Previous | Next 

EDITORIAL
Meeting together

Jim Coggins

In an earlier editorial (March 30), I suggested that leadership consists of two things: setting a direction and convincing people to follow. It seems to me that the increased concern over leadership in the MB Church, particularly the increased popularity of the “eldership” model of church government (at both congregational and Conference levels), has focused attention on the first of these tasks. This is good in many respects (it has certainly improved long-range planning), but it has probably resulted in some neglect of the second task.

As I said in that previous editorial, convincing people to follow involves recognizing that the people have a real right and responsibility to choose whether to follow a particular direction or not. One of the main vehicles used in the Mennonite Brethren Church for this purpose has been the congregational business meeting/Conference convention. There are other ways of obtaining commitment and involvement, including asking for general feedback and suggestions before a decision is made. Unfortunately, people often do not take such opportunities seriously if they have no say in the final decision. Congregational business meetings and Conference conventions remain important.

Unfortunately, for various reasons, the effectiveness of such meetings is in decline. As churches and Conferences grow larger and issues become more complex, it becomes more difficult to make decisions in a large group. Sometimes, as well, the decision-making process at meetings is short-circuited by leaders who are reluctant to risk letting the people veto their carefully laid plans. The unwillingness of people to trust leadership is a serious problem in the church (and in our society generally), but conversely leaders are sometimes hesitant to trust their people. They wonder whether the people are also in touch with God, and whether they will really accept a godly direction if it is presented to them. Consider the following practices:

Sometimes boards take up almost all of the allotted time at a convention/meeting “presenting the vision”, leaving delegates little or no time to discuss and decide the issue. Sometimes a convention or meeting is completely devoted to “reporting”, with no questions presented to delegates for decision. Sometimes delegates are asked to vote on a raft of insignificant issues (receiving reports, approving the minutes), and they are not asked to make any significant decisions, or the significant decisions get lost in the welter of meaningless votes – delegates are so conditioned to politely raising their hands that they do it without thinking. Hand votes and, even worse, standing votes are often taken flippantly and carelessly, as if the only real option were to accept the motion. Sometimes negative votes are not even asked for. Sometimes a proposal is presented to delegates which is based on complex negotiations with other agencies or is carefully worded due to legal considerations, and delegates are told that the proposal cannot be amended. Sometimes, even without these supporting reasons, a complex proposal is presented with the insistence that it must be considered as a whole, creating a dilemma for delegates who agree with some parts of it but not others. Sometimes a complex proposal is presented at a business meeting or convention without prior notice, and delegates are asked to make an immediate decision without time for study, prayer and thought. Budgets are an important business item because they often reflect the real priorities of a Conference or church (though I recognize that some parts of church life do not come with a price tag). Yet sometimes budgets are presented as a compromise worked out between competing budget requests and hence unchangeable, and delegates/members are deprived of an opportunity for meaningful input. Sometimes Conference and congregational leaders present a “vision” they have received “from God” or present a pastoral/leadership candidate as “God’s provision”. This effectively shuts down any meaningful dialogue. Who could raise questions or vote against God? Sometimes decisions must be made quickly, between congregational meetings/Conference conventions; in that case, boards make “interim” decisions, which may never be raised for ratification at a future convention/meeting. (This is especially becoming a problem at the Canadian Conference level, where conventions are held only every two years.)

There are two problems with these practices. The first is that they limit the church to the insights of a few people, whereas success often comes from listening to “many advisors” (Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6). Broader discussion might make improvements to a proposal or at least develop greater understanding of it. An even more serious problem is that these practices deprive delegates and church members of the opportunity to “buy in”, to commit themselves to a vision or direction. Even if the outcome of a vote is not in doubt, the vote is still important because it represents a commitment on the part of the people to follow the direction.

If people are not given a meaningful role in decision-making, their only option is to vote with their wallets and their feet. Only about half of Canadian MB churches sent delegates to the last Canadian Conference convention. Many churches have trouble obtaining a “quorum” of even 20% of the membership at church business meetings. This is partly because people are “too busy” and don’t see church as important as they once did, but it is also a reasonable response to the insignificance of such meetings. People are saying: If you are not going to give us a meaningful role in decision-making, then don’t waste our time by asking us to come. Similarly, per member contributions from congregations to the MB conferences have been declining. Statistics suggest that, for North American churches in general, the proportion of income that members give to their local churches has been declining steadily for the last 30 years.

The lack of opportunity for members to commit to a direction is extremely significant. Unless there is support from the people, the leaders will be unable to implement any vision, no matter how right it is.

Previous | Next 

Last modified July 10, 2001.

© 2001 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.