By Alan Simpson

The story goes something like this – Pastor Tim (not a real person) makes a decision to change the order of service to include more time for video announcements without checking the choir director to see if that would be a problem.  The choir director is miffed and tells two best friends about the Pastor’s strong-handed manner.  The two friends pick up the offence and start a rumor that the Pastor wants to get rid of the choir director, and the board is informed of the news.  The board asks the Pastor why he wants to get rid of the choir director and the Pastor storms out of the meeting angry and defensive.  A small faction within the congregation makes a motion at a specially called meeting to ask for the pastor’s resignation and the vote is split.  The district supervisor is called in to manage the fall out.  The Pastor resigns, the choir director quits and goes to the church down the street, and the friends are miffed that she left.  The board is now scrambling to get a new pastor as soon as possible, and the  regional leader has another headache on his hands.  Sound familiar?

 Imagine that you are called into this situation as a Transitional Leader trained by Outreach Canada.  Is this situation about gossip, hurt feelings, personal offenses, or communication?  It is about all of it and none of it!  The tip of the iceberg includes these visible outcomes.  However, if we dig a little deeper, we might find that the real  issue here is whose voice counts in making decisions that affect the congregation?

 It has been my observation that the current church “war” is over the decision-making processes within congregations.  Regardless of the issue or level of conflict in the congregation, the number one concern is whose voice counts.  At the core of this tension is theology and practice.

 Most of the congregations I have coached over the past several years do not understand the decision-making environment in which they live.  It is often assumed that every one knows how it works here until someone, usually the pastor, makes the fatal mistake of deciding without checking.  This stresses the system and demonstrates what lies below.   Unclear about what to do with the disagreeable decision, members are often driven to all kinds of unusual behaviour and some eventually yield to sin.

 For me, the tension in the decision-making process lies in the theological and practical debate over whether a congregation is “member-led” or “leaders-led”.   Member-led congregations often claim “the priesthood of all believers” as their platform while the leader-led groups would talk about “not touching God’s anointed”.  There is obviously more here than space permits to unpack.  Suffice it to say, the tension exists.

 Here are some of the underlying considerations that might inform our thoughts about the tension:

·     Member-led groups rest on a false assumption that the priesthood of all believers authorizes their democratic voice in the direction, decisions, and discipline of the church

·     Leader-led groups operate on the false assumption that the “anointed” leader has all authority to make the decisions, set the vision, and control the congregation.

·     The tension is mostly about who has the authority to make the decisions in which area of ministry: congregation authority verses leadership authority.

·     Extreme member-led groups might have a tendency to restrict the leadership gift.

·     Extreme leader-led groups might restrict the congregation’s voice.

·     In conflicted churches there is often an inequality between authority and responsibility: a small circle of authority with a large circle of responsibility frustrates those who lead; conversely a large circle of authority with a small circle of responsibility frustrates those who follow.

 I firmly believe that most decision-making systems can be healthy if, at the least, the following items are encouraged:

·     The mandate to be biblical peacemakers is valued and practiced by all participants.

·      Emotionally and spiritually healthy leaders serve by leading and lead by serving.

·      Everyone in the congregation understands and practices the agreed upon decision-making process.

·     The congregation in a leader-led group has a clearly defined way to speak into the direction, decisions, and discipline of the church.

·      The leader of a member-led group has a clearly defined area of authority and responsibility and some way to appeal the congregational vote.

·      Everyone understands the role and authority of the denominational leader.

 The role of the Transitional Leader is to assess the situation and reflect the imbalances within the system while retaining the good of whatever system of decision-making they have operating in this congregation.

 Jesus said that all of God’s commands are wrapped up in two aspects of love: love God and love your neighbor.  How we walk together in the decision-making processes will demonstrate the extent of our obedience to this great command.  Love not only covers a multitude of wrong doings it also makes a way for right doing by clearly defining how we walk out our unity in the bond of peace.  Decision-making processes test the  reality of that love in a tangible fashion.

 Another component in this conversation has to do with “members” and “non-member” influences in the decision-making process. But that’s another conversation for another Transitions.