Our Presbytery meeting last night had some very difficult issues. The potential for blood on the floor was very high.
What happened was a testimony to what I have written about. In preparation for the meeting, all interested parties were included in discussions of process, interpretation, Robert's Rules, and all aspects of the various issues. There were no surprises. The debate was orderly and well defined, and it appeared that folks were reasonably able to live with the outcomes.
I have maintained that transparency is critical to discernment. If everyone is fully aware of what is at issue and how things will happen, then a lot of anxiety is alleviated and the body can then turn to the task of finding God's will rather than haggling over irrelevant issues or points of procedure.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
On persuasion and leadership
I am thinking that the great overlooked factor in our Church is persuasion.
I frequently engage folks who are angry because the Church in some form has or has not done this or that. All kinds of allegations because the General Assembly approved something they did not like or the Presbytery did not vote as they wished. The blame is placed there, that theydid it again.
The simple truth is this. The presentation of arguments in various governing bodies and committees frequently takes on the quality of haranguing rather than persuasion. I have seen someone stand up in front of Presbytery and read from Romans as an argument, and then be angry because they Presbytery did not do what he wanted. However true or not true the passage may have been, it is not a persuasive strategy. If the Presbytery did not do what this gent wanted, it was partly due to his failure to use his three minutes at the mike in a way calculated to persuade.
I believe that if a person wishes to stand for something, it is incumbent on her to do it effectively. Making or opposing resolutions is so important that it requires thought, planning, and determination to give the Holy Spirit a chance by presenting arguments that can break through resistance. Reading from Romans or other similar strategies just does not do it.
Since Presbyterians allow for so little executive authority, the only way for leaders to operate is by persuading groups of people in a system where everyone has the right to oppose. What it means is that leadership is effective only to the degree that he or she can convince sometimes reluctant groups to go along. No one can make Presbyterians do anything against their will. The only way to operate is to convince them.
I frequently engage folks who are angry because the Church in some form has or has not done this or that. All kinds of allegations because the General Assembly approved something they did not like or the Presbytery did not vote as they wished. The blame is placed there, that theydid it again.
The simple truth is this. The presentation of arguments in various governing bodies and committees frequently takes on the quality of haranguing rather than persuasion. I have seen someone stand up in front of Presbytery and read from Romans as an argument, and then be angry because they Presbytery did not do what he wanted. However true or not true the passage may have been, it is not a persuasive strategy. If the Presbytery did not do what this gent wanted, it was partly due to his failure to use his three minutes at the mike in a way calculated to persuade.
I believe that if a person wishes to stand for something, it is incumbent on her to do it effectively. Making or opposing resolutions is so important that it requires thought, planning, and determination to give the Holy Spirit a chance by presenting arguments that can break through resistance. Reading from Romans or other similar strategies just does not do it.
Since Presbyterians allow for so little executive authority, the only way for leaders to operate is by persuading groups of people in a system where everyone has the right to oppose. What it means is that leadership is effective only to the degree that he or she can convince sometimes reluctant groups to go along. No one can make Presbyterians do anything against their will. The only way to operate is to convince them.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Koster's Second Law of Church
Nobody reads the Book of Order much. Until there's trouble--and then they read the fine print.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Koster's First Law of Church
Whenever two or three are gathered together in Christ's name, two questions eventually arise, always in this order:
1. Who's in charge here?
And then:
2. Who says it's you?
1. Who's in charge here?
And then:
2. Who says it's you?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The power of surprises
I have recently learned that some kind of motion may be made at an upcoming presbytery meeting. I have tried to find out the gist of the motion so I can prepare the Moderator on what might happen, but folks are not forthcoming. I think the motion could be very controversial.
It sometimes happens that a group will decide to make a motion. That group and their friends know that it will happen, so they make sure they are present and think about the things they might say. Nobody else knows it will happen, so they may not be present and will not have the leisure to think about what they will say. The effect of concealing the intent to make the motion is to give advantage to the moving party.
I believe this is one of those political strategies that are so destructive to the church. I believe the issue should always be discerning the will of God. One way to insure discernment in large groups is to have thoughtful debate by all interested parties. Bringing surprise motions works against effective discernment.
And it lowers us to the level of those who believe the point of things is to win rather than to find God's will.
It sometimes happens that a group will decide to make a motion. That group and their friends know that it will happen, so they make sure they are present and think about the things they might say. Nobody else knows it will happen, so they may not be present and will not have the leisure to think about what they will say. The effect of concealing the intent to make the motion is to give advantage to the moving party.
I believe this is one of those political strategies that are so destructive to the church. I believe the issue should always be discerning the will of God. One way to insure discernment in large groups is to have thoughtful debate by all interested parties. Bringing surprise motions works against effective discernment.
And it lowers us to the level of those who believe the point of things is to win rather than to find God's will.
A hope
When I stood for election as the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly in 2008, I did a whole lot of research and a whole lot of thinking. A significant portion of my research involved discussions with folks throughout the church.
What I found was that there was not a lot of real discussion in progress. There are a lot of caucuses--special interest groups--that meet in various times and places. My experience when I attended these caucuses events was not pleasant. As much as I tried to engage, I failed.
These observations solidified what I had already written about years before. And they made me very sad and worried. I know that folks of like minds inevitably get together. I know these are good ways to organize, discuss, process. But when these caucuses take on the feel of a war room is when they are damaging our church.
What do I hope for? That these caucuses will open up, that they will become the arena for cross-caucus discussion, that they may become places where those of like mind could learn that the notion of compromise is not something bad but is nothing more than the admission that no one group has all the right answers.
G-1.0307 says, " Now though it will easily be admitted that all synods and councils may err, through the frailty inseparable from humanity . . . ." I would hope we can add caucuses, so that the provision would read----
" Now though it will easily be admitted that all synods and councils and caucuses may err, through the frailty inseparable from humanity. . . ."
What I found was that there was not a lot of real discussion in progress. There are a lot of caucuses--special interest groups--that meet in various times and places. My experience when I attended these caucuses events was not pleasant. As much as I tried to engage, I failed.
These observations solidified what I had already written about years before. And they made me very sad and worried. I know that folks of like minds inevitably get together. I know these are good ways to organize, discuss, process. But when these caucuses take on the feel of a war room is when they are damaging our church.
What do I hope for? That these caucuses will open up, that they will become the arena for cross-caucus discussion, that they may become places where those of like mind could learn that the notion of compromise is not something bad but is nothing more than the admission that no