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