The following account of a true-life political crisis in a church was prepared by the Harvard Business School for classroom discussion. LEADERSHIP sent copies to six pastors in five different states and invited them to kibitz-to look over the shoulder of Walnut Avenue Church and suggest where to go from here.
After reading the six responses, think what your advice would be. While no outsider can feel the full emotion and pressure of this or any political struggle, it is useful to learn from the difficulties other churches have faced and thus be better prepared.
(Several hundred case studies have been written in the areas of theology, church management, ethics, clergy and laity, counseling, and dealing with change. Most are available through the Association of Theological Schools, P.O. Box 130, Vandalia, OH 45377, which publishes a directory called Cases in Theological Education. “Walnut Avenue Church,” however, is distributed by HBS Case Services, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 02163.)
Walnut Avenue Church (names and places have been disguised) was congregational in polity and tradition and located in the downtown section of a middle-sized industrial city on the outskirts of Philadelphia. The church, dating back to colonial times, had a membership of 900 of whom approximately 400 were active members. As is typical of most churches in this sociological situation, its membership had gradually been declining over the past several decades as people moved to surrounding suburban areas. Walnut Avenue Church had remained, however, feeling it had a ministry to the city and its people and was highly regarded in church and lay circles as a responsible and dedicated institution.
The congregation was highly diverse in age and interests. About half the church family were older people, many having children who had grown and left the city. There were only a few families in the 30 to 50 age bracket with growing children. Slightly less than half the congregation were younger people, both single and married, in college and working, many of them related to the universities located nearby. The youth education program was modest in size.
Between annual meetings, the church was governed by the Prudential Committee, composed of the chairmen of standing committees, the entire Board of Deacons, the Treasurer, Secretary, two members elected at large, and the Moderator, who acted as chairman. Members of all committees including designated chairmen were placed for election by the Nominating Committee before the congregation at the annual meeting. The elections were not contested and there had rarely been a dissenting vote. Harry Tillotson, in his six years as Moderator, had confined his role to assembling the agenda and chairing meetings of the congregation and the Prudential Committee.
The Prudential Committee approved the budget before it was submitted to the congregation for final ratification. In recent years the church had had to strain to maintain its level of activities though it was fortunate to have a small endowment to ease the impact of fluctuations in pledging. The fund-raising and investment management functions were handled by the Finance and Property Committee, which also had responsibility for the church building. Over time this committee had come to view itself as responsible for the “secular affairs” of the church-those matters involving money and physical assets.
During the past several years, the Mission and Community Committee had expanded its activities beyond making contributions to traditional charitable and denominational agencies and participated in social action programs of various kinds, sometimes involving modest expenditures of funds. On one occasion the committee asked for and received approval from a special meeting of the congregation of a resolution expressing support and concern for the Black community during disturbances in a nearby ghetto area. The resolution was sent to the mayor and referred to in the press. The committee, and especially its chairman, had subsequently drawn strong criticism from some in the parish who felt the use of the resolution to be “quasi-political” and hence inappropriate.
The Church Steeple
On a Friday night in September lightning struck the steeple igniting a fire which caused severe structural damage.
The following morning the Finance and Property Committee met in emergency session. They concluded that an architect should be engaged immediately to ascertain the extent of the damage and the probable cost of repairs. Three days later the architect reported that emergency measures were necessary to ensure that the steeple would not collapse on the next windy day. He also informed the committee that these measures, costing about $1,000, were not sufficient, and that either the steeple should be taken down or completely rebuilt at a cost he thought would run about $40,000. After some discussion, the committee told the architect to proceed with the emergency work and that Fred Thornton, chairman of the committee, would contact him about further steps to be taken. After the architect left, the committee, without dissent, agreed that the steeple ought to be rebuilt and a special gift campaign should be organized to raise money to cover the cost.
At a special meeting of the Prudential Committee the following week Fred Thornton traced what had happened and presented its recommendation to rebuild the steeple. The response was immediate.
