There are some churches that have a publication called the Church Manual, and my understanding is that it outlines virtually everything regarding structure, policy and standard operating procedures of the church. Now, to be fair, this is found in denominational churches more often than not, which makes sense from a certain perspective. As a denomination, you want to make sure that if someone walks into any of your churches, there will be certain things that will be the same regardless of where in the world that church is located.
However, I must also shake my head in sadness as I have seen many good ideas for outreach and evangelism shot down because it didn't mesh with the manual. My questions begin with the most obvious one, "What's wrong with just using the Bible as a 'manual?'" Paul talks at length at how things should be conducted, and while there is a lot of culturally-specific stuff that he outlines, there's still enough in there to allow for a broad outline.
I had a buddy of mine tell me about how his church is setup recently. Essentially, they have put a blanket denial on earmarked donations (for pet projects, etc.), and then they split their budgets into the following categories: General Fund, Youth, Evangelism/Outreach. Wouldn't that make it easier on the treasurer??? I look down the list of accounts/departments we have at a local church I help out with and the combined budget is divvied up into 50 distinct line items! And then there are another 46 special fund (pet projects, etc.) accounts! Yikes! It's kinda scary to look at! But that's the way it is.
Another church I help out with doesn't have a Finance Committee, or a Church Board. There is a small leadership team that dictates how the money is spent which allows the church, which is fairly small, to move quickly to pour resources into an area of need. This gives the church an ability to move quickly and effectively while not having to worry about getting bogged down in process. And this church is growing very quickly because it's effective. And it's effective partly because it can respond quickly.
I understand the reason for the committee system, I really do, but doesn't it seem that there is an overarching feeling of distrust associated with the system? I mean, you have a committee for a department that must get approval to spend money that's over a certain limit from the Finance Committee, but if the cost is high enough, there needs to be Board approval, as well. The message that is inherent in that system is that "we don't trust you, so we're going to require you to notify us before you can make any major purchases, or make any drastic changes." It's very stifling, and while it encourages good communication, that communication often turns to frustration as the needed action continually bogs down in the process because the process takes so much time.
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Tim,
I sooo hear your concern. Unfortunately, with human behavior as it is, we have been proven not to be trusted. The committees have been appointed to "hopefully" use the Bible as a manual on how tos pend God's money. Too many times, one does something, thinking it the right thing, but in the end was not how others saw it. So to keep peace in the church family (for whichever denomination) there have to be committees.
Just my 2 cents on that topic
actually, that last comment was from Mel, not Scott
Like Mel said. Larger churches have larger constituencies to deal with. They require mechanisms like a finance committee to reach consensus. I've always been a little impatient with committees. But they serve *some* useful functions.
Also. I imagine people's "deference" to the church manual prolly corresponds to their own funding priorities. They just don't wanna come out and say what they really think.
Mel: I see your point, but what makes the people who are elected any better than those they are supposedly representing? Similar issue with what goes on at Capitol Hill...
John: You make a good point, but with the plethora of Internet options, why not put major decisions before each and every member so you can get a real vote? The impractical is now practical with the Internet, email, and websites.
Committees, like elected officials, examine issues more in depth than the general population. While I trust pols little. I trust people less.
I'm reminded of a voter initiative where the right of an adoptive child to discover the identity of their parents are was placed on the ballot. The side in favor was well organized and well funded. The other side was unrepresented and completely unfunded. The law passed.
Now I doubt it would have passed in the same form had it gone through the representative process. The law gave absolutely no regard for the mothers who conceived children from rape or incest and had been promised a measure of privacy. Voters responded to a complex issue with a facile solution.
John: The only reason elected officials look at issues more in-depth is because that is the status quo; most people have gotten used to just letting other people carry that burden instead of looking into it themselves. The idea of people being elected to a church board as a representative of the church body is nice in concept, but not really practical in the real world; those elected persons will still fall prey to their own fears, perspectives, and other biases that will cloud their judgment.
In your last comment, you mentioned that you "trust people less." To me, this clearly states that there have been a number of experiences in your own life where your trust in other people has been misplaced or taken advantage of. This is exactly what I'm talking about-personal experience clouds your perspective. It's easy to generalize when that happens...
I do understand that as a congregation grows larger, laypeople have to help carry that load, but that should be an organic process, not dictated by a manual. That's all I'm saying...
Post a Comment