooses all paid and volunteer church leaders. He also claimed that having the accountability board report directly to the business meeting didn’t mean Takoma Park was using Paul Borden’s model, because Borden’s model doesn’t have either accountability boards or business meetings. Elder Weigley shut down Pastor DeSilva’s assertion that the Borden model doesn’t have accountability boards by pointing out that he could show Pastor DeSilva specific passages in Paul Borden’s book, Hit the Bullseye, where he introduces and promotes the concept of accountability boards.
When Pastor DeSilva was asked why he wanted a different system of governance he said that he needed an accountable structure that emphasized ministry. He was also asked whether the structure of the existing board was really so inadequate that he had to create a completely different board to accomplish ministry. He backed off from such an assertion, admitting that to make such a claim would be to deny that anything had been accomplished in his 30 year career working with churches and church boards. When the question was narrowed to inadequacy at the present moment and for the present purpose, Pastor DeSilva replied only that he felt it would be a good change.
The Group was asked what we were willing to give up to reach a solution. Sister L replied that Pastor DeSilva was welcome to have as many specialized committees as he felt a need for, so long as it was clear that they were subcommittees of the church board, not independent entities. The questioning then turned to Pastor DeSilva. He was asked if the accountability board hired people, to which he replied that it functioned as a personnel committee that made recommendations to the business meeting. (He acknowledged that before the new system personnel recommendations had been made to the church board.) Pastor DeSilva was also asked whether the accountability board could function as a subcommittee of the ministries board, to which he replied that it didn’t make sense for an audit committee to be subject to the committee they are auditing.
At that point one of the executive committee members observed that the accountability board could be objective because it was chosen by the nominating committee, not the ministries board. The committee member acknowledged that it would not be desirable for the ministries board to have the ability to alter reports on ministry performance, but wondered why Pastor DeSilva would not want the ministries board to have input on staffing decisions before they were presented to the business meeting. Pastor DeSilva said that for each hire the accountability board invited relevant leaders to participate in their discussions (such as the youth leader when a youth pastor is being selected). The committee member pushed further, asking why the accountability board’s choice could not still be taken back to the ministries board. Pastor DeSilva replied that it was “grossly inefficient” to have a personnel decision discussed by the entire ministries board and appealed to the conference’s system of having a separate personnel committee as an example of such superior efficiency. This line of questioning concluded when another executive committee member pointed out that the conference’s personnel committee still brought its decisions back to the executive committee with full explanations for the choices they made.
Both presentation groups were asked how they would react to having the ministries board adopt the eight point duty list stipulated by the Manual for a church board. Pastor DeSilva’s two associates replied that the ministries board was already doing all eight things and they would have no problem with that functioning being put in writing. Brother X attempted to take issue with the assertion that the ministries board was already performing all eight tasks, but Elder Miller interrupted him and refused to let him address the subject because it was supposedly off topic. When the original question was repeated to the Group Sister L said simply that it would be a good first step, but not a complete resolution of the situation. Elder Weigley picked up on what Brother X had been prevented from saying and asked the Group whether our perception was that the ministries board was not actually performing all the functions on the Manual’s duty list. The Group responded that that understanding was correct.
The Group was asked what its next two biggest concerns were, after the duty list for the ministries board. Sister L responded that the accountability board would still need to be addressed, and that there were some additional issues of lesser significance which hadn’t made it into the presentation. The Group was hoping that these lesser issues would resolve themselves once the larger ones had been addressed, but that it might be necessary to actively deal with them at a later time.
At the end of the meeting the Group was asked whether we were willing to accept whatever recommendation the executive committee might make. Sister L responded that the Group was pursuing a specific goal, that when the recommendation was made the Group would evaluate whether it met that goal, and from that evaluation conclude whether it could accept the recommendation or not. When asked what that goal was Sister L replied that the Group’s goal was to have a system of governance which is completely in harmony with the Church Manual.
Next: Recommendations
Religious
The Group was asked whether it was the name “church ministries board” that we were objecting to, and whether it wasn’t really otherwise already a church board, since many of the people who ought to be on a church board were members of the ministries board. Sister L responded that the problem was not with the name, but with the function. Despite Pastor DeSilva’s claim that the ministries board is performing all the duties specified by the Manual, the official duty list for the ministries board that he prepared falls far short of the Manual’s requirements. She continued that the only part of a governance system that holds up is that which is written down—intent can’t be bottled and passed from person to person. In order for the ministries board to be functioning like a proper church board the official written job description would have to correspond exactly to what is stipulated by the Manual, with all other committees specified as reporting to the ministries board.
