Bullseye: What the Potomac Conference Ignored

This post is dedicated to the aspects of Borden’s philosophy that, so long as they were going to go this route, the Potomac Conference should have adhered to. This is not to say that if done properly Borden’s strategies and philosophies would be acceptable, but by picking and choosing only parts of Borden’s system the Potomac Conference actually made a worse mess than if they had just gone for it “whole hog.”

“The family concept promotes the idea of clerical tenure. Pastors assume that if they have been loyal and faithful soldiers that such behavior over a long time both protects them, in terms of their positions, and gives them authority to speak to any crucial issue facing the judicatory. The controlling principle is not effectiveness in ministry, but tenure in the family” (p.25).

“A basic value that most held was that if a pastor was perceived as a 'loyal soldier' that pastor would always be helped by the region to find a new pastorate when she or he felt that one’s ministry was over with the current congregation. This help would be forthcoming whether the current congregation was healthy and growing or dysfunctional and dying” (p.48).

This sense of tenure and entitlement has nothing to do with the concept of the church as a family, but it is a problem to have ineffective pastors being endlessly shifted from one congregation to another in order to avoid having to face up to their ineffectiveness.

“Another implication of fulfilling our mission is that we are willing to confront pastors who are ineffective” (p.32).

“In our congregational consultations our goal was to establish the pastor as the leader of the congregation. At the same time the pastor had to be willing to be held accountable for specific missional goals. If the goals were met the pastor was given even more freedom to lead. If the goals were not met, then the pastor needed to realize that perhaps a different calling and vocation was in the pastor’s future” (p.97).

“Sometimes protecting congregational leaders meant meeting with pastors to remind them that, since they now had both the authority and responsibility for ministry, if goals were not met they were accountable and could not shift the blame to others” (p.98).

“We have now learned to set goals for the pastor to achieve in the next six months to a year with the understanding that if most of the goals are not achieved the pastor needs to consider leaving that congregation. I have found that by being clear up front, it is easier to discuss the future with the pastor if things do not go well” (p.111).

Here we arrive at the solution to the problem identified in the previous set of quotes. When a pastor has proven time after time that they are incapable of effectiveness in ministry it is time for a dismissal, not another relocation. And making excuses that attempt to shift blame should not be tolerated.

“This implementation piece is crucial in producing change. I believe all the other training we did would not have amounted to much if we had not held pastors accountable for actual changes through our cluster system” (p.51).

Borden also describes that after doing a congregational consultation one member of the consulting team would meet monthly with the church’s board to see that there was follow-through and provide guidance when issues came up. Making such an effort is the only way to get a true picture of the results of such a consultation, yet this has not been part of the Potomac Conference’s system.

"Conflict mediation assumes that the fighting parties will come to the process with some degree of integrity. In dysfunctional congregations the lack of spirituality inhibits people from possessing such integrity, plus the mediators are seeking resolution in what is already a dysfunctional situation. When the real issue of conflict is the control of the congregation (this issue is never the stated issue), those with the control will never give it up unless forced to do so. The nature and purpose of conflict mediation is to get believers to be reconciled, not deal with the control issues that cause congregations to remain dysfunctional" (p.72).

While in this context Borden is assuming that it is lay leaders who are coming to the table disingenuously and in an attempt to retain power and control, he paints a realistic picture of what is actually a two-way street. Pastors trying to hang on to their congregation and their status are every bit as likely (or even more likely) to play dirty in an attempt to retain or enhance their control during a transitional period as any lay member. This is why the Potomac Conference’s policy of treating concerns about changes in governance as interpersonal disputes to be reconciled is completely useless. Not only does this approach fail to consider any underlying nuances to the situation, it deliberately ignores the directly identified issue.

“We often protected the risk takers by informing the critics that these congregations and leaders were simply doing what we had encouraged” (p.99).

“The role of judicatory leaders, particularly if they are leading that change, is to protect those taking the risks” (p.100).

Once again, we do not agree with Borden’s theories of “protection,” but we do believe that if the conference is going to initiate a program they should own up to having done so and take responsibility for the outcomes.

“Large, healthy congregational thinking means that one leads by attraction, not compulsion” (p.63).

The reference to Borden’s pet theory that only large congregations have healthy ways of doing things notwithstanding, the Potomac Conference would do well to note that compulsion is never an effective way of convincing anyone to do anything.