Toolbox For Faith

Standing committees are designed for ongoing programs that have already been developed but new ideas require a champion or a task team led by a champion to develop. Committees have their hands full doing what they have accepted as responsibilities which means that when a new idea is presented, most often the new idea is put on the back burner.

A new idea prospers when one person or a small group of people take responsibility for making sure that the new idea becomes reality. The next step is to form a task team that has a specific responsibility and a shorter, limited term of service. The limited term of service is especially important since around 85% of all people do not want to be involved in a long term commitment of time which is how most committees function. The same people who do not want the long term committee will volunteer for a short term project in which they are interested.

Goals have four levels depending on time required to accomplish the aim and the complexity of the objective.

• Quick victories require six to nine weeks to accomplish. Quick victories are usually relatively simple but create an attitude of accomplishment in the congregation. Many times, one or two people can achieve a quick victory usually with a minimum of people and financial resources.
• Short term victories require nine weeks to six months to accomplish. These are usually more complex than the quick victories but can be accomplished in a short period of time. Again, one or two people or a small group can organize a short term victory with a minimum of people or financial resources.
• Simple major victories require six months to a year to accomplish. These can be accomplished only by involving at least a small task team working together. Most simple major victories require financial resources and involvement of many in the congregation.
• Complex major victories require one to three years to accomplish. These victories require a significant involvement of the leadership and members of the congregation as well as financial resources.

When establishing goals, each category must be considered. Unless this happens, planning is incomplete. Most groups tend to concentrate only on the simple or complex major victories and loose the excellent momentum provided by the quick victories and short term victories.

Dr. Kennon Callahan was the one who introduced me many year ago to the 80-20 rule and it has been a wonderful revelation. The way that I understand the rule is that 80% of the effort create 20% of the results while 20% of the effort create 80% of the results.

If you have ever attended a committee meeting, you understand the principal. A great example of an 80 percenter is the worship committee who spent 30 minutes discussing how to deal with the acolytes who were chewing gum in church. They finally agreed with the pastor that the pastor would ask the acolyte to take out the gum before entering to light the candles and not to chew gum during the service. That 80 percenter was important to only the few anti-chewing-gum members of the committee.

At the same church later in the month, the property committee dealt with an important 20 percenter, parking at the church. The town had made a decision to enforce a parking ordinance that would have eliminated 40 parking spaces near the church that were used each Sunday. The committee was looking at every option to replace the spaces because they knew that the lack of parking would impact the Sunday attendance. That was a 20 percenter

When the 80 percenters tend to get just as much attention as the 20 percenters, many opportunities are missed. Look for the 20 percenters.

I’m at a conference this week on the Open Source Church, a book by Landon Whitsitt.  As a part of the conversation, the group lifted up a number of practical ideas for inviting people to share their ideas as a part of a discussion.

Here are the ideas that were suggested by the group.

- Mutual Invitation - invite people to speak to a question and when you have said your peace then invite someone else.  Questions of clarification are welcome, but not debating.  Once information is out there from everyone then you can discuss.

- Getting a sense of the meeting, sitting and silence to wait for a sense of the Spirit - Quakers

- Frame discussion in a way that welcomes dissension

- Asking the group to question assumptions

- Ask what are the holes, what are the unintended consequences

- Delay decision where appropriate, not be too quick to make big decisions

- Create time for reflection

- Naming the demon - this is my idea, but I want your ideas and every question is helpful

- What time are you having your meeting?  The proper setting is important.  Helpful sequencing of agendas and possibly limiting time for discussion.

- Make sure that opinions are valued.  Give people time to write down their best ideas and give people the freedom to say “No”.

- Emphasizing servant role of minister and leadership, try not to go to our area of expertise as a way of limiting discussion

- As leader speak last

- Provide a list of options as a starting point for a discussion

- Gather information from the grassroots by working in progressively larger teams (team partner, then several teams) and then Yes voting

- Have people go around to discuss what the idea would look like if it was implemented as a way to help us really see what we are doing

- Affirm characteristics like intellectual integrity in daily interactions with people to create openness and honesty

- Bounce ideas around through email

Almost instinctively, St. Michael tends to make decisions by consensus. The desire for consensus may reflect lessons which were learned by the congregation during a previous time of conflict or it may simply reflect my leadership style, but regardless of why it is happening, consensus is our current form of decision making. The leadership of the congregation has worked to be transparent and has built a strong level of trust. We work hard to share information broadly and to solicit a variety of opinions in order to create a helpful way forward. As Martin B. Copenhaver noted about his congregation an article entitled, “Who Is Robert, Anyway?” in Congregations, Fall 2007, “votes may be a part of the process, but they are not the end toward which the entire process proceeds. Instead, voting is a way of testing consensus, of asking, ‘Do we sense that we discerned the mind of Christ on this matter?”

Given the nature of our culture, congregations often follow a “majority rules” approach to governance. The ones with the most votes win, but as I told a friend of mine recently, just because something is legal, doesn’t mean that it is right or the best way to handle a situation. In my experience, there is nothing to be gained and a great deal to be lost in a congregation by creating win/lose votes on an issue. When we are at our best as a people of God, we, as Copenhaver suggests, “seek together to discern what Christ would have us do.” Trying to discern what Christ would have us do and working to building consensus isn’t always the neatest or most expedient approach to decision making, but I find it to a helpful way to build a healthy leadership team and congregation.

If you are an Alban member, you can read the entire Copenhaver article here: http://www.alban.org/conversation.aspx?id=5026.

Comments from Dr. Kennon Callahan about growing happiness through God’s grace. He shared this yesterday at the Seminar for Key Leaders at Callaway Gardens.

The structure described in the constitutions of most mainline denominations is designed for middle sized churches. This structure won’t work for small strong churches, large regional churches, or mega churches. Long ago, most denominations pushed all their chips into middle size. Unfortunately, middle sizes churches are going away. They are too big to deliver the intimacy of a small, strong congregation and they are too small to deliver the programs of a large, regional or mega church.

How do you define a middle sized congregation. Middle sized churches are about the context. In Atlanta, 250 in worship makes you a small, strong congregation. If you worship 250 in South Dakota, you are a large regional, perhaps mega church.

I received an email last week from a former member who among a variety of things thanked me for “the excellent advice that you shared with us at a meeting shortly after you became pastor.” Luckily, she shared what I had said because I was not certain what she was talking about. She quoted me as saying, “If you have a new idea that you want accomplished in your congregation, find a champion for the idea and do not give it to a standing committee.”

That sure sounded like something I would say. Over the years, I have learned that standing committees are designed for ongoing programs that have already been developed but new ideas require one champion or a small team led by people who are passionate about the idea to develop the program. Committees have their hands full doing what they have accepted as responsibilities. That means that when a new idea is presented, most often the new idea is put on the back burner.

A new idea prospers when one champion or a small group of champions take responsibility for making sure that the new idea becomes reality. People with a passion for the task will make it happen. Once all the groundwork has been done, most times you can pass it on to a standing committee to keep it functioning if it needs to be more than a one time event or happening. Have a great idea? Find a champion or a small group with a passion for the new project to make it reality.