Pastor DeSilva was asked whether the ministries board had veto power over reports of the finance committee, and he said that it did. He also observed that the Church Manual makes no specific mention of finance committees, but that in practice bigger churches enlarge the position of treasurer into an entire finance committee. The Group was asked whether having the chair of the finance committee be part of the ministries board didn’t take care of the Manual’s requirement. Sister L answered that the Manual requires the church board to have financial oversight, not merely a member from the finance committee, and reiterated that to be in harmony with the Manual the formal duty list for the ministries board would have to include church finances.
One particularly interesting exchange occurred between Pastor DeSilva and Elder Weigley, the Columbia Union president, who was present at the meeting. Elder Weigley observed that the primary difference between the previous governance and the new Paul Borden system at Takoma Park is that the new system has all committees answer directly to the business meeting, where before they all answered to the church board, which then reported to the business meeting. Pastor DeSilva tried to distance himself from the assertion that Takoma Park’s new system used Paul Borden’s model of governance. He claimed that under Paul Borden’s model the pastor has final authority in the church and chooses all paid and volunteer church leaders. He also claimed that having the accountability board report directly to the business meeting didn’t mean Takoma Park was using Paul Borden’s model, because Borden’s model doesn’t have either accountability boards or business meetings. Elder Weigley shut down Pastor DeSilva’s assertion that the Borden model doesn’t have accountability boards by pointing out that he could show Pastor DeSilva specific passages in Paul Borden’s book, Hit the Bullseye, where he introduces and promotes the concept of accountability boards.
When Pastor DeSilva was asked why he wanted a different system of governance he said that he needed an accountable structure that emphasized ministry. He was also asked whether the structure of the existing board was really so inadequate that he had to create a completely different board to accomplish ministry. He backed off from such an assertion, admitting that to make such a claim would be to deny that anything had been accomplished in his 30 year career working with churches and church boards. When the question was narrowed to inadequacy at the present moment and for the present purpose, Pastor DeSilva replied only that he felt it would be a good change.
The Group was asked what we were willing to give up to reach a solution. Sister L replied that Pastor DeSilva was welcome to have as many specialized committees as he felt a need for, so long as it was clear that they were subcommittees of the church board, not independent entities. The questioning then turned to Pastor DeSilva. He was asked if the accountability board hired people, to which he replied that it functioned as a personnel committee that made recommendations to the business meeting. (He acknowledged that before the new system personnel recommendations had been made to the church board.) Pastor DeSilva was also asked whether the accountability board could function as a subcommittee of the ministries board, to which he replied that it didn’t make sense for an audit committee to be subject to the committee they are auditing.
At that point one of the executive committee members observed that the accountability board could be objective because it was chosen by the nominating committee, not the ministries board. The committee member acknowledged that it would not be desirable for the ministries board to have the ability to alter reports on ministry performance, but wondered why Pastor DeSilva would not want the ministries board to have input on staffing decisions before they were presented to the business meeting. Pastor DeSilva said that for each hire the accountability board invited relevant leaders to participate in their discussions (such as the youth leader when a youth pastor is being selected). The committee member pushed further, asking why the accountability board’s choice could not still be taken back to the ministries board. Pastor DeSilva replied that it was “grossly inefficient” to have a personnel decision discussed by the entire ministries board and appealed to the conference’s system of having a separate personnel committee as an example of such superior efficiency. This line of questioning concluded when another executive committee member pointed out that the conference’s personnel committee still brought its decisions back to the executive committee with full explanations for the choices they made.
Both presentation groups were asked how they would react to having the ministries board adopt the eight point duty list stipulated by the Manual for a church board. Pastor DeSilva’s two associates replied that the ministries board was already doing all eight things and they would have no problem with that functioning being put in writing. Brother X attempted to take issue with the assertion that the ministries board was already performing all eight tasks, but Elder Miller interrupted him and refused to let him address the subject because it was supposedly off topic. When the original question was repeated to the Group Sister L said simply that it would be a good first step, but not a complete resolution of the situation. Elder Weigley picked up on what Brother X had been prevented from saying and asked the Group whether our perception was that the ministries board was not actually performing all the functions on the Manual’s duty list. The Group responded that that understanding was correct.
