Reworking Committees?
Mark Brantley-Gearhart recently posted this comment in the discussion about Clerks of Session. It’s a great start for beginning a conversation about Session committees:
“Last night our Session did something different. Instead of the annual assignment of committee chairpersons, we talked about options to committees. With the exception of the Nominating Committee (which is mandated by the Book of Order), we’re doing away with committees. (The truth is, our committees died off long ago due to lack of interest.) Instead, we’re going to experiment with the idea of ministries that flow out of discernment groups. Congregants who are interested in a particular ministry will gather for ongoing conversations centered around that ministry. And instead of each elder serving as the chairperson over her or his own group, the elders will work in partnerships of two or more per ministry to help facilitate discussion and the ministries that result from discussion. We’re not sure how this is going to work, but the elders seem to be encouraged by this less hierarchical, more relational approach.”
What have you heard or tried along the lines of reworking Session committees? Any failures? Any encouragements?
Comment by matt johnson on 18 January 2008:
This kind of thing is hugely needed. In a congregation with a strong small group network I think the following might be an interesting approach: Give the small groups the responsibilities formerly held by committees, and rotate things like set up, clean up, greeting, etc. amongst the small groups as well. There are some committees that this might not work for. But when it does work, then ministry can come out of an environment that is much more hospitable and nourishing than most committee environments which tend to be draining and have a “let’s get this over with” style.
Comment by Eric Ledermann on 20 January 2008:
I struggle with committees. Firs, I hate meetings because so many of the meetings I attend are absolutely useless–rarely is anything meaningful accomplished, and so often people seem to attend just to hear their own voice (I find myself falling into this trap, but I think it is either out of pure boredom, or because I am actually trying to steer the meeting into the world of “something meaningful”). In my own church our committees seem to be committees of one or two. Granted, we are a small congregation (about 80-90 in worship), but the chair-people can’t seem to actually get other people to serve on them and help brainstorm and make decisions. I do a LOT of work via e-mail, which streamlines some of the committees so they don’t have to actually meet.
Although I have mentioned this issue at MANY session meetings, I don’t think I have been overt about it. I’m thinking that maybe I need to raise the issue of committees and decision-making processes as a particular item on the agenda (after the next round of elders comes on board and gets their feet wet for a month or two).
Thanks for all these wonderful posts. They are inspiring.
Comment by Mark Brantley-Gearhart on 21 January 2008:
At the same meeting in which we decided to experiment with discernment groups instead of committees, the Session also decided to do something different with its meeting agendas.
Like most Sessions, for years we’ve used the standard approach of each committee making a report at each meeting. Last year, we tried to “spice it up” by rotating the order of the committees so each committee had a chance to “go first”. Yaaawwwwn.
The new idea is to drop committee reports entirely, especially since we’re doing away with most committees. Each time Session meets, we’ll spend time in study, conversation, and discernment about one ministry of the church. Those ministries that don’t need much discussion will only take one meeting. Other ministries might require discussion over many Session meetings. Of course, we’ll suspend scheduled discussions in favor of pressing issues, when necessary.
The purpose of this approach is not to duplicate what the discernment groups are doing, but to focus on the role the Session can/should play as spiritual leaders supporting the ministries God calls the congregation to undertake.
This is new ground for us. Frankly, I’m nervous because I’ve never worked like this before. I don’t know what it’ll take to get it off the ground or how it’ll turn out. I’m also excited because this seems closest to the way I’ve felt God calling the Church to behave for a long time. I take comfort in the exchange between Nathanael and Philip in John 1:44. “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” “Come and see.”
Comment by Jan Edmiston on 22 January 2008:
We no longer have session members “run committees” etc. Our session is not allowed to do this. Instead, we have a staff of paid and volunteer persons who run the church. Check out Easum & Bandy on this.
With established core values, I believe the session should be a permission-giving organization that focusses first and foremost of the spiritual health of the congregation.
Just a thought.
Comment by Chester Topple on 28 January 2008:
Mark,
Ah yes committees. We are a small church (80 members, 53 average attendance in 07) and have like 5 or 6 committees in our bi-laws, none of which were functioning when I got to the church a year ago, not even nominating committee according to BOO stipulations.
In conjunction with session, I have totally redesigned the infrastructure, doing away with committees, in name at least, which sounds a lot like what you are doing. Actually, just a gentle reframing could come from calling them something different…We call them CARE groups, an acronymn, Committees Actively Realizing Edification (or Encouragement depending on what you like.) Cheesy, yes, but people have responded. Still got the big C word in there for any die in the wool (our 82 year old organist), but a much more personable approach to getting the job done.
This is what we have:
Worship CARE
Communication CARE
Tech CARE
Activities/ Recreation CARE
CE CARE
Building/ Property CARE
Money CARE
Pastoral CARE (aka Deacons, explained below)
Missio Dei CARE (mission, evangelism, outreach rolled into one)
HR CARE (aka nominating committee on steroids)
We are actually using our HR CARE group to probe the talents and gifts of the congregation (members and friends) and recruit them to the different CARE groups based on peoples gifts/ interests; kind of like the presbytery nominating committee, but more thorough and personal. This helps with the problem Eric L had with committees of 1 or 2, which we have had as well. Our elders will be trained to coordinate and facilitate these groups, and will function as organizers and liaisons to the session. The session is in the process of getting used to the idea of letting the CARE groups go and lead, trusting that they will do a good job. Very little will need to come back to session, except to get the session support and encouragement when new things are being considered. I don’t know that I would do away with reports all together as it is good to keep the session informed of all the happenings, so they can be in the know and support as much as possible, but not to control. CARE groups will definitely not need session approval before implementation of ideas, except for major expenditures (fixing the roof). But if building and property CARE is meeting only 3 to 4 times a year to make a list of priorities and figuring how to get it done, and then kicking butt getting it done, few reports would come from that CARE group anyway.
I envision an organic flow of CARE groups; working with and supporting one another. While they each have specific functions, they will rely on one another for specific projects. If communication CARE wants to update our web site and no one knows how, Tech CARE hopefully will be able to support that project.
I’m really excited about deacons (Pastoral CARE). They will be trained in pastoral caregiving. The households affiliated with the church will be divided among them (divide and nutures), and will seek out intentional relationships with their specific households. They will lead the prayers of the people, update the congregation and minister of specific needs/ concerns of individuals/ families as they arise within the congregation, and will be responsible for the assimilation of newcomers. This will be their responsibility and ensure we are caring for our people; thus an ordained ministry.
We’re trying to get as many people involved/ invested as possible. The dangers: creating too much bureaucratic structure, too many meetings that are unproductive/ boring. I am the only full-tiime staff, and I will not be participating in all of these CARE groups. This is very new for this church and will definitely have to evolve and changes will have to be made, but the foundation has been laid.
If you want, I have a more detailed outline (6 pages) of what has been proposed and in the process of being implemented that I could send you (cctopple@gmail.com).
Good luck, and keep me posted.
Chester Topple
Pingback by Interrogating the Emergent Church: Part 1 | Notes From Off-Center on 15 February 2008:
[...] also read of a Presbyterian church that is doing away with committees in favor of other structures that do not block out the ministry of the church. Again, this just [...]