One of the most difficult and perplexing tasks for many pastors is confronting a volunteer or parttime worker. The worker may be doing a poor job, but happens to be a church member. The pastor is not sure which way the lines of accountability run. Do these people work for him? Or does he work for them?
I know of a church which employs members on a part-time basis for typing, printing, cleaning, and visitation. The office area is crowded and poorly arranged. Several years ago the board gave the pastor permission to make necessary changes. He went to work on the problem by hiring an architect to design a new office arrangement. Yet to date, no changes have been made. The workers continue to labor in cramped and inefficient conditions. The reason? The architect’s design called for moving the printing room from one location to another. However, the part-time printer, a member of the church, declared he would quit the job and withdraw his membership if the change were made. So the printing machine continues to clack away a few feet from the secretary’s desk, and visitors continue to step around and over boxes on their way to the pastor’s study.
The pastor allows this to continue because he is not sure of his authority when it involves a part-time employee who is also a church member. Is the pastor accountable to the employee as a member, or is it the reverse?
As a young pastor I served a small church in which the Sunday school superintendent was the wife of the board chairman. The Sunday school hour was the first event of the day and this family was consistently fifteen minutes late. Sunday after Sunday I would do a “slow burn” while the congregation impatiently waited for her to arrive to conduct the opening exercises. On several occasions I tried to move the starting time back fifteen minutes, but the board, led by the chairman, consistently refused. This situation continued for about two and a half years until finally in desperation I stood up at the exact minute Sunday school was scheduled to begin and asked the people to go immediately to their classrooms. I waited in the auditorium. True to form, fifteen minutes later the Sunday school superintendent and her husband arrived. There were angry words. The Sunday school superintendent resigned. I survived the ordeal.
Why had I allowed this one person to frustrate an entire Sunday school operation so long before taking action? I was never sure of my authority to correct the situation. I knew I was somehow responsible for the Sunday school program, yet this woman and her husband were church members. They had voted on my coming to the church. They helped pay my salary by their contributions. She had been elected to her position at a congregational meeting.
These scenarios are not unique. As a consultant for church organizations I talk almost every week with at least one pastor who is having problems with a volunteer or a paid worker, and who feels helpless to correct the situation.
Authority-accountability issues are rooted in the very nature of the church as a voluntary organization. This makes it nearly impossible to establish direct-line accountability structures, and the diffusion of power tends to weaken all positions of authority.
Lack of Direct-line Accountability
In a corporation, a boss sits at the top of a hierarchical pyramid with the authority to establish and enforce an accountability structure, a chain of command. The local church is usually an association of volunteers. There is no “boss” at the top with workers filling their dutiful place beneath him or her.
The church is comprised of individual members who individually feel ownership of the organization. This personal and wide-spread sense of ownership raises the primary question: who actually has the authority to make final decisions; who actually is the “boss”? Often the volunteer worker feels he/she is a final decision maker since he/she shares in the “ownership” of the organization as a member, and contributes time and money. Though the pastor accepts a salary from the members, he may not consider himself their employee since his qualifications and ordination into ministry were not determined by them. Also, the responsibilities of the pastor are much more like those of the “chief executive officer” of an organization than those of a “rank-andfile employee.”
In a denominational hierarchy a pastor will find there are officials (bishops, superintendents, etc.) who often consider themselves to be final decision makers. His position is further complicated by the fact that he is the liaison between the church and the denomination’s governing body. Whose interests, goals, and programs does he pursue when the interests of the local church come into conflict with those of the governing body?
 For example, most denominations attempt to finance their regional and national offices through some form of assessment upon the local churches, which often resent and oppose these financial demands. They feel they have too little to say about how the money is spent, or simply want to keep the money for their local church programs.
 The pastor finds himself caught between the de sires of the governing body and the local church. The local church expects the pastor to support its position since he “works for the congregation.” The denominational board expects the pastor to support its position since he is its “chief representative on the local level.” Each side is capable of creating considerable pressure for him.
For example, the local church will often use the financial demands placed upon it by the denomination as a reason for not increasing the pastor’s salary or underwriting programs which the pastor supports. The denomination board will often use the church’s level of giving to denominational causes as one criterion when considering the pastor’s qualification for serving a larger or more prestigious church. Through its actions the local church communicates to the pastor, “If you fail to support our position that we should pay a smaller assessment, we may take the money from your salary.” The governing board, however, communicates, “If youdo not see to it that your church pays its full amount, we may recommend or appoint you to ‘less-than desirable’ churches.”