“In a time like this, with all the poverty and problems in the city, and world refugees and war and all, how can we justify this much money on a steeple which has no function even for us?” asked Danny Cranston, Chairman of the Mission and Community Committee.
“Because,” replied Fred Thornton, “if we don’t fix it, it will fall down, and if we take it down, who will know this is a church?”
An elderly gentleman, Richard Gilroy, a loyal churchman and substantial giver, then offered to contribute a neon lighted cross, to go atop the repaired steeple so that the whole neighborhood would see the church identified by this radiant symbol.
Though there were no immediate remarks expressing negative feelings about the cross, several scowls from members implied to Mr. Tillotson a twofold problem. How could one stand out against the cross without hurting Mr. Gilroy, and if his gift were refused, would it jeopardize his sizable pledge, which was almost 10% of the entire budget? However, Henrietta Gibson, a deacon, came to his support, saying, “This church is the church of my childhood, and I want the steeple to stay on. I know there are many others who feel the same way about it. The Finance and Property Committee voted unanimously to fix the steeple and if Mr. Gilroy wants to put a cross up there, we ought to go along.”
Carlotta Carlyle, another deacon, who said she had joined the church because she thought it could work to bring changes in society, was aghast at this, and literally shouted to the meeting, “The world is going to pot, and we sit here discussing spending money on a steeple. It seems to me we have our priorities turned upside down. Jesus sent the church out to minister to mankind, not to make monuments out of our buildings.”
The moderator, by now ill at ease, suggested a subsequent meeting because it was now already 11:00 P.M. Mr. Thornton indicated that he felt his committee ought to secure a detailed estimate of the cost of rebuilding. Wallace Berry, Chairman of the Music and Arts Committee, then said that since the bells were a part of the music program, his committee ought to be represented. After some discussion, this latter suggestion was put aside on the ground that the matter could best be handled by Finance and Property at this stage. Mr. Berry was encouraged, however, to secure the views of his committee before the next Prudential Committee meeting.
During the ensuing month, Reverend Anderson, who had kept his opinions on the matter to himself, preached on the virtues of compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, and brotherly love and reconciliation. He also began to visit the Messrs. Tillotson and Thornton to try to reach an accommodation that would not split the church. Mr. Thornton had urged him to pave the way for conciliation in his preaching. He had also been heard to say, “These ministers don’t know anything about money and bricks and real estate values; they ought to stick to spiritual matters.” He further implied that as a friend of Richard Gilroy, he thought that if the steeple didn’t get fixed, and the cross was refused, Gilroy might very well withdraw his membership and pledge.
By the end of October, when a second meeting of the Prudential Committee was called, the Finance and Property Committee had secured estimates from three builders and after much consultation settled on one for $50,000. Although the estimates were roughly comparable in price (the others were $46,400 and $53,000), the choice was complicated by the great many factors to be considered-design, finish, etc. The recommendation was put in a motion to the Prudential Committee including the neon cross at an additional cost of $3,500.
In the following debate, Wallace Berry noted that while his committee, in a 3-2 vote (with two members absent), was in favor of retaining the steeple and the bells, he personally opposed it and was uncertain how to vote on the motion. One deacon responded by saying, “I think this whole thing is getting out of hand. Let’s let those who want to have the steeple replaced raise the money among themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.”
Another member answered, “But that is no way for a Christian community to behave-we must learn to work and worship together!”
Eventually the motion was brought to a vote. It lost 11 to 9 with Reverend Anderson abstaining. A resolution was then passed respectfully declining Mr. Gilroy’s gift but thanking him for his generosity and thoughtfulness.
Through Christmas the atmosphere was tense The Finance and Property Committee refused to do anything at all in the way of arranging for the removal of the steeple. Reverend Anderson, bearing the brunt of well-intentioned but often harsh criticism from some parishioners, began to feel isolated and alone.
Finally, in mid-January, Mr. Tillotson was informed that a meeting of the congregation was being called by a group of parishioners including several on the Finance and Property Committee to consider a motion having the effect of reversing the Prudential Committee vote. Should this motion carry, a second one was to be made requesting that the Moderator appoint a committee on governance to consider changes in the by-laws that would have the effect of involving the congregation more directly in the decision-making process in the church.
