Thanks for reminding!! I had a mission committee mtg 2 weeks ago. I had hard time fighting the propositions they made against a missionary couple and there was no relationship with them, that left me upset for the whole night!! I shall post this to my committee chairperson.

Hear, hear!

I cannot think of any organisation that operates on the principle of relationships alone. Seriously, the only one that I can think of is a family concern business or maybe the Mafia(!!!) where each one is reponsible for his or her own actions. In many committees that I know of, much sweat, tears and sacrifices are shed and made before a decision is made and it is definitely not heartless as you deem it. In fact it could have been a painful affair. If you can enlighten me on ways to make it otherwise I would support it wholeheartedly.

Hi there...

Thanks for the comment.

Hmm, I'm not sure if the mafia is a good example of relational decision-making based on love for God and neighbour. But if the mafia is the only possible instance of such relational models, then learn from the mafia we must! :p And in the same breath, that speaks something of the church today.

I think CK Lee has given a very pertinent example above... committees making decisions on missionaries they don't know in a PERSONAL way. And yet they have no qualms making decisions affecting the future and direction of those missionaries. If the missionaries suffer lack as a result, well, nobody is to be blamed because "it was the decision of the committee".

One good way to start, I'd suggest, is to actually get to KNOW the people you're making decisions about and asking them how they feel about those decisions. Get them to sit with your committee if it's necessary - person to person. And in the light of how those people feel and reason their case / plight, be willing to review and even change the decisions which have been made. And if not, then be willing to keep loving in an even more assuring way, that those people may know they ARE important in those decisions that were made about them. So that the committee doesn't appear to be nothing more than just "the leadership - those who make decisions without asking how we humans feel about those decisions which concern us". Otherwise the decisions made by the committee are cold, because the committee doesn't connect at a human level.

Certainly, it makes the decision-making process more painstaking and more tedious. And less efficient, perhaps. But at least, the more fundamental Trinitarian principles of respect and mutuality are honoured. And if we see our ministry as leaders being for the wellbeing of those we love, we do owe this debt to actually love PERSONally, not SYSTEMatically.

That would be a good first step towards building "communities of spiritual guides" as compared to "committees of organisational leaders".

Hmmm... "the community has made that decision." Isn't that the same thing?

I guess a part of your critique rests also on how the communication is made, prefering a communication where personal responsibility is taken for decisions made--where the leader communicates the relational aspects that took place in the process of decision making. (I'm assuming of course, that such divine relational transcendence did actually take place in the first place).

Otherwise, community or committee as labels alone make little difference to me.

And now, for the more practical... how do I make myself more relational and less bureaucratic?

Hi SK,

That's some strong statements you have made in this posting and I am not sure it is fair to those committed disciples of Christ who try to serve the church by being part of a church committee.

"I need you to know that although all the ten people on your committee may be godly and extremely beautiful as individuals, as soon as you make decisions and disseminate the results of your committee discussions, these decisions are cold and impersonal, and often heartless."

Now how can ten godly people make decisions that automatically become cold, impersonal and heartless. The statement does not make sense.

"the fundamental mechanism for decision-making in any Christian community must be based on relationships. Not committees and boards."

Again an interesting concept. Yes, the basis of being church is relationship. However we also need knowledge and wisdom to make decisions. Can you imagine an organisation being run on relationship alone? You my friend, I give you what you want. Can you imagine the church budget being decided based on relationship alone. And committees and board are instruments for consensus decision making.

"I’ll tell you why committees don’t sit well with my idea of church. The Kingdom of God is not about control and authority, that’s why. It’s about the laying down of control and authority that we may live in love and equality for the love of God and our neighbour. It’s about standing on the side of the helpless and the powerless, whereas the committee is about power."

Again another generalised statement. I do agree with you about the kingdom of God. But it will be unfair to link that all committee is about power. And it is confusing when you keep jumping from kingdom of God and the church.

"Please, please don’t say that we’re obligated to love the church whether or not it functions in a better way than this." Are you saying that we should love only a perfect church?

"Please, for God’s sake, stop functioning as committees, and start functioning as humans. People to people." While I agree with this statement, I am concern about the theme of the posting. It gives a very negative perspective of the church. No doubt, churches, committees, boards, elders, deacons and pastors are not perfect. Yet we are part of the church whether we like it or not; whether we consider ourselves part of a church or not. I wonder how a young Christian will feel readig this post? Is it a fair representation of the church?

Finally, you mentioned building "communities of spiritual guides" as compared to "committees of organisational leaders". That may sound very spiritual but if you are talking about the monastic setup, the spiritual guides are under an abbot who holds absolute power. Is that what you mean?

Peace

i recall you mentioning this during the conference, but i think it was interpreted differently... if i'm not wrong, you said how godly ppl can end up being the source of "systemic" or institutional evil as a result of such impersonal mechanisms.

whilst i can agree that there certainly are occasions where people 'hide' behind committees and virtually abrogate all personal responbility whatsoever, i suspect we can still think about committees in "personal" ways or even see how they may serve God's purpose.

