In my previous post “When the going gets tough”, I mentioned how difficult it can be to follow the path of obedience when the direction of our church is contrary to our personal preferences. Even when we know the position our church has taken is right, our personal preferences don’t just simply disappear.
For me, the role of women in ministry is one of those circumstances where my personal preference conflicts with the position of the AGC church. This past Sunday, our Pastor spoke about this issue as we continued our series of messages reflecting on the Biblical foundation upon which our constitution has been drafted. The message made me uncomfortable, which I suppose is actually a good thing. I felt uncomfortable because the Biblical argument presented was sound, but it conflicted with my own sense of what is right and wrong. The purpose of this post is not to re-hash the message Pastor Glenn presented – if anyone wants to discuss this issue in greater detail, please contact Glenn, Joel, or me – what I want to do is share with you how I’m dealing with this conflict.
The origin of my conflict starts in my childhood. My mother was the spiritual head of our family. She assumed this role because my father did not. My mother made sure we attended church and Sunday school, taught us how to pray, and as we grew older, she engaged us in conversations about our faith life. Like Timothy, my mother played a key role in my decision to follow Christ. I grew up with a view that women could be as good as or even better than men at providing spiritual direction.
Up until 2003, our family attended the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), which is a denomination that is no stranger to the women in ministry debate. It has often been a divisive issue resulting in several churches splitting or leaving the denomination. Before switching to the AGC, I served alongside of female elders and attended many services where the Pastor was female. This felt completely natural to me. As with most churches, finding people to serve in leadership positions was always a challenge so opening up the role of elders to women basically doubled the pool of resources to draw from. In both the CRC and the AGC, I have heard from many women who have been active in the mission fields, as partners with their spouses, or as individuals on their own.
In my working life, I have worked with many women who have been gifted managers and leaders. The engineering profession actively encourages young women to pursue a career as an engineer, and I know of several women who are in senior leadership roles in their companies. The whole issue of gender equality in our society is one that is often referred to when looking at hiring people or promoting people.
So my life experience tells me that women are every bit as capable as men to do anything. It would seem logical to extend this to ministry roles such as elder and Pastor. Yet, the restriction of these roles to men is not based on ability or logic. It is a directive from God. A directive that is not influenced by culture or education or overridden by new revelation. A directive that doesn’t mesh with my personal preference.
So what are my options? Fight, flight, or obey. I could try to fight this and try to get the AGC to change its position. I could leave the AGC and join a denomination that permits women to be elders and Pastors. Or I can obey and follow the leading of the AGC and our church leadership.
I chose to obey. This means I must set aside my personal preference and follow a path I don’t want to walk. It’s not easy. Simply making this decision doesn’t erase my past experiences. It doesn’t mean I can just let go of what seems to be logical to me. I can’t turn off the messages from society that say women can be whatever they want to be.
This decision means that every day, I need to pray to God that His will be done, not mine. I need His help to overcome my resistance to following His lead. Like other aspects of my life, I need the constant reminder that my natural desire is to follow my own path, but I’m called to walk a different path.
It’s not easy. I don’t like it. But it’s what I need to do.
Jac
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Monday, May 3, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Elders and the Board
In my post about quorums, I mentioned that I have found we often govern our churches by conforming to the way the world operates, rather than follow a Biblical model. I want to continue that thought as we look at the role of Elders and the Board.
In the New Testament, when the disciples would leave a town to move on to the next one, they instructed new churches to appoint Elders to be overseers (see Titus 1:5-9). In several sections of the New Testament, we can find the qualities that we should look for in an Elder. But nowhere can we find a reference to how long an Elder can serve. And yet, every church I have a belonged to has specified term lengths for Elders, typically 3 to 5 years. And each of these churches struggles to find enough people to fill those vacancies as they arise when those terms end. Where did this concept of “term length” come from? Look no further than our local government. City councils and most organizations with boards have fixed term lengths of 3 or 4 years. For municipal government, having an election every 4 years ensures the people elected to council continue to represent the people who elected them. For organizations with boards, turnover of board members is seen as a good thing so that new members can bring new and fresh ideas to the organization. But we are not a government and not a business.