Case studies such as this never tell “what happened.” Their writers intentionally leave the facts unresolved in order to prod students into coming up with their own plans of action.
What should Pastor Anderson, Mr. Tillotson, and the others do at this point?
* * * * * * * * *
Gary Gonzalez, Bonita Valley Baptist Church, Bonita, California
Al Smith, governor of New York throughout most of the 1920s, once quipped: “A committee is a group of men who individually can do nothing but collectively can meet and decide that nothing can be done.”
Regarding leadership: It is precisely at this point that both Pastor Anderson and Chairman Tillotson have done a grave disservice to their church. Someone must function as first among equals, providing vision and perspective to the rest of the team. In their attempts to appease everyone, they have inadvertently relinquished leadership to the politically expedient Mr. Thornton, chairman of the powerful Finance and Property Committee. As with most interlopers, he is not at all reluctant to wield unauthorized authority.
Ideally, Pastor Anderson should have been leading this church to soberly evaluate its unique privileges and responsibilities. His failure to bring them to grips with their environment from a biblical standpoint has resulted in radically divergent views on the nature and mission of the local church.
Regarding attitude: Malcolm Cronk once said, “With the right spirit, a clumsy church structure will work. Without the right spirit, an ideal structure won’t work.”
Walnut Avenue Church does not need a change of organizational structure. It needs an overhaul of some basic attitudes. In most of my pastoral experience, the constitution has become a bone of contention only when seen as a tool for reversing what a dissatisfied group or individual finds to be an unsavory decision.
In this case, the prime movers and shakers behind the proposal to amend the by-laws are the discontented members of the Finance and Property Committee, whose original recommendation was defeated. Based on the constitution, Finance and Property is in no way justified in refusing to remove the damaged steeple. Their acrimonious actions now sow seeds of discontent among the congregation at large.
However, in their defense, the narrow margin of the final vote should have raised some red flags in the minds of Chairman Tillotson and Pastor Anderson. The emotional fallout of mid-January was easily predictable.
Regarding mission: Walnut Avenue Church’s predicament is not so much the result of inept handling of the immediate situation as it is “vision fatigue.” The longer a church exists, the more vulnerable it is to this archenemy.
The steeple incident, although traumatic, might well be labeled what insurance policies refer to as “an act of God.” It has brought basic values, commitments, and questions in sharper focus.
Suggestions
One thing this church needs is a forum for members to express their views. When channels of intra-church communication are open and operating, they are rarely used-but rest assured, the minute a crisis hits, everyone will clamor to be heard.
I would not, however, drop the matter in the congregation’s lap at this point-my Baptist allegiances notwithstanding. Congregations tend to be reactive rather than proactive when faced with a crisis. Management experts assert that “the larger the decision-making body, the lower the quality of the decision reached.”
This church has every right to expect its leaders to do careful investigative homework first and then present two or three best, and most biblical, options for a vote.
Chairman Tillotson should seize this strategic opportunity to reacquaint his congregation with its original mandate: to minister to the social and spiritual needs of people.
He must, of course, take pains to avoid adopting any concrete course of action that would appear to side with either group. This church is on the brink of a major blow-up. He might try to sell the Prudential Committee and congregation on the need to bring in consultants from the outside to help more accurately assess current needs and assist in establishing a more feasible philosophy of ministry. This church needs to re-establish the fact that the bottom line for both points of view is really the same: “How can we best reach our community for Christ?”
Arthur A. Rouner, Jr., The Colonial Church of Edina, (UCC/Congregational), Minneapolis, Minnesota
Walnut Avenue Church is an older congregation living in a church building of historic significance. The steeple was a graceful reminder of the presence of the living God in the community. Hence, the Property Committee seems to have made a wise original decision to try to preserve the physical witness.
While the Mission Committee’s desire to give to human needs is laudable, it is not clear that they are proposing to raise $50,000 for human justice and service programs. They are reacting negatively rather than initiating.
