What's Behind Your Decisions? - Christianity Today

On this second Tuesday evening in June, the big agenda item before the governing board at Trinity Church is the proposed schedule for the coming program year (August 1 through July 31). The first date to raise any questions is December 24.

“I see the proposed schedule calls for three Christmas Eve services. Is that the same as this past December?” questions one board member.

“Yes, it is,” replies the pastor. “This is identical with last year’s three services at five, seven, and nine on Christmas Eve.”

That answer appears to satisfy everyone except Sandy Evans, who asks, “Why don’t we add a fourth service to reach some of the people we missed last year? Maybe we could have two concurrent services at seven, or perhaps we should add an eleven o’clock service?”

This glimpse into one board meeting raises a question about the reference points used in decision making. It is important to understand what criteria board members use to make decisions.

THE POWER OF THE PAST

The most obvious and frequently the most influential reference point is precedent. What did we do last year? Did anyone complain about that? If not, the past can legitimize the future.

For example, the pastor may explain to the board, “I plan to take two weeks of vacation in early January and the other two weeks in August.” When a new board member questions that, the pastor replies, “That’s the schedule I’ve followed every year since I came here seven years ago.” Everyone appears satisfied.

In many communities someone should ask, “My impression is that July, August, and early September are the peak church-shopping months for newcomers to this community. Do you think it is wise for our minister to be out of the pulpit for two Sundays when our number-one goal is to grow? Would it be possible to move those two weeks in the summer to June?”

The usual answer is, “No, the number-one criterion in scheduling vacations is the convenience of the staff; number two is local tradition.”

A parallel example of the power of the past can be seen in the aging congregation that has decided to focus on reaching younger generations. In March the pastor explains to the governing board, “As you all know, I plan to be on vacation the last half of June and the first half of July. Do you have any suggestions on who should fill the pulpit the four Sundays I will be gone?”

“Why don’t we ask Dr. Harrison?” urges one. “He was our pastor from 1967 to 1975. He retired two years ago, and he and his wife live only forty miles from here.”

“That’s a great idea!” agrees the oldest member on the board. “A lot of us old-timers would be glad to see him again, and I’ll bet he and his wife would be delighted to come back. Maybe we should ask him to preach on two Sundays?”

“I’ll support that,” declares another member, “and maybe we could ask Reverend Olson, who followed Dr. Harrison. I’m sure he would enjoy returning.”

Within five minutes it is agreed to ask three retired ministers to share those four Sundays. No one asks whether that emphasis on yesteryear will create a favorable impression on first-time visitors born after 1960.

THE REALITY OF REAL ESTATE

Consider a second example of how different criteria affect a board’s decisions.

“When I came three years ago as your new pastor, we were averaging about 85 in worship,” reflected the 34-year-old pastor of Central Church. “For the past nine Sundays in September and October, we averaged 163, almost double three years ago. I am convinced the time has come to add a second service to the Sunday morning schedule. I believe if we revised the schedule to offer worship at 8:30, Sunday school at 9:30, and worship at 10:45, we could be averaging well over 200 a year from now.”

“I admire your enthusiasm and your optimism,” began a veteran leader, “but that would take us back to where we were before you came. This building was designed to seat nearly five hundred, including the choir. When we had fewer than a hundred, we rattled around in here like peas in a bushel basket, and the congregational singing was almost inaudible. We’ve finally got decent-sized crowds now. I don’t think we should go to two services until we’re forced to. When we get up to about 400 in church, that will be the time to talk about adding a second service.”

“Before we make a hasty decision,” cautioned another board member, “I think we should talk about the people we might reach if we added an early service to the schedule.”

“My hope would be to broaden our appeal,” explained the pastor. “We could build one service around the pipe organ and traditional church music and the other around contemporary Christian music with an instrumental group.”

Which should control this decision on schedule? The plans of the building committee of 1923 who designed this building? Or a desire to reach a more varied constituency?

THE MANDATE OF MONEY

“After talking with five different fundraising organizations and calling two dozen pastors from reference lists,” the committee chair said, “we recommend hiring the Smith & Brown firm to help us raise $800,000 for our building fund.”

“I have only one question,” interrupted Harold Jackson. “What proportion of the churches they have worked with have met or exceeded their goal? We need someone who can help us meet our goal!”

“I have two different questions,” asked Tracy Green. “First, which firm does the best job of enhancing the spiritual life of the congregation? Second, which one leaves the most satisfied group of parishioners behind when the campaign is over, and which one creates a bunch of people who feel they have been pressured?”

What are the criteria to use in selecting a fundraising agency? Its effectiveness in meeting financial goals? Or the atmosphere the agency creates?

TWO SETS OF QUESTIONS

These examples show how the questions asked by board members can influence the decision-making process.

The point can be further illustrated by two sets of questions that may be criteria for board members.

SET A

1. What did we do last year?

2. What will our older members think?

3. Is that consistent with our local traditions?

4. Is that compatible with the design of our building?

5. What does our pastor prefer?

6. Can we get a majority of our members to support this?

7. Will that be asking too much of our people?

8. How much will that cost?

9. We tried that in the church I was in before moving here, and it didn’t work there, so what makes you think it will work here?

10. Will that place too much of a burden on our pastor?

11. Can we secure the necessary approval from our denominational headquarters to do that?

12. Will that require adding another staff person to the payroll?

SET B

1. How will that improve the quality of our ministry?

2. How will that expand our capability to reach younger generations of people?

3. How would a first-time visitor respond to this?

4. How will that enrich the spiritual journeys of our members?

5. How will that strengthen our ministry with single-parent families?

6. How will that enhance our teaching ministries?

7. Will that really challenge the commitment level of our people?

8. Are you suggesting we try to do yesterday over again, only better?

9. Which change should we introduce first and which one should come later?

10. How will the leaders here in the year 2020 evaluate our response to this issue?

11. How will that enrich our ministries to families with young children?

12. How will this glorify God?

WHO CHOOSES THE CRITERIA?

Who decides on the criteria that will guide the decision-making process?

In smaller congregations the answer often is a mix of (a) local traditions and precedents, (b) respected and influential veteran leaders, (c) the real estate, and (d) comparative dollar costs.

In larger congregations the criteria frequently originate in (a) the senior minister and/or program staff, or (b) books, workshops, and visiting experts.

In middle-sized congregations the criteria are more likely to be articulated by the pastor and/or board members.

Regardless of how your criteria are chosen, it is important to answer these questions:

Which criteria are used by our board? Which criteria would improve the governance system in our congregation?

*************************

Lyle E. Schaller is parish consultant for the Yokefellow Institute and lives in Naperville, Illinois.