The Group was asked what its next two biggest concerns were, after the duty list for the ministries board. Sister L responded that the accountability board would still need to be addressed, and that there were some additional issues of lesser significance which hadn’t made it into the presentation. The Group was hoping that these lesser issues would resolve themselves once the larger ones had been addressed, but that it might be necessary to actively deal with them at a later time.
At the end of the meeting the Group was asked whether we were willing to accept whatever recommendation the executive committee might make. Sister L responded that the Group was pursuing a specific goal, that when the recommendation was made the Group would evaluate whether it met that goal, and from that evaluation conclude whether it could accept the recommendation or not. When asked what that goal was Sister L replied that the Group’s goal was to have a system of governance which is completely in harmony with the Church Manual.
Next: Recommendations
Religious
Monday, April 5, 2010
Double Take
Let’s take a closer look at some of Pastor DeSilva’s statements to the executive committee.
Pastor DeSilva began by saying that Paul Borden had been invited by the business meeting to conduct an evaluation. Borden was invited, but that invitation was issued by the church board, not the business meeting (see the Epic, Pts. 1&2). The difference is one of level of authority. Pastor DeSilva was trying to give the impression that there was more power behind the invitation than there really was.
Before explaining his organizational chart Pastor DeSilva stated that charts are never 100% accurate. That may or may not be true, but it is largely irrelevant. Chart perfection might not be possible, but he could have come far closer to complete accuracy had he made the effort. He was hiding behind the statement to excuse poor performance. We also don’t entirely put it past him to have made the charts vague on purpose so that he could reinterpret them at will.
Pastor DeSilva also claimed that the new governance structure was “within the latitude” of the Church Manual. The thing about latitude is that it ends quite abruptly at the designated boundaries. If the posted speed limit for the road we are driving on is 55mph we are permitted to drive at exactly 55mph, or 32mph, or 47mph, etc. We have the latitude to drive at whatever speed we desire—so long as it does not exceed 55mph. This means that 60mph, or even 55.1mph, is not within the latitude. One of the many unfortunate things about this situation is that Pastor DeSilva and his supporters have used the fact that the Church Manual does indeed include some latitude to claim that everything is within the latitude. See our post, In His Own Eyes, for an examination of exactly what latitude the Manual does and does not allow. (Hint: the new governance structure exceeds the latitude granted by the Church Manual).
We have discussed this before (see To Keep It Holy), but Pastor DeSilva’s confused understanding of parliamentary procedure and how to conduct church business manifests again in his description of the process followed to vote the Borden Report. To start with, he describes a motion and a second taken during a town hall meeting (without a final vote). When the church is asked to make a decision of that sort it must be done in a business meeting, which must be announced ahead of time as such. (See p.89 of the Church Manual.) When Pastor DeSilva announced the meeting in advance he described it as a town hall, not a business meeting. If he wanted the church to act on business he should have announced it as a business meeting because that is the term that Adventist congregations understand to be associated with acting on business. Having failed to do that Pastor DeSilva had no right to seek action on any business in the meeting because he had failed to properly announce in advance that business would be acted on.
Further, Pastor DeSilva describes that during the town hall there was a motion and a second, but no vote. Under parliamentary rules, any motion that has not been voted on by the end of a meeting automatically dies. So, even if it had been a duly called business meeting the action taken would be meaningless because it was incomplete and therefore died at the end of the meeting. Finally, Pastor DeSilva described the procedure of having a motion and a second and a delayed vote as being a stipulation of the unvoted motion. Since that motion was not acted on that stipulation also had no force. To summarize, the correct way to do what he did would have been to announce the meeting in advance as a business meeting, make and vote on a separate motion to approve the irregular procedure he wished to follow for this matter only, and then make his motion about the Borden Report. If he had done that his delayed vote on the Borden Report would have been procedurally valid, but he didn’t and it wasn’t.