I would argue (tentatively - as always, *grin*) that the heartlessness of a decision isn't a NECESSARY result of coming from a committee, just as a decision made by a husband for a wife isn't NECESSARILY heart-felt and loving.

Group decisions can be personal in the same way that solo decisions are personal: they take the personal interests of the people/person seriously. Note, too, that whilst KNOWING a person certainly helps, one can still do loving/compassionate things for strangers - like a committee deciding to give a group of refugees shelter, etc.

still, great issue raised. i think we need deeper thinking on the words 'personal', 'systematic', etc.

blessings,
Alwyn

Hi Dr Tang,

Thanks for your message here. I'll try to respond to some of your concerns in bitesizes:

Now how can ten godly people make decisions that automatically become cold, impersonal and heartless. The statement does not make sense.
A decision can come across as heartless when some policies are made affecting certain people and are communicated to those people without so much as a desire to know how those people feel about these new policies or decisions. Think about it - how many times have our church committees decided on certain things and then asked the affected people how they've actually coped with the effect of these decisions?

And committees and board are instruments for consensus decision making.
I'm thinking, what happened then in the early and medieval churches before instruments like committees and boards ever existed? How were decisions rendered at that time? I'm not speaking out against the need for an infrastructure for decision-making. I'm speaking out against the committee/board with a corporate ethos as the adopted structure for the ecclesiastical context. In fact, many church leaders don't realise just how "corporate" their decision-making process is in the church. They think almost exactly the way they think when they exercise their middle- and top-level managerial jurisdictions at the workplace.

...it will be unfair to link that all committee is about power. And it is confusing when you keep jumping from kingdom of God and the church.
Ideally, a committee shouldn't be all about power. But if it's the corporate ethos that has been adopted in most (if not all) of our church committees/boards, then it must be an issue of control and power. The committee is set up as a control measure over institutional interest. The wellbeing of people at the PERSONal dimension (as opposed to the "personal" dimension in the individualistic sense) is seldom an issue of concern.

Also, I usually distinguish quite clearly between the church institution and the Kingdom - the two often don't look quite alike. Again, I know this is big statement I'm making - deeper explanations of this can be found in my series on Organic Missional Ecclesiology [Part 1lPart 2lPart 3lPart 4lPart 5lPart 6lPart 7lPart 8lPart 9].

Are you saying that we should love only a perfect church?
I hope it doesn't sound that way, no. The only way I can even love myself is to also love an imperfect church. What I am saying is that our obligation to love the imperfect church should not be employed as an excuse to ignore our imperfections.

I wonder how a young Christian will feel reading this post? Is it a fair representation of the church?
I believe on many, if not all, accounts, my description here - hyperbolic though it may seem (many people haven't quite successfully appreciated my employment of literary devices in this blog) - is a fair representation of a reality emerging from the church institution which isn't critical of its own control mechanisms. I recognise the perils of young Christians reading such a post, and yet, I don't think we want them to begin their Christian journey thinking that church leadership isn't fraught with the inclination/peril to struggle with issues of power and control.

That may sound very spiritual but if you are talking about the monastic setup, the spiritual guides are under an abbot who holds absolute power. Is that what you mean?
I think there are many alternatives to committees and boards. And even constitutions.

I realise that this post may have come across as very accusatory. It's partially true. It's intentionally written to read like it comes from the heart of a frustrated member of the church. I hope it's taken for what it is - a call for leaders to re-examine the way we're running church today, together with a re-examination of these mechanisms we employ to sustain the institution.

I appreciate all these comments that have come as a response/reaction to this post. I offer my deepest apologies for how offensive it might have sounded to some well-meaning leaders in the church. If you don't find that you come from a church leadership that has pandered to such a situation, your point of objection in regard to this post is well taken. I, for one, don't come from a church like this; I have extremely humane leaders, even when they work at the levels of committees and boards. But my point is, they're the exception rather than the rule. Also, even when they're so relational, it's because they're intentionally being so despite the system rather than because the system is giving rise to it. I'm suggesting that we might want to take a step further to examine the system and modify/change/overhaul it rather than having to work "in spite of the system". Of course, this is more complicated than it sounds, because our leadership structures are governed by a constitution (again, see the point?)

How do we begin a journey towards developing leadership mechanisms which are life-giving and not life-taking from even the most "insignificant" member of the church or the unseen and often unappreciated missionary in the field?

Hi Al,

Thanks for the note. I think you've described the issue quite the way I meant it.

Thanks!

Hi JbL,

How do I make myself more relational and less bureaucratic?
It's something I ask myself EVERY DAY. Such a challenge.

Thanks for dropping by ya!

Hi sk,

Thanks for your response to my comments on your post. I hope I did not come across as accusatory. Sorry if I did.

I have been trying to understand your post; where you are coming from and what is your intention with this post.

I like your last question: "How do we begin a journey towards developing leadership mechanisms which are life-giving and not life-taking from even the most "insignificant" member of the church or the unseen and often unappreciated missionary in the field?" Any thots on this?

Blessings