When Jesus called the disciples, they continued to be disciples until they died. It was a lifetime appointment. If Elders are called to be overseers in their church, why should we impose an earthly restriction upon them such as a term length? Does something happen to them every 3 years that affects their ability to carry out their calling? I don’t think so. Once we have selected our Elders (using the criteria presented to us in the New Testament), we should allow our Elders to serve as our overseers as long as they are able, and as long as they remain true to their calling. We need to pray for them, encourage them, hold them accountable, and submit to their authority. We also need to be on the lookout for members who have the gifts that would make them good candidates for becoming Elders, and make sure we give them the mentoring and instruction needed to become Elders. At the same time, we should not expect everyone needs to “take their turn” as an Elder. I was once a member of church that had this rule in place and it led to disastrous results as inappropriate people we put into positions where they did not want to be and did not have the proper giftedness. So you will see in our new Constitution, we explicitly state that “appointment as an Elder is a life-long appointment”.
Related to the role of Elders is the creation of the church Board. As I mentioned in my quorum post, there are some things we need to have in place from a legal standpoint to be a church in our society. Designating a Board is one of these requirements. By definition, a Board has the ultimate authority over an organization and is ultimately responsible for the organization. Another way to put this is that the Board “oversees” the running of the organization. There is no reference to church boards in the Bible, but there are references to “overseers” – in these contexts they refer to the Elders. Many churches create boards (often called councils) by bringing together all the people who exercise leadership in the church. Some appoint members at large to sit as their boards (often with limited term lengths) to provide independent oversight. But what is the Biblical model? It seems pretty obvious to me. If the Board is the body that “oversees” the church, and Elders are the “overseers”, then it seems pretty logical that the Elders should be the board.
In our new Constitution, we specify that the “non-vocational” Elders will function as the Board of Directors. The Pastoral staff (hired by the church) are also Elders who must have the same qualities as the rest of Elders, and they share the oversight responsibilities with the other Elders. Since they have accepted a call to be Pastors and earn their living in this role, we refer to them as “vocational” Elders. We exclude the vocational Elders from serving as a Board member to eliminate any potential conflict of interest (real or perceived) that could arise, such as decisions related to pay and benefits or termination.
While the Elders serve as the Board of Directors, they do not make decisions in a vacuum. There is frequent communication with other ministry leaders and congregation members, through regular meetings and informal conversations. They review the feedback they receive as part of the process they use to discern God’s leading for the church. But their ultimate accountability is to Jesus Christ as the head of the church, not to the church members. This means that sometimes, they will need to make decisions and exercise their leadership responsibilities in ways that may not be popular with all the church members. This is a challenge for both the Elders and church members. In these circumstances, the Elders need to make sure they follow Biblical principles and seek God’s guidance, and church members need to trust their Elders. The members need to test the decisions of the Elders against Scripture, but if the decision is in line with Scripture, they need to accept the leading of their Elders and move forward even if they have other reasons for disagreement. As I said, this is a challenge for everyone and one we all need to approach with love, patience, and the common goal of obedience to God.
As with my other post, I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Feel free to contact me in whatever way you are most comfortable.
Jac
In the New Testament, when the disciples would leave a town to move on to the next one, they instructed new churches to appoint Elders to be overseers (see Titus 1:5-9). In several sections of the New Testament, we can find the qualities that we should look for in an Elder. But nowhere can we find a reference to how long an Elder can serve. And yet, every church I have a belonged to has specified term lengths for Elders, typically 3 to 5 years. And each of these churches struggles to find enough people to fill those vacancies as they arise when those terms end. Where did this concept of “term length” come from? Look no further than our local government. City councils and most organizations with boards have fixed term lengths of 3 or 4 years. For municipal government, having an election every 4 years ensures the people elected to council continue to represent the people who elected them. For organizations with boards, turnover of board members is seen as a good thing so that new members can bring new and fresh ideas to the organization. But we are not a government and not a business.