Pastor DeSilva claimed that Takoma Park had to vote on the Borden Report in its entirety because the report itself said to. Let’s take a quick look at the other things the Borden Report said to do which Pastor DeSilva ignored. First, he ignored all the dates. The report gives 11 separate deadlines for the accomplishment of the various “prescriptions” it makes. Absolutely none of these deadlines were met. The report also calls for a “mission audit” in which all ministries of the church are evaluated for their effectiveness and the ineffective ones are discarded. That never happened. The report also requires that, “The Senior Pastor and Vice-President of Pastoral Ministry will lead the congregation through an envisioning day. … Following that day the pastor and a few other leaders will draft a vision statement.” Long after the deadline for this had passed Pastor DeSilva announced his vision to the ministries board (see the Epic, Pt. 45), but the conference’s vice president for pastoral ministry took no part in the meeting, the congregation was not asked for input before the vision statement was written, and the pastor didn’t involve any other leaders in the preparation of the statement. Given that any similarity between the report’s prescription and what actually happened seems purely coincidental, we’re also putting this one in the “didn’t happen” column. The report says the senior pastor will get a “coach” to help him develop as a leader of a missional congregation. This didn’t happen. The report also says that the pastor and his new board will visit four other growing congregations. This didn’t happen. The report also says that the pastor, staff, and board will attend the Hit the Bullseye conference in Ohio in April 2008. This didn’t happen. So here’s our point: if Pastor DeSilva truly believed that the Borden Report was like the laws of the Persians and Medes in that it could not be changed he would have followed all of these other things to the letter as well. That didn’t happen. He overrode the decision of the business meeting to exclude the structure change from the vote on the Borden Report because he wanted to change the structure. Period. And he was out of line to exert executive authority of that sort which didn’t belong to him.
Finally, Pastor DeSilva claimed that the phrase “staff-led structure” had been misinterpreted to mean a congregational structure. We dispute that this constitutes a misinterpretation. We discussed staff-led structures in our Oct. 2008 post, How does the new structure work?
After the next chapter of the Epic regarding the questions of clarification asked by the executive committee we will be taking a break from the Epic for a new intensive series of posts examining Paul Borden’s book Hit the Bullseye in detail. As part of this series we will take a close look at the staff-led structure he advocates and see that not only is it congregational, but it is that very congregationality which makes it incompatible with Adventist congregations.
Pastor DeSilva began by saying that Paul Borden had been invited by the business meeting to conduct an evaluation. Borden was invited, but that invitation was issued by the church board, not the business meeting (see the Epic, Pts. 1&2). The difference is one of level of authority. Pastor DeSilva was trying to give the impression that there was more power behind the invitation than there really was.
Before explaining his organizational chart Pastor DeSilva stated that charts are never 100% accurate. That may or may not be true, but it is largely irrelevant. Chart perfection might not be possible, but he could have come far closer to complete accuracy had he made the effort. He was hiding behind the statement to excuse poor performance. We also don’t entirely put it past him to have made the charts vague on purpose so that he could reinterpret them at will.
Pastor DeSilva also claimed that the new governance structure was “within the latitude” of the Church Manual. The thing about latitude is that it ends quite abruptly at the designated boundaries. If the posted speed limit for the road we are driving on is 55mph we are permitted to drive at exactly 55mph, or 32mph, or 47mph, etc. We have the latitude to drive at whatever speed we desire—so long as it does not exceed 55mph. This means that 60mph, or even 55.1mph, is not within the latitude. One of the many unfortunate things about this situation is that Pastor DeSilva and his supporters have used the fact that the Church Manual does indeed include some latitude to claim that everything is within the latitude. See our post, In His Own Eyes, for an examination of exactly what latitude the Manual does and does not allow. (Hint: the new governance structure exceeds the latitude granted by the Church Manual).
We have discussed this before (see To Keep It Holy), but Pastor DeSilva’s confused understanding of parliamentary procedure and how to conduct church business manifests again in his description of the process followed to vote the Borden Report. To start with, he describes a motion and a second taken during a town hall meeting (without a final vote). When the church is asked to make a decision of that sort it must be done in a business meeting, which must be announced ahead of time as such. (See p.89 of the Church Manual.) When Pastor DeSilva announced the meeting in advance he described it as a town hall, not a business meeting. If he wanted the church to act on business he should have announced it as a business meeting because that is the term that Adventist congregations understand to be associated with acting on business. Having failed to do that Pastor DeSilva had no right to seek action on any business in the meeting because he had failed to properly announce in advance that business would be acted on.
