A little research project for you. Over the next three or four months, devote the occasional coffee hour conversation at church to finding something out: how many great new ideas has the "church committee ethos" squashed in your church? Here’s one method that might get you there. First, as you meander and mingle, ask people questions like these:
- "If you could make any one thing happen here, what would it be?"
- "If you could change any one thing here, what would it be?"
- "What’s the best new idea you’ve heard lately for this church?"
Then follow up with questions like these:
- "Who would you have to convince to make that happen?"
- "Why do you think that’s not in place already?"
Another method is to approach chairfolk and ask them, "What new ideas have folks brought to your committee?" Then ask what happened to those ideas. Their answers may be enlightening.
But these two methods still don’t get at the most insidious part of the "church committee ethos:" once it’s in the water, it discourages people from generating great new ideas, regardless of good intentions. Why imagine change when there’s a committee for everything? People who have great new ideas have to track down the appropriate chairfolk, lobby the appropriate committeefolk, rinse, lather, repeat. Who wants to go to another meeting? In most churches, committees serve a gate keeping function. Committeefolk generally see their role as preventing harm and preserving the status quo. The risk of a great new idea just doesn’t compute.
And then there’s the cases when two or three additional committees would have to be consulted, especially if money is involved. When this is the ethos, the only great new ideas that get through are those championed by people who make it more trouble to say no than to say yes.
Hey, YES–let’s hear it for mission focused, ad hoc, task teams! Open the way for permission giving ministry, ministers, and congregations. Or the “form” I have always been partial to which I learned via experience as an adjunct faculty member at the Evergreen State College: the DTF–Disappearing Task Force.
Cheerfully, Roger Kuhrt
Chutney, you continue to inspire. I’ve kept this post bookmarked at my del.icio.us for some time, and I read it when I need a reminder that a balance must be struck between “the way we’ve always done things” and new ideas.
One area where congregations should always tread slowly, however: building & grounds issues. Some decades ago, a hot-to-trot group of members decided to plant Christmas trees on the fellowship property to sell as a fundraiser. Don’t laugh, this is true.
I’m here to tell you, as the fellowship’s president 40 years on, that the f*ck8ng trees are still there. I’m also here to tell you that there are still people around in the fellowship who remember the tree planting, or are children of those people who remember the tree planting, and have a sentimental attachment to those sad, pathetic, dying trees.
Cutting those trees is going to cost thousands, should we need to address our urgent parking issue…something the Board wants to do as a priority.
So, just be warned: fresh ideas still need to be vetted in a democratic process. Having a mission and a long-range plan in place doesn’t hurt, either.