THOUGHTFULLY DRIVING THE PORCELAIN BUS

A Column by John S Schroeder

June 8, 2002

There is a "game" that is played in churches like mine that the more I experience it, the more reprehensible I find it. First some background -- "Churches like mine," means churches that govern themselves in a republican or democratic fashion. There are a thousand details is those forms, and many of them still retain the power in the executive, read pastoral, positions. My particular flavor, Presbyterian, is a little unique in that the power resides with the elected body -- what we call "the Session." The pastor's role in such circumstances is called "Moderator." Technically, the pastor does not have a vote, his/her only role is to make sure things are done 'decently and in order.'

With that background, I can now describe the "game." Here is how it is played. On paper, the limitations on the pastor's power are pretty strong, but in practice the pastor wields an enormous amount of power. That power stems from the pastor's power to shape the debate, which is both constitutional and practical. Constitutionally, the pastor, as Moderator, has the ability to limit or allow debate, grant use of the floor and things like that. Practically, the pastor's power stems, generally, by virtue of time. Simply, as someone paid to be in the church, the pastor has more time to pay attention to what is going on and to attend all the committees. So he/she has the "big" picture while those on Session, unless they are extraordinarily devoted, may not know all of what is going on in other parts of the church. Thus, in the way the pastor communicates the "big" picture to the committees and Session, he/she can go a very long way to controlling the agenda. You might call this presentation of the "big" picture 'SPIN.'

If you are at all like me, you probably saw that word 'spin' and had a negative emotional reaction. Most of us are used to that word in association with national politics and think of it as one step short of a lie, if not an actual a lie. And here lies one of the major plays in the game. If a member of Session disagrees with the pastor's spin on an issue and accuses the pastor of spinning, because of the negative connotation, the pastor can accuse the 'opposition' of an uncivilized personal attack, i.e. calling him/her a liar, etc. Particularly in a church environment, where civility is valued, an accusation of 'personal attack' is the real personal attack, as its primary thrust is the credibility of the opposition, and not necessarily dealing with the facts associated with the issue. Having shifted the ground from the facts of the issue to credibility, the pastor will almost always win a debate, the very title pastor carries with it an almost unassailable aura of credibility that a 'mere' layman can never hope to match.

Plays in the game are usually a variation on this shift of focus in one form or another. Take an example: a church has been holding its own for about 20 years. That is to say it has not been growing, but it has not been shrinking. In comes a new pastor and soon giving drops and so does attendance. Occam's razor would dictate that the pastor's performance explains the difference. However, because of the credibility that is built into the title 'pastor' that simple explanation is often the last one considered. Session members are loath to accuse a pastor of anything unless it is gross unethical conduct. The pastor generally makes matters worse by stating that in his 'expert' opinion, based on his schooling, etc., that the problem is in the church, bad programs, something like that. Now great upheaval occurs in the church and that upheaval often worsens the problem, but the pastor says "Trust me, it's always darkest before the dawn." Usually, the dawn never comes and there is a gigantic mess to clean up. "Trust me" are not words I like to hear from a pastor, even if I actually trust him/her.

Two more plays worth mentioning. One is the "Pastoral Presentation." In a Presbyterian system, committees of elders and lay people are supposed to be the ones that do the legwork of Session and present new ideas and programs to the Session. Yet often it is the pastor or a member of staff that makes a proposal to Session. This has a couple of effects. Firstly, and particularly when the proposal is made by ordained staff, it comes with that same built in aura of credibility and the Session often will not question it as thoroughly as it would in other circumstances. The second effect is a variation of that same theme. The Session will generally think that if the Pastor is making the effort to present this, the church must really need it.

The final play worth mentioning is the 'Urgency Play.' A proposal will come forward and the pastor will describe some utter urgency for its adoption. This is the church version of the crisis mongering that is so common in national politics. A sense of urgency will always cause people to suspend their critical facilities to one extent or another.

I used a very strong word earlier about these practices -- I called them "reprehensible." I mean what I say because I think they violate the very spirit of the way Presbyterians are supposed to do things. Pastors by definition have a potential conflict of interest. Their livelihood depends on the ability of the church to attract donations. Jesus admonished His disciples to shake the dirt from their sandals and move on if a town did not accept the gospel. But when a pastor is tied to a congregation, moving on becomes problematic and thus it is often easier to "soften" the message around the edges if it can keep the money flowing. One to many incidents of "softening" and the result is unrecognizable mush. The Presbyterian system is design with checks and balances to prevent that from happening.

Now, most pastors I talk to tell me about how hard it is to find people on Session that will step up to the plate. "The lay people are not stepping up to the plate," they say, "What can I do, I have to keep things happening in the church!" Thus the 'game' begins. I think this is an entirely misguided approach. That statement reveals that the pastor is really concentrating on building the institution, when he/she should be looking elsewhere. In addition to the checks and balances, the Presbyterian system is supposed to be designed to allow the pastor to concentrate on working with people and the Session to handle the institutional load.

So what should a pastor do if people really are not stepping up to the plate? In my opinion they should start working with the people -- they should cultivate leadership. They should work with their Session members to teach and motivate them to do their jobs. They should work with the congregation to find and develop new leadership. They should do what they are charged with doing, be the Lord's instrument in building disciples. This approach may mean that the institution flounders for a while. But in the end I think it will be much closer to building the Kingdom of God than propping up the organizational edifice.

With Love,