Further, Pastor DeSilva describes that during the town hall there was a motion and a second, but no vote. Under parliamentary rules, any motion that has not been voted on by the end of a meeting automatically dies. So, even if it had been a duly called business meeting the action taken would be meaningless because it was incomplete and therefore died at the end of the meeting. Finally, Pastor DeSilva described the procedure of having a motion and a second and a delayed vote as being a stipulation of the unvoted motion. Since that motion was not acted on that stipulation also had no force. To summarize, the correct way to do what he did would have been to announce the meeting in advance as a business meeting, make and vote on a separate motion to approve the irregular procedure he wished to follow for this matter only, and then make his motion about the Borden Report. If he had done that his delayed vote on the Borden Report would have been procedurally valid, but he didn’t and it wasn’t.
Pastor DeSilva claimed that Takoma Park had to vote on the Borden Report in its entirety because the report itself said to. Let’s take a quick look at the other things the Borden Report said to do which Pastor DeSilva ignored. First, he ignored all the dates. The report gives 11 separate deadlines for the accomplishment of the various “prescriptions” it makes. Absolutely none of these deadlines were met. The report also calls for a “mission audit” in which all ministries of the church are evaluated for their effectiveness and the ineffective ones are discarded. That never happened. The report also requires that, “The Senior Pastor and Vice-President of Pastoral Ministry will lead the congregation through an envisioning day. … Following that day the pastor and a few other leaders will draft a vision statement.” Long after the deadline for this had passed Pastor DeSilva announced his vision to the ministries board (see the Epic, Pt. 45), but the conference’s vice president for pastoral ministry took no part in the meeting, the congregation was not asked for input before the vision statement was written, and the pastor didn’t involve any other leaders in the preparation of the statement. Given that any similarity between the report’s prescription and what actually happened seems purely coincidental, we’re also putting this one in the “didn’t happen” column. The report says the senior pastor will get a “coach” to help him develop as a leader of a missional congregation. This didn’t happen. The report also says that the pastor and his new board will visit four other growing congregations. This didn’t happen. The report also says that the pastor, staff, and board will attend the Hit the Bullseye conference in Ohio in April 2008. This didn’t happen. So here’s our point: if Pastor DeSilva truly believed that the Borden Report was like the laws of the Persians and Medes in that it could not be changed he would have followed all of these other things to the letter as well. That didn’t happen. He overrode the decision of the business meeting to exclude the structure change from the vote on the Borden Report because he wanted to change the structure. Period. And he was out of line to exert executive authority of that sort which didn’t belong to him.
Finally, Pastor DeSilva claimed that the phrase “staff-led structure” had been misinterpreted to mean a congregational structure. We dispute that this constitutes a misinterpretation. We discussed staff-led structures in our Oct. 2008 post, How does the new structure work?
After the next chapter of the Epic regarding the questions of clarification asked by the executive committee we will be taking a break from the Epic for a new intensive series of posts examining Paul Borden’s book Hit the Bullseye in detail. As part of this series we will take a close look at the staff-led structure he advocates and see that not only is it congregational, but it is that very congregationality which makes it incompatible with Adventist congregations.
Friday, April 2, 2010
The Epic, Pt. 67
Pastor DeSilva began his statement to the executive committee by saying that Paul Borden had been invited by the business meeting of the Takoma Park Church to conduct an evaluation. He went on to explain the current governance structure as he saw it. Pastor DeSilva affirmed that the business meeting is the highest authority in the local church. There are four “branches” from the business meeting: the nominating committee, the standing nominating committee, the support and accountability board, and the church ministries board. The nominating committee nominates officers every two years. The standing nominating committee fills vacancies between elections. The accountability board is responsible for leadership development, holding the ministries board accountable for meeting its goals, and functions as a personnel committee for paid employees. The ministries board is supposed to do ministry and “monitor” finances. All four of these branches answer to the business meeting of the church.
After offering the disclaimer that charts are never 100% accurate, Pastor DeSilva proceeded to explain the organizational chart he had included in his handout. (It was the same chart he had issued to the church on June 29, 2008, which was included in the previous chapter of the Epic.) He asserted that the accountability board had no executive function, and that it existed only as an audit committee that took no part in planning ministry. Pastor DeSilva pointed out that the ministries board was below the business meeting and was composed of the pastors and all department heads. He went on to claim that the new governance structure was within the latitude of the Church Manual.