When Jesus called the disciples, they continued to be disciples until they died. It was a lifetime appointment. If Elders are called to be overseers in their church, why should we impose an earthly restriction upon them such as a term length? Does something happen to them every 3 years that affects their ability to carry out their calling? I don’t think so. Once we have selected our Elders (using the criteria presented to us in the New Testament), we should allow our Elders to serve as our overseers as long as they are able, and as long as they remain true to their calling. We need to pray for them, encourage them, hold them accountable, and submit to their authority. We also need to be on the lookout for members who have the gifts that would make them good candidates for becoming Elders, and make sure we give them the mentoring and instruction needed to become Elders. At the same time, we should not expect everyone needs to “take their turn” as an Elder. I was once a member of church that had this rule in place and it led to disastrous results as inappropriate people we put into positions where they did not want to be and did not have the proper giftedness. So you will see in our new Constitution, we explicitly state that “appointment as an Elder is a life-long appointment”.
Related to the role of Elders is the creation of the church Board. As I mentioned in my quorum post, there are some things we need to have in place from a legal standpoint to be a church in our society. Designating a Board is one of these requirements. By definition, a Board has the ultimate authority over an organization and is ultimately responsible for the organization. Another way to put this is that the Board “oversees” the running of the organization. There is no reference to church boards in the Bible, but there are references to “overseers” – in these contexts they refer to the Elders. Many churches create boards (often called councils) by bringing together all the people who exercise leadership in the church. Some appoint members at large to sit as their boards (often with limited term lengths) to provide independent oversight. But what is the Biblical model? It seems pretty obvious to me. If the Board is the body that “oversees” the church, and Elders are the “overseers”, then it seems pretty logical that the Elders should be the board.
In our new Constitution, we specify that the “non-vocational” Elders will function as the Board of Directors. The Pastoral staff (hired by the church) are also Elders who must have the same qualities as the rest of Elders, and they share the oversight responsibilities with the other Elders. Since they have accepted a call to be Pastors and earn their living in this role, we refer to them as “vocational” Elders. We exclude the vocational Elders from serving as a Board member to eliminate any potential conflict of interest (real or perceived) that could arise, such as decisions related to pay and benefits or termination.
While the Elders serve as the Board of Directors, they do not make decisions in a vacuum. There is frequent communication with other ministry leaders and congregation members, through regular meetings and informal conversations. They review the feedback they receive as part of the process they use to discern God’s leading for the church. But their ultimate accountability is to Jesus Christ as the head of the church, not to the church members. This means that sometimes, they will need to make decisions and exercise their leadership responsibilities in ways that may not be popular with all the church members. This is a challenge for both the Elders and church members. In these circumstances, the Elders need to make sure they follow Biblical principles and seek God’s guidance, and church members need to trust their Elders. The members need to test the decisions of the Elders against Scripture, but if the decision is in line with Scripture, they need to accept the leading of their Elders and move forward even if they have other reasons for disagreement. As I said, this is a challenge for everyone and one we all need to approach with love, patience, and the common goal of obedience to God.
As with my other post, I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Feel free to contact me in whatever way you are most comfortable.
Jac
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Do we have a quorum?
Maybe you’ve heard this question asked at a congregational meeting. So what is a quorum? Basically having a quorum means that there are sufficient members present to conduct an official meeting. The minimum number required for a quorum is predefined and usually expressed as a percentage (eg 50% of voting members). If a quorum is not met, the meeting is “unofficial” and no motions can be passed.
The concept of a quorum is not found anywhere in the Bible. It comes to us from government, created as ruling authorities changed from monarchy rule to assemblies of representatives. In its modern form, it is referred to in Robert’s Rule of Order, which is the handbook for running meetings. The typical number used for a quorum (and the default if none is stated - according to Roberts) is a simple majority or 50% plus one. This number is almost always achieved in government assemblies that are made up of people who are elected and often paid to attend meetings. Since these elected officials have been chosen by the people to represent their interests, they carry the needs of large groups of people with them when they attend meetings and the people expect them to attend duly called meetings so their voices can be heard and interests attended to. Attendance at city council meetings is nearly 100% all the time as council members are highly motivated to attend these meetings.
