* No surprises
We say to the staff: “Don’t assume that you have to drag us kicking and screaming into a more progressive worship style. Don’t try to push and manipulate us piecemeal. Don’t dare add innovations to the worship without talking to us first! Rather, let’s sit down together and decide together where we’d like the church to go. And then let’s discuss how we can work together to lead the church there, wherever that may be.”
Most elderships have been burned by a young minister who just couldn’t wait for the congregation to catch up, and so in a futile effort to accelerate the church’s acceptance of some innovation, he added the innovation to a worship service without permission from the elders. The thinking was “forgiveness is easier to get than permission.” And it is. But the loss of trust and the feelings of betrayal will affect the relationships within the staff for a very long time. And it’s a strategy that hardly ever works.
So, ministers, ask yourselves: Is this innovation so very important that I’m willing to lose the esteem and trust of my elders to very publicly rebel against their authority? You see, I’ve been down this road many, many times, and the oh-so-important innovations rarely take hold because springing new and controversial ideas on a congregation only makes the members mad. Sure, some members will be thrilled, but enough of the church will be upset by being surprised that the innovation will die — quickly. In fact, if you mishandle an innovation, it’ll be extremely difficult for the elders to later approve it, because the waters will have been poisoned.
For example, if you play a video with an instrumental background for the first time, and if you don’t have the elders’ support, here’s what happens. Some members will love it. Some will hate it. Some will be deeply offended. Immediately afterwards, the offended members will ask the elders: “Did you approve this?” Now, the elders have to either lie or else throw the minister under the bus. Either way, the elders are angry at being betrayed. Indeed, they feel stabbed in the back because the minister didn’t trust them enough to ask.
In many a church, the elders will respond reflexively, immediately banning the practice, meaning that the innovation won’t see the light of day for years — maybe not until an elder or two retires. Now, the elders should be more thoughtful than that, but elders are people, and when people feel threatened and insulted, that’s how they react.
No surprises. Ever. No matter how important you think it is. No exceptions.
(1Pe 5:5-7 ESV) 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” 6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, 7 casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.
(Heb 13:17 ESV) 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Besides the scriptural argument, of course, is the fact that you can’t have a collaborative relationship with the elders at your convenience. Collaboration is either all the time or not at all — and the more important the issue is to you, the more important that you work with the elders and not behind their backs.
Jay,
In my tradition, the particular issue of worship style is not quite as hot button as it is in the CoC. Nonetheless, your question is sage for anyone in any field of endeavor.
So, ministers, ask yourselves: Is this innovation so very important that I’m willing to lose the esteem and trust of my elders to very publicly rebel against their authority?
Thanks,
Mike
While I agree, to a point, with the "no surprises" admonition, I disagree that you description of the elders response is necessary or correct.
If elders respond to the "video with an instrumental background" with a sense of betrayal, anger or feeling stabbed in the back, it is their choice. And I'd suggest if they respond that way, it's legitimate to question whether they have the judgement or disposition to be in that role.
By inference, you're proposing that the judgement of elders is necessarily superior than the judgement of others, and that elders should be able to control the behavior of others.
There is no evidence that either of these propositions is universally true.
And that is the first thing elders should know.
Jay,
Your "no surprises" advice is sage. I've been on both sides of surprises. I've been the young minister who surprised the congregation (and the elders), and I've been the elder who bore the wrath of the congregation after a surprise (to the elders) and the congregation. It's sad, but rigid adherence to unwritten traditions bind us and restrict our liberty in Christ – yet love will yield its "rights" for the sake of a brother's heartfelt conviction.
There are limits to the later, however – as you have so often pointed out. To what extent are the scruples of one or a few restrict the freedom of others in the congregation? However we answer this question, surprises are not the loving, prudent way to try to promote your desired change.
Jerry
Out of respect and courtesy, the first year I work for a new boss I ask gazillions of questions probing his/her philosophies and expectations. After I feel comfortable I understand expectations I then start making more major decisions on my own. I also inform my supervisor of my strategy. I find when I first gain the respect and trust of my supervisor I have far more personal freedom.
I expect preachers and church members to have this same level of respect for their elders who "deserve double honor".
David wrote,
David, what happens when the elders and a minister disagree about something, such as how to conduct the worship service? Well, there are various possibilities —
1. It could be that the minister gets to do whatever he thinks is best. That's true in many denominations. It's not how we do things in the Churches of Christ, because we consider the elders overseers and shepherds, and the minister as subject to the oversight of the elders.
2. It could be that the minister submits to the elders — unless he's totally convicted and feels very strongly. But that's really just 1 all over again.
3. It could be that the elders get their way. But, in my opinion, that violates —
(Mar 10:42-45 ESV) 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
4. Or it could be that they talk first. And that they've spent so much time working and praying together that they are of one heart and mind — or close enough that they can work the disagreement out without it coming down to power and heirarchy.
Just as husbands and wives in good marriages sort out disagreements through discussion and mutual respect, elders and ministers ought to be able to do the same.
Now, if you take 4 as your starting point, and the minister — knowing the elders would be unhappy with his decision — chooses to go against their wishes without discussion, how would the elders feel? I think they'd feel betrayed.
How would you feel if your wife bought a new bedroom suite knowing that you'd say "no" if she asked? How does it feel to be on the other side of "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission."
Does it reduce the feelings of betrayal if your wife insists, "But we really needed the bedroom suite!" And suppose she brings in 20 interior decorators who all agree. Does it still bother you that she didn't even ask?
You see, it's not just about who's right. It's also about the relationship you choose to have.
Now, I could, of course, argue the same conclusion from a heirarchical understanding of the scriptures. But I prefer to urge a collaborative relationship between elders and ministers. And in a collaborative relationship, such behavior is even worse than in a heirarchical relationship, because in a collaborative relationship, the consequences are very personal and hence deeply felt. That's the price of becoming emotionally invested in a relationship.
Therefore, ministers in a largely healthy church (none are perfectly healthy) get to choose. Do they want to work in a heirarchical relationship? Or do they want to work in a collaborative relationship?
Obviously, it takes two to collaborate, but the minister can do a lot to push the relationship one way or the other. And springing surprises on his elders will push them to pull rank. They may not do it — but they'll certainly be tempted.
And if the elders are pushed into pulling rank, the minister will become a hireling — which I think would be a great misfortune for the church and the minister.
Should the elders not pull rank and instead push for a collaborative relationship? Yes, but the minister has to decide to submit to his elders and to the relationship. He can't have autonomy and a collaborative relationship. The two can't co-exist.
Husbands and wives give up their autonomy to become one. It's not easy, and it involves not always getting your way — but that's okay if the relationship is worth the price. But you have to make a choice. Autonomy and marriage don't mix. Neither does autonomy and church ministry.
Jerry and Rich W,
Amen and amen!