Concerning Executives of the Church

Many parish ministers seem to have ill will toward the full-time clerical leaders of the churches, that is, to men in various executive positions. This writer respects church leaders—full-time secretaries of church boards, presidents, bishops, editors, seminary professors, superintendents, and so on. All these executives are under constant criticism. Criticism is frequently merciless. This is no doubt because the ministry is a profession that, perhaps above all others, is individualistic; each man thinks that he and his opinion are in a special class almost sacred—because he is working for Christ.

My contacts are largely limited to my own denomination through various connections with committees, serving as a delegate to area, state, and national conventions, through personal acquaintance with many executives, and some contacts with other denominations through local councils of churches.

Too often there is no appreciation of what executives are doing. There is instead a strong tendency to blame them, even for the things over which they have no control, or for wrongs that have existed for years and which no one person can possibly correct.

It is a common saying among ministers that if a man aspires to an executive position in the church he must be beside himself. To be sure, in the church the office should seek out the man rather than the man of ambition seek out the office. The church ideal is service.

Church executives are mostly in a class by themselves, because theirs is a lonesome existence. In trying to get along acceptably with a large number of churches and ministers, they unwittingly become aloof.

Remember that these leaders are men, and that they were men even before they became executives. They have, therefore, all the weaknesses of human beings—they are sinful, make mistakes, are not omniscient nor omnipresent.

Executives must face tremendous jealousy all along the line—from those near the top who might have been selected for the same position to clergy who hold humble positions—not to mention the laity, “leading” and otherwise. Then there is jealousy issuing from fellow-executives, that is, men in equal positions or similar positions on other boards, and so forth.

Awareness of criticism and jeolousy among the clergy came as something of a shock to me, because I have always had a certain measure of diffidence and respect toward those in authority and honor, and was inclined to place such men upon a pedestal. With the passing of years, however, I have come to the realization that criticism and jealousy are basic to human nature, and also that clergymen are quite human.

From the standpoint of these executives, many things need to be said. Most executives (perhaps there are a few exceptions) have left behind them large, prominent, well-established churches where they were receiving good or at least better than average salaries. They reached those large churches in most cases through hard work, based on an adequate training over a period of years. Of course, some came to their positions through influence, but the number of such instances is not large. Moreover, even when influence does get a man a particular call, he does not hold it long if he cannot fulfill the duties required.

To be sure, the executive is likely to receive a higher salary than he would in his parish church, or at least higher than the average for active pastors. But men in such positions have high expenses. It is the common experience of anyone that the more he gets the more he spends. That has been my own experience with the passing years. My salary is much more than it was in the depression, but we are no better off in the long run.

Many of the men in executive positions left the pastorate reluctantly. They knew fully what they were leaving, but they knew also what they were entering. At least in the pastorate, with all its difficulties, there is still the intimate contact with people. There is the Christian joy of preaching God’s Word to them, of ministering eternal truths to them in home and hospital, and in the crises of life. One misses these things in executive work, for many contacts are superficial.

Executives, of course, do get a certain amount of publicity, often on a national scale, but publicity does not mean too much, as the newest fledgling among pastors can testify. In a year or two every pastor has had enough publicity to tickle his vanity, and he knows how little it advances the kingdom of God, and that it does not necessarily indicate that one is making progress in serving Jesus Christ.

One great problem of executives is obtaining cooperation. Committees that fail to function; assigned tasks and duties that are not fulfilled; letters which attract no answers, or are answered inadequately or too late; vital questionnaires that are ignored—these are the result of noncooperation. Yet those failing to cooperate are often the ones who complain the most.

TOP LEVEL ENGAGEMENTS

Leaders have many engagements and they must keep fresh for each one. They can never give their constituents the idea that they are not fully alert. None can acknowledge that he is tired. Many executives must travel a good deal. This may be interesting for pleasure, but it becomes monotonous after awhile. Results are that one gets insufficient and improper rest, misses a full home life (for which even the Protestant parsonage is notorious), and the constant change in food and water is not conducive to good health.

In conversation with one of the best-known church executives of our times, he once related, without particular concern, his various engagements. He traveled by air, car, and train, back and forth constantly in the United States and Canada, and often making appointments by small margins.

Here are two letters, dated two years apart, in which this same denominational leader refuses in a tactful manner to speak at a week-end retreat for men:

• Enthusiasm and persistence like yours ought to win the day. My own conviction that laymen’s retreats are a constructive, good influence is strongly in your favor too. In view of both factors, I hardly have the heart to say no.

However, as I wrote to another minister when he sent me the first invitation to next fall’s retreat last month, I am finally taking the good advice of my friends and trying to reduce my appointment schedule to manageable size. Everybody agrees that I ought to do so, of course. The only place where every single one of my friends demurs is about his own request! His isn’t the one that makes the overload, he’s quite sure. The worst part is that I half agree that he’s right. The only trouble is that the end of it would mean the end of me too.

Your words have a seductive sound when you picture the whole affair as delightful relaxation but, honestly, the climbing on a train, then chugging to the lake, and finally giving perhaps three addresses in a day and a half isn’t a perfect vacation. I am sorry to confess it but if I ever did have a day and a half for loafing, my first choice would be at the home I seldom see.

Please do assure all your colleagues that it would be an honest joy to be with you and that I am reluctant to disappoint such good friends.

• Even the Unjust Judge gave in finally. It is a little disgraceful for an alleged Christian to be even stubborner than he was, isn’t it? I hope that the Lord and you will keep on thinking kindly of me even though I am just unable to accept your invitation for September.

I do not feel yet that I am coming to the end of my rope as I look over my appointment schedule but I do feel the rope tightening around my neck. I just cannot increase my load early next fall without tempting Providence.

I regret that I ever have to decline any service at all that I am asked to give anywhere in the Kingdom. Believe me, I never do so except in an effort to be a wise steward of the energy which the Lord has given me.

Please don’t think too harshly of me. I know you won’t. You are too understanding a friend for that.

It is difficult to know just how strong to make this thesis. It may even be overstated. It is hoped that no one will get the idea that this is a blanket endorsement of everything church executives do. Every minister knows of actions of these men that have been wrong.

It may be acknowledged that there is a certain small percentage of “swivel-chair” executives. Any man who may be selected for an executive position in the church can find plenty to do, and can give the appearance of being extremely busy by way of sending out circular letters, attending committee meetings and conferences, filling speaking engagements, and writing articles and books. The very volume of mail being sent out by an executive can be a means of perpetuating a bureaucratic official in his position. Program and promotion become more important than the Church and Jesus Christ. It is easy to give the impression that one is really busy by employing clerks who in turn help to cultivate the idea that their “boss” is doing an indispensable work. Furthermore, it is easy to find various types of work which ought to be done in the fields of promotion, administration, welfare, education, and missions, all requiring a leader to organize and publicize the work. More activity on the part of an executive may not indicate that he is fulfilling a necessary position.

Even though the executive may repeatedly state that he is above all else a “servant” of Christ and His Church, in the final analysis one feels that some executives have the idea that ministers and their congregations exist in order to give the executive an opportunity not merely to work but to exercise dominion, even as a few pastors give this impression in their relationship to their congregations and members.

But church executives have a large assignment on their hands. Without question, the majority of them are carrying out their duties in a highly conscientious manner. On the part of their constituents, they ought to be obtaining a greater degree of cooperation, and to express appreciation to them more frequently.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.