In almost every instance, both the local church and the denominational board lack sufficient authority over the pastor to absolutely force their will upon him. No one is really certain to whom the pastor is actually accountable, the congregation or the denomination. Because of this “fuzzy” account ability structure, the pastor often develops a major allegiance to his own sense of integrity-an accountability that overrides all others. The pastor be comes a “Lone Ranger.” Pressured to support everyone, he becomes accountable to no one.
The tendency of pastors to become “Lone Ranger” leaders, and Fe effects of such leadership upon the congregation, are pervasive enough to warrant a bit more discussion. By “Lone Ranger” leaders, I refer to those who believe their own ideas are usually best, their solutions to problems are the most workable, and that their program interests are the closest to the mind of God. In short, they assume they know what is best for the church, and so it seems appropriate to make unilateral decisions and “do whatever is necessary” to persuade the congregation to accept such decisions.
I recently conducted a pastors’ workshop dealing with how to develop communication and training processes which keep the laity fully informed and involved in the affairs of the church. A young pastor (two years out of seminary) was visibly shaken by the concepts being discussed and finally jumped to his feet and said, “I want to keep my congregation ignorant and passive. That is the only way I can be sure of maintaining control.” He had already “felt the pressure” and had become a “Lone Ranger.” He wanted the freedom to ride in whatever direction he thought was best. He had learned that if the congregation played the part of “Tonto” they would be more likely to follow his leading and support his programs.
Another common example of the “Lone Ranger” leader is a pastor who begins his ministry by dismantling the programs started by a former pastor. Isn’t it interesting that so many pastors seem to know what is better for the church than the pastor who preceded them? Isn’t it also interesting that these same pastors often criticize their own predecessors for behaving in a similar manner? Such are the effects of succumbing to a “Lone Ranger” style of leadership.
The Diffusion of Power
As previously stated, in a corporation power tends to revolve around the “boss” at the top. The boss releases small amounts of power and allows it to “trickle down” through the structure. This approach never relinquishes final authority. It remains vested in the boss. He delegates certain powers to his immediate subordinates, and they are fully accountable for their use of “trickled down” power and responsibility. They in turn hold their subordinates accountable for certain powers and responsibilities. Thus responsibility and accountability are established throughout the organization with all persons being ultimately accountable to the top executive, and dependent upon him for the necessary power to carry out their responsibilities.
Remember that the local church is an association of volunteers “owned” by all the members, and each feels he possesses a portion of the decision-making power. They do not perceive a single “boss” sitting at the top from which power and authority originate. Rather, power and authority originates at the “grass roots” of the entire membership base. The members, each one, can choose to share their power with leaders and programs they like or to withhold it from leaders and programs they do not like. The members see themselves as bosses, and perceive the pastor as a “power-broker” who collects power from individuals and channels it into programs and ministries the members sufficiently like so as not to withdraw their power. Thus the pastor must gain and keep the trust and support of enough members to “borrow” sufficient power to lead.
An example of the pastor/power-broker can be seen in a church I recently visited. The parsonage was old and in need of major repair. The trustees decided it would be best to dispose of the old property and purchase a different one. The congregation approved, though there was minority opposition. When the trustees decided to purchase a home requiring about $4,000 in remodeling costs, the minority opposition became very vocal, claiming the trustees should have purchased a home requiring no costs beyond the purchase price. Some members stopped contributing to the church budget. Others threatened to leave the church altogether. For several months the parsonage project and many ministry programs limped along, while the congregation struggled with the limits of trustee authority, and endeavored to appease all sides. In all of this the pastor remained neutral. Finally, in a congregational meeting which I attended, the pastor clearly stated the positions of the opposing groups and asked for questions and answers. He implored people to forgive one another, and urged all members to support the trustees’ decision. At that point, several members who had also remained neutral in the conflict said they supported the pastor’s position. After hearing several such statements, one of the opposing members said she too would support the pastor’s position. Another member of the neutral group immediately contributed $4,000 to cover the remodeling costs. The issue which had paralyzed the congregation for several months was over in a few minutes,. and with a happy ending!
How was this possible? Enough members sufficiently trusted the pastor to lend their power to his position once he made it known. In this instance, that power came from neutral persons who moved to the support of the pastor, a leader of the opposing group who reversed her position, and a neutral member who contributed the $4,000. The turning point was the power-broker position of the pastor.