The Prudential Committee, which includes all the conflicting interests of steeples, bells, neon crosses, and mission services, has the opportunity and obligation to work out a solution. But it has failed to engage the gifts and abilities of the Rev. Anderson, who, as pastor to the flock, would have been key in offering a new vision and challenge. He, with the support of the committee, might have led the congregation toward a larger, challenging, and potentially unifying goal.
The Prudential Committee and the pastor would have done well to call a church meeting at an earlier, more positive stage, before being coerced in January almost as a protest.
Wallace Berry could well have voted for the bells and steeple with his committee and then worked with other Prudential Committee members toward the larger solution. His uncertainty only further accented the inability of the church’s leadership to rouse itself and galvanize the congregation to useful action.
Since the Property Committee was not specifically instructed to remove the steeple, it probably was justified in leaving the steeple up in hopes of a compromise.
Suggestions
The by-laws do not need to be changed. Most systems can be “worked” if the leaders, lay and clerical, are committed in faith to working together and for the common task of serving Christ in the community.
As the moderator, Harry Tillotson has a responsibility to the whole congregation and to all its interests-including a responsibility to the church’s minister, who has been largely ignored and even demeaned. Rather than asking the Rev. Anderson to preach calm and conciliation, Thornton and Tillotson would have done better to consult their pastor and create a strategy together for working toward exciting goals for the congregation that include both needs.
Conceivably, a 900-member church could take a bold initiative to raise $100,000, fulfilling both purposes. This congregation still has a chance to move in that direction. It would be a revitalizing challenge to all. It could serve to heal the present wounds, uniting people in a new task that would be exciting and of double use to the broad community.
The Mission Committee attitude that rebuilding a steeple is immoral in the face of human needs assumes the congregation’s giving capacity is limited. Their thinking is small. At least the Property Committee dares to believe a $50,000 challenge for the steeple could be met. Once leaders recognize the real possibilities of a 900-member congregation, Mr. Gilroy and the threat of his leaving can become of much less concern. If he has been giving 10 percent of the budget, he is probably committed enough to stay even if he doesn’t get his neon cross.
I hope Harry Tillotson will be brave and work to unite the congregation around a $100,000 drive for missions and the steeple.
Cal LeMon, Evangel Temple Christian Center (Assembly of God), Springfield, Missouri
The initial steps taken by the Finance and Property Committee responded well to the crisis, but the ensuing bureaucracy failed to accommodate the larger issue-congregational direction. The loss of the steeple represented more than missing architecture. This ecclesiastical burnt sacrifice smoldered with the flames of dissension over the reasons for the church’s existence.
It is my opinion that the Prudential Committee should have anticipated the schism between mission and tradition. Both sides should have creatively worked at compromise and brought a joint proposal to the congregation for discussion and prayer. Only a congregational decision will resolve this issue.
Unfortunately, emotion will preside at the mid-January business meeting, not reason. The stage is set for a church split. With almost 50 percent “younger people, both single and married, in college and working, many of them related to the universities located nearby,” idealism will reign. The response of the older constituency that has paid its dues will be condescension and alienation. We have a classic confrontation between “pioneers” and “homesteaders.” In my opinion, there may be no home on the range for either party.
Suggestions
This spiritual showdown can be averted by some fast Prudential Committee action.
Harry Tillotson, the moderator, can become a facilitator of compromise. His first step is to call a meeting of the committee and openly discuss what polarization is doing to the total health and future of the church. If the other twenty members share his concerns, a smaller negotiating committee (with equal representation from the pro- and anti-steeple sides) should meet to work out a compromise proposal the Prudential Committee can unanimously recommend to the congregation. Harry must maintain his personal neutrality while serving as the moderator of this select committee.
Some compromise solutions may be:
1. Add a $50,000 community center to the church to serve as a food and clothing bank, soup kitchen, and community room. Mr. Gilroy’s gift of a cross could be placed on the front of this addition.
2. Remove the present steeple and erect a small bell tower. Gifts for this addition to the church could come from people who see the need for the ecclesiastical identity of a steeple. At the same time, an all-church fund-raising appeal could be made for a specific missions outreach.