However, several handbooks recommend that a smaller number be used in situations when the assembly is made up of individual members. Individuals represent only their own interests and are not accountable to anyone else if they don’t attend a meeting. For example, many “condominium associations” have a quorum level of only 10%, and some have difficulty achieving that amount at their meetings. The caution for having a high number is that it could end up paralyzing the organization. If you are unable to achieve a quorum, you can’t pass any motions. If you consistently can’t pass motions, you can’t conduct business. The only way to change the percentage for a quorum is to have an official meeting, but if you can’t get a quorum to attend a meeting, you can’t change the quorum number. Do you see the danger here?
In small organizations, the percentage amounts can be misleading. For example, consider an organization with 33 members made up of primarily married couples. Each member is equivalent to 3% of the total membership and each married couple is 6%. Suppose two couples are away on vacation when a meeting is called – the available members has dropped by 12%. If you typically had 55% attendance at meetings and both these couples were regular attendees, the likelihood of achieving a 50% quorum just dropped significantly. The attendance would probably be 43% and the 50% quorum would not be met. Think about what this means – four people have the power to cancel a meeting, to prevent progress from being made. In this example, this was just a scheduling conflict but think about how easy it would be for two couples to essentially control when and if meetings occur.
Having a stated quorum percentage and ensuring you meet that amount at meetings has a very important role in maintaining our charitable status as a church. We need to be able to demonstrate to the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) that the funds we collect as a church are spent on appropriate expenses and given to missions and individuals in a manner that is approved by the church body, and not one or two individuals. This is why we present a budget to the congregation for approval that specifies our giving to missions and our projected operating expenses, and we then report on actual spending on these amounts at our annual meeting for approval.
But beyond this application, I personally don’t see the need for ensuring we have a quorum at our meetings. We are not a government, we are not a business. We are not led by a board of directors. We are an assembly of God’s people, and led by His Spirit. When we call our people together for a meeting to select a new Pastor or change our Mission, we pray for God to be present at that meeting and lead us to the decision He wants us to make. When we gather, we rely on God to bless that meeting and guide us as He sees fit. We should not use a worldly restriction such as a quorum percentage to dictate to us whether God will speak to His people. We need to open to the Spirit’s leading.
In my twenty years in leadership positions with various churches, I have found that too often we govern our churches by conforming to the way the world operates, rather than follow the model of governance found in the New Testament. While there are some things we must do from a legal standpoint, we need to keep going back to the Bible to ensure we are following God’s example, not the world’s example.
So getting back to quorums – since we need to have one, what is the right number for our church? Our existing constitution is at 50%. While we have achieved this number over the past several years, it has frequently been by a slim margin – sometimes only 3 people over that amount. This makes me very uncomfortable. I would not be surprised if at some point in the future, we don’t have enough attendees to make a quorum if we leave the number at 50%. I don’t like going around to everyone and reminding them they need to attend because last meeting we almost didn’t make a quorum – the motivation becomes simply making sure we have enough people in the seats to conduct business. I want people to attend because they want to attend, because they feel led to attend – not because of guilt or obligation. And if we call a meeting and only 40% attend, I’m confident that those 40% are the ones God wants at that meeting and we should proceed. Therefore, I would personally feel comfortable with a number as low as 10%. However, I recognize that many people will find this number too low, and I’m willing to accept 30%, which is what the Elders are proposing in the re-written constitution.
I’d love to hear your opinions on this matter, and encourage you to contact me in person, via email, phone call, or in the comments section of this blog.