This example forcefully illustrates that the power owned by members is comprised of their ability to support or to oppose, to attend or to stay away, to volunteer or refuse to serve, to contribute finances or to withhold. The ultimate display of the member’s ability to withdraw his or her portion of the power is the closed purse and the empty pew. The member who never attends and/or never contributes is exercising tremendous power. The member who loudly opposes the pastor and program at committee meetings, who causes many frustrations and headaches, is not exercising nearly as much negative power as the disappointed, nonsupportive member who closes his or her purse and goes silently away. Few church leaders realize this.
Local church power is a diffuse entity. Much of it rests with volunteers (members) whom the pastor can direct and lead only as they are willing to be led. To lead effectively, the pastor must be empowered by the very persons whom he is to lead.
Are There Solutions?
While the lack of direct-line accountability and the diffusion of power in the local church can create a lot of problems, it is certainly not all bad. This situation creates a climate in which laity and clergy alike can enjoy a great deal of individual freedom. From this freedom can come creativity and opportunity to involve many members in the ministries of the church.
Most breakdowns occur because of a lack of understanding regarding the expectations of those involved, and a pervasive sense of powerlessness to influence decisions in the church. In my parish consulting work I’ve found four areas of breakdown which can be found in any congregation, regardless of its size, location, or theology. These common problems include a lack of:
1. Establishing a clear and unique purpose for the church and each of its program units.
2. Recruiting leaders who have the ability to fulfill those purposes.
3. Developing a ministry covenant with each leader which spells out the expectations of the task.
4. Teaching and modeling good leadership principles.
After the painful experience of dealing with the Sunday school superintendent in my first parish, I was determined to never again allow such situations to develop and fester. The following is an account of an experience I had in attempting to fulfill the points listed above.
In another parish I began my preaching ministry by stressing that the congregation had a distinct and unique mission to perform (every congregation does), and it was our responsibility before God to discover and fulfill that mission. Mission is that which God calls each congregation to be and to do at a particular point in its history. My messages focused upon questions like, “For what reason did God bring us together as a congregation at this particular time, in this particular community? What are we to be and do that no other congregation in town, or in our denomination, could be or do?” While stressing the mission of the entire church, I also requested the board to research the unique mission of our church in light of the personal needs represented in the congregation, the needs of the community which our church could and should do something about, and how our church could and should support the mission of our denomination. The end result was the preparation of a statement of mission which was presented to the congregation for discussion and adoption.
The mission statement was then given to each program committee in the church with the request they respond to the following questions aimed at clarifying the unique purpose of the particular min(coulti11ued OJ1 page 99) ministry program for which they had responsibility:
1. What is the unique purpose of our committee? What are we called to be and do that is distinct and different from all other committees in the church?
2. What important aspects of the church’s program will be left undone if we do not do them?
3. How does our purpose support the congregation’s mission statement?
4. Specifically, what skills, knowledge, and attitudes do we have or must we develop in order to fulfill our purpose as we have described it?
The material generated by each of the program committees was presented to the board. It reviewed the material from the perspective of the following questions:
1. Are there gaps in our total ministry? Are important areas or activities not being covered by any program committee?
2. Are there overlaps? Is there any ministry area or activity which should be covered by more than one committee?
3. What adjustments are necessary in any of these purpose statements to close a gap, reduce an overlap, and assure that if every committee accomplishes its purpose, the congregation’s mission will be satisfactorily fulfilled?
4. What additional skills, knowledge, and attitudes do we suggest implementing for any particular program?
This process took about five months to complete. The final results were reported to the congregation and to the program committees with the request that they begin to formulate specific plans to accomplish their purpose.
Now I was to learn that there are traditions and policies in a local church that stand ready to challenge any effort to develop accountability on the part of its workers.
There were seven months remaining before the annual congregational meeting which would elect new officers and workers. I called a meeting of the nominations and personnel committee. The first question raised was, “Why are we meeting so far ahead of time?” This led into an interesting discussion in which I learned some of the “traditions” and “policies” of this church.
1. The nominating committee “traditionally” met only twice a year. Both meetings were held during the month preceding the annual meeting.
2. Generally four or five inactive members were nominated to leadership positions as a means of inducing them to begin attending church.
3. Persons to be nominated were not contacted prior to the annual meeting to discover
whether they had sufficient time or interest to do the job well.
4. The nominations were kept secret until the annual meeting, at which time nominations were allowed from the floor. Two or three “nominees” would usually withdraw their names. Generally, however, elections would be made according to the slate prepared by the nominating committee.
I explained that the reason for calling an early meeting was because the committee’s work was so important that it could not be done in a couple of meetings. I described their suggested work as follows:
I. Prepare a description of each leadership position in the church.
A. Define the purpose of the program for which leadership will be offered. (Most of this was done in the earlier work of the program committees and the board.)
B. List the tasks and responsibilities the person is to fulfill.
C. Outline the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes.
D. Estimate realistically the time that will be required to do the task well.
E. Suggest ways that training could be provided if the person being recruited does not possess the necessary skills and knowledge.
This information was prepared as a “Ministry Covenant” which included a place for the signature of the person who would finally accept the task, and the signature of the board’s chairperson.
II. Conduct a leadership study of the entire church in terms of positions held, quality of performance, skills, and knowledge. Also list work areas of possible interest for future service.
III. Recruit a qualified person to fill each position. Ask:
A. Does this person have the ability to do the job well?
B. Does this person have sufficient time to give to the job?
C. Does this person have sufficient interest in the job?
IV. Visit, at least two times, the person to be recruited. The first visit is to review the job description and ascertain a possible interest. The second visit is to obtain a response for filling the position. Training should be discussed during both visits.
V. Present to the annual meeting only those names of persons who have indicated a willingness to serve and who have signed a ministry covenant.
 By signing the ministry covenant, the person recruited agrees to fulfill the expectations of the task. The signature of the board’s chairperson pledges the church to provide the necessary resources and training to do the job well and with a sense of personal satisfaction.
The committee worked long and hard to have their task completed two weeks before the annual meeting. The slate of nominees was distributed to the entire congregation with a full description of the process which the committee had followed. The election process at the annual meeting proved to be pro forma. The following Sunday morning we commissioned all the workers and presented each one with a framed copy of their Ministry Covenant.
The work of the nominations and personnel committee was not finished with the commissioning service. They immediately went to work on implementing the training of those who had agreed to serve. The committee also developed a performance review procedure to periodically discuss the following with the workers:
1. Whether the program was accomplishing its purpose.
2. Whether the worker was keeping his or her ministry covenant.
3. Whether additional resources and/or training were needed to do the task well.
An interesting situation developed while the nominations and personnel committee was conducting the- leadership study. It became apparent that the person holding the position of lay delegate to the denomination’s annual business session had been elected to that position for the past five years, but had not attended a single session. We agreed this person would be nominated again only if she signed the ministry covenant. During the committee’s first and second visits she said she definitely wanted the job and expected to be nominated; but “because no one can predict the future” she would not sign the covenant. The committee still voiced strong opinion that she should be nominated. After much discussion I learned a bit more about some “traditions” in this church.
Over the years this woman had always indicated which job she wanted and was given it even though no one could remember a time when she had performed the task. Some previous nominating committees had attempted to correct the situation by not nominating her. However, each time her husband had entered her name at the annual meeting along with personal threats against the pastor, and a threat to leave the church if she were not elected. Every time, the congregation had elected her over the names suggested by the committee. After much discussion the committee decided it could not in good conscience nominate her.
Her name did not appear on the slate of nominees which was distributed to the congregation two weeks before the annual meeting. True to form, her husband visited me. Threats were made. He also visited members of the committee to tell them of the threats. There was another committee meeting and a reaffirmation of its decision to nominate no one who had not signed a ministry covenant.
At the annual meeting her husband entered her name in nomination for the position. The committee chairperson then reminded the congregation of the process it had followed saying, “This person has been visited, but has declined to sign the ministry covenant.” She received two votes.
Her husband demanded a meeting with the board and the denomination’s district superintendent. We agreed, and declared the meeting open to all who wished to attend. One week later the auditorium was filled for the meeting!
The district superintendent asked why the meeting had been called. The husband gave his version of the election and said the pastor was “trying to run the whole show,” and demanded that the district superintendent appoint me to another church. There was instant bedlam, with members standing throughout the auditorium shouting for the floor. After the district superintendent gained control of the meeting, we heard members, one by one, affirm the process the nominating committee had used. The district superintendent asked whether anyone cared to speak in opposition to the process or the results of the election. There was not one dissenting statement. We, as a nominating committee and pastor, had faced a powerful challenge. Members of the congregation had sufficiently trusted the process to loan us the necessary power to survive the challenge. By the time the meeting was over, I knew we had succeeded in establishing new norms of accountability, even in a church where direct-line accountability structures were not possible. By the way, the couple did not leave the church, and in the following years both became active, faithful workers.
Copyright © 1980 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