Pastor DeSilva next discussed the vote to approve the new governance structure and the events leading up to it. He observed that town hall meetings to discuss the Borden Report had been held on Sept. 8, Oct. 13, Oct. 17, and Nov. 12, 2007. He claimed that in the first of these meetings there had been a motion and a second to accept the Borden Report and that as part of the motion there was an additional stipulation regarding procedure for the vote. The stipulation was that the report would be discussed at three town hall meetings then voted up or down on a Sabbath morning by written ballot without discussion.
Pastor DeSilva justified his decision to override the expressed will of the business meeting on the matter of excluding the change in governance from the vote on the Borden Report by observing that the Borden Report itself says, “The church will vote on this report as a whole to accept of reject by Oct. 13, 2007.” He further asserted that he had made two verbal announcements that the report was being voted on as a whole.
Pastor DeSilva next spoke to what he described as “the problematic sentence” from the report. “It is understood that if this report is accepted the congregation will adopt a staff led structure.” He claimed that the problem was that the phrase “staff-led structure” had been misinterpreted to mean a congregational structure. He argued in favor of the new structure by quoting from the email Elder Miller had sent him on June 27, 2008. (For a full transcript of that email see the Epic, Pt. 26.) He also pointed out that the newly adopted mission, vision, core values, and strategic plan were included in the handout he had provided.
Pastor DeSilva closed his statement by reiterating his belief that the new governance structure is within the latitude of the Church Manual, but also said that he would gladly accept any resolution recommended by the executive committee.
There were so many inaccuracies and faulty arguments in this presentation that we could not do the corrections justice by simply placing them in parenthesis next to each statement. Had we tried they would have made the description of Pastor DeSilva’s presentation so disjointed as to not make any sense, so they will follow in a separate post.
Next: The Questions
Religious
After offering the disclaimer that charts are never 100% accurate, Pastor DeSilva proceeded to explain the organizational chart he had included in his handout. (It was the same chart he had issued to the church on June 29, 2008, which was included in the previous chapter of the Epic.) He asserted that the accountability board had no executive function, and that it existed only as an audit committee that took no part in planning ministry. Pastor DeSilva pointed out that the ministries board was below the business meeting and was composed of the pastors and all department heads. He went on to claim that the new governance structure was within the latitude of the Church Manual.
Pastor DeSilva next discussed the vote to approve the new governance structure and the events leading up to it. He observed that town hall meetings to discuss the Borden Report had been held on Sept. 8, Oct. 13, Oct. 17, and Nov. 12, 2007. He claimed that in the first of these meetings there had been a motion and a second to accept the Borden Report and that as part of the motion there was an additional stipulation regarding procedure for the vote. The stipulation was that the report would be discussed at three town hall meetings then voted up or down on a Sabbath morning by written ballot without discussion.
Pastor DeSilva justified his decision to override the expressed will of the business meeting on the matter of excluding the change in governance from the vote on the Borden Report by observing that the Borden Report itself says, “The church will vote on this report as a whole to accept of reject by Oct. 13, 2007.” He further asserted that he had made two verbal announcements that the report was being voted on as a whole.
Pastor DeSilva next spoke to what he described as “the problematic sentence” from the report. “It is understood that if this report is accepted the congregation will adopt a staff led structure.” He claimed that the problem was that the phrase “staff-led structure” had been misinterpreted to mean a congregational structure. He argued in favor of the new structure by quoting from the email Elder Miller had sent him on June 27, 2008. (For a full transcript of that email see the Epic, Pt. 26.) He also pointed out that the newly adopted mission, vision, core values, and strategic plan were included in the handout he had provided.
Pastor DeSilva closed his statement by reiterating his belief that the new governance structure is within the latitude of the Church Manual, but also said that he would gladly accept any resolution recommended by the executive committee.
There were so many inaccuracies and faulty arguments in this presentation that we could not do the corrections justice by simply placing them in parenthesis next to each statement. Had we tried they would have made the description of Pastor DeSilva’s presentation so disjointed as to not make any sense, so they will follow in a separate post.
Next: The Questions
Religious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)