3. Tear down the steeple and use the damaged steel to form an artistic cross on the lawn or front wall of the existing building.
It may be necessary for Harry to ask those who requested the congregational meeting for a delay until a compromise proposal can be written.
Since, in my opinion, the theological stakes are high on what eventually happens to the steeple, Pastor Anderson must have a prophetic voice in the deliberations of the negotiating committee. It is obvious that he is already being dragged into the meat grinder of this bureaucracy and will be left (if he hasn’t left) with ground church chuck. If he can elevate the process, he will be more able to offer ministry afterward.
I am not convinced that amendments to the by-laws will enhance congregational involvement. The composition of the Prudential Committee and the flow chart of standing committees provides all the opportunity to be heard any flag-waving member needs.
What the entire church may have to admit is that “secular affairs” always have spiritual implications for the body of Christ. How the church responds to salvation, salaries, or steeples has everything to do with our corporate understanding of discipleship.
Chilton Knudsen, The Episcopal Church of St. Benedict, Bolingbrook, Illinois
Let us highlight several significant facets of this case.
Rev. Anderson appears to lack authority as a spiritual leader. He preaches what Mr. Thornton wants him to preach, i.e., acceptance, forgiveness, conciliation. These are gospel virtues, to be sure, but one wonders if the congregation does not suspect him of being someone else’s mouthpiece. His silence on the matter at hand must provoke the curiosity of many.
The moderator has served too long in too weak a capacity. He may not be perceived as a widely accessible person. The polarity of the congregation forces us to ask: Does the “new” group feel itself to be a part of things? Is representation on committees balanced? In fact, how is committee membership determined? As Richard Gilroy reminds us, there is always the question of to whom the church belongs-the large contributor, all contributors, or the world at large? An articulate mission statement might have given clarity to issues of purpose and direction.
In Rev. Anderson’s efforts to comply by preaching brotherly love and reconciliation, has he missed an opportunity to address the reality of conflict and ambiguity? These are part of the “doctrine of man” which, if well preached, enables listeners to find themselves within the dynamics of this particular Christian community. In my view, preaching is always to be an honest probing of the human situation in light of the gospel. To be fallen humans means to be in conflict, torn between ideals and reality. Jesus the Christ came to the world to speak to just such dilemmas. This is fruitful material for some honest theological wrestling in the pulpit.
Suggestions
To this point, there has not been a congregational meeting on the issue of the steeple. Such a meeting, called promptly after the emergency, might have provided a forum for the expression of ideas and feelings and could have reminded the congregation of its access to persons and committees who would figure prominently in the decision. Such a meeting should be held now, and should be used as a healing time.
At this point, Mr. Tillotson and all of the board (and the pastor) have an opportunity to respond constructively to a crisis. This shows the Christian belief that life is resurgent in the midst of death. Now is the time to reconsider the governance of the church. Now is the time for the church and pastor to proclaim the movement from what has been to what can be. The opportunity for renewal depends upon renewing the Lordship of Christ through healing, preaching, and thoughtful restructuring.
Grayson Atha, Lebanon Church (United Methodist), Lebanon, Ohio
To this point, the situation has been a Tower of Babel where everyone speaks his own language and no one interprets what is said.
But the fire was a blessing. It can be the much needed rallying point for this rather lukewarm congregation.
Suggestions
1. Announce a congregational meeting within four weeks to decide “Shall we rebuild the tower or tear it down?” Explain that the Prudential Committee has struggled with this, and it is a matter important enough for the whole congregation to take responsibility for the decision.
2. Gather information. Place a box in the church for questions and concerns. Encourage people to write out their thoughts. The input could also be collected via the offering plate, the church office, or on newsprint outside the church office.
Then help a group put together all the questions and concerns along with responses. Get others to help brainstorm questions that might not have been asked, and provide responses to these as well. For example:
Comment: In a world of such need, I can’t see spending $50,000 for a tower.
Response: $50,000 is a lot of money. It is going to be spent for something.