Jac
The concept of a quorum is not found anywhere in the Bible. It comes to us from government, created as ruling authorities changed from monarchy rule to assemblies of representatives. In its modern form, it is referred to in Robert’s Rule of Order, which is the handbook for running meetings. The typical number used for a quorum (and the default if none is stated - according to Roberts) is a simple majority or 50% plus one. This number is almost always achieved in government assemblies that are made up of people who are elected and often paid to attend meetings. Since these elected officials have been chosen by the people to represent their interests, they carry the needs of large groups of people with them when they attend meetings and the people expect them to attend duly called meetings so their voices can be heard and interests attended to. Attendance at city council meetings is nearly 100% all the time as council members are highly motivated to attend these meetings.
However, several handbooks recommend that a smaller number be used in situations when the assembly is made up of individual members. Individuals represent only their own interests and are not accountable to anyone else if they don’t attend a meeting. For example, many “condominium associations” have a quorum level of only 10%, and some have difficulty achieving that amount at their meetings. The caution for having a high number is that it could end up paralyzing the organization. If you are unable to achieve a quorum, you can’t pass any motions. If you consistently can’t pass motions, you can’t conduct business. The only way to change the percentage for a quorum is to have an official meeting, but if you can’t get a quorum to attend a meeting, you can’t change the quorum number. Do you see the danger here?
In small organizations, the percentage amounts can be misleading. For example, consider an organization with 33 members made up of primarily married couples. Each member is equivalent to 3% of the total membership and each married couple is 6%. Suppose two couples are away on vacation when a meeting is called – the available members has dropped by 12%. If you typically had 55% attendance at meetings and both these couples were regular attendees, the likelihood of achieving a 50% quorum just dropped significantly. The attendance would probably be 43% and the 50% quorum would not be met. Think about what this means – four people have the power to cancel a meeting, to prevent progress from being made. In this example, this was just a scheduling conflict but think about how easy it would be for two couples to essentially control when and if meetings occur.
Having a stated quorum percentage and ensuring you meet that amount at meetings has a very important role in maintaining our charitable status as a church. We need to be able to demonstrate to the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) that the funds we collect as a church are spent on appropriate expenses and given to missions and individuals in a manner that is approved by the church body, and not one or two individuals. This is why we present a budget to the congregation for approval that specifies our giving to missions and our projected operating expenses, and we then report on actual spending on these amounts at our annual meeting for approval.
But beyond this application, I personally don’t see the need for ensuring we have a quorum at our meetings. We are not a government, we are not a business. We are not led by a board of directors. We are an assembly of God’s people, and led by His Spirit. When we call our people together for a meeting to select a new Pastor or change our Mission, we pray for God to be present at that meeting and lead us to the decision He wants us to make. When we gather, we rely on God to bless that meeting and guide us as He sees fit. We should not use a worldly restriction such as a quorum percentage to dictate to us whether God will speak to His people. We need to open to the Spirit’s leading.
In my twenty years in leadership positions with various churches, I have found that too often we govern our churches by conforming to the way the world operates, rather than follow the model of governance found in the New Testament. While there are some things we must do from a legal standpoint, we need to keep going back to the Bible to ensure we are following God’s example, not the world’s example.
So getting back to quorums – since we need to have one, what is the right number for our church? Our existing constitution is at 50%. While we have achieved this number over the past several years, it has frequently been by a slim margin – sometimes only 3 people over that amount. This makes me very uncomfortable. I would not be surprised if at some point in the future, we don’t have enough attendees to make a quorum if we leave the number at 50%. I don’t like going around to everyone and reminding them they need to attend because last meeting we almost didn’t make a quorum – the motivation becomes simply making sure we have enough people in the seats to conduct business. I want people to attend because they want to attend, because they feel led to attend – not because of guilt or obligation. And if we call a meeting and only 40% attend, I’m confident that those 40% are the ones God wants at that meeting and we should proceed. Therefore, I would personally feel comfortable with a number as low as 10%. However, I recognize that many people will find this number too low, and I’m willing to accept 30%, which is what the Elders are proposing in the re-written constitution.
I’d love to hear your opinions on this matter, and encourage you to contact me in person, via email, phone call, or in the comments section of this blog.
Jac
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)