Do you feel if we do not rebuild the tower, it will be available for the needy world? Is there a possibility that in rebuilding the tower we can bring together the congregation? Already the tower has caused us to talk about the real mission of the church.
Keep in mind also that if we do not spend the $50,000 to rebuild the tower, we will be spending several thousand dollars to tear it down and repair the roof. The estimate for this is $8,000, which really must be subtracted from the $50,000 cost to repair it.
Make the pages of questions, comments, and responses available to every member prior to the congregational meeting.
3. Survey the neighborhood to see how many people identify with the tower. Make a written report of these conversations.
4. Hold the congregational meeting, and deal with just one issue: the steeple.
If 100 people show up, the other 800 have decided to let the others make the decision.
The moderator needs to say to those present, “This is an important issue, so important that we must listen to all viewpoints. Everyone will have a chance to speak, because I’m going to go around the group and point to each individual, who can either respond or pass.”
This method does two things. It prevents anyone from leaving the meeting and saying he or she had no opportunity to express thoughts. It also mixes up the comments, negative and positive.
At the end of the comments, take the vote. My guess is there will be a big majority on one side or the other.
(I have used this method twice on explosive issues-the purchase of a new parsonage, and the resettlement of a refugee family. In both cases the result was an 85 percent favorable vote-and everyone had a chance to be heard.)
What about the cross? I would go to Mr. Gilroy and tell him the cross is an excellent idea. In fact, I would invite him to an evening tour of churches in the city having crosses.
Prior to our going, I would drive around at night and find two or three neon signs in ill repair-partly broken or blinking erratically. We would happen to drive by these signs as we looked at metal crosses lighted by floodlights and easily accessible to the church custodian.
Through some phone calls, I would also have found out that simply to get to the top of a steeple to repair a neon cross would cost $175 per visit.
I would let Mr. Gilroy know of my appreciation for his contribution to the church over the years and that I have often thought about what it would mean if more people had the willingness to contribute as he did. Was there a time in his life when he got started with this? What was the turning point? And would the cross be something we could encourage as many people as possible to participate in? Might it have the potential of increasing the number of people who find their identity with the church? Hopefully I could persuade him toward a broadened underwriting of a durable, low-maintenance cross for the church.
Jonathan L. Larson, North Isanti Baptist Church, Cambridge, Minnesota
This issue presents Walnut Avenue Church with the opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to be one congregation. The older, traditional, moneyed segment and the younger, open, idealistic group need each other if Walnut Avenue is to survive. The young need the old for their stability and resources. The old need the young for their energy and vision.
However, each group must accept that its primary responsibility is not to change the other.
The task of Moderator Tillotson and Pastor Anderson is to help develop a consensus by encouraging rival segments to understand each other. Procedurally, their task is not merely to set agendas but to develop more options. Unanimity may not occur in congregational government, but badly split votes (like 11-9) often indicate that new approaches and more thought and prayer are needed. My experience has been that close votes by boards or church bodies do not really settle issues. There must be a sense of resolution that goes beyond parliamentary propriety.
Suggestions
An option must be found that allows the church to say, “We’re for steeples,” without having to say, “We’re against social action.” The Finance and Property Committee, or a special Steeple Subcommittee, could be authorized by the Prudential Committee (or congregation) to raise special funds for a new steeple, since likely there is money at Walnut Avenue that would be released for a steeple but not for the budget. Danny Cranston will not help Richard Gilroy see the need for ghetto ministries by blocking his desire to give toward a steeple project. Compassionate people are more important than beautiful buildings, but a well-maintained building can be a positive witness in a community also.
Of course, understanding must go two ways. If those who like steeples make no attempt to support new ministries in the community, then Walnut Avenue’s days are probably numbered.
(The steeple controversy at Walnut Avenue may become more than theoretical for me. Part of our church building is old, including the steeple, which is deteriorating year by year. I must use my influence to help rival segments to learn from- not teach-each other. I must look for ways members with opposing views can stay in the congregation without compromising their integrity.)
Copyright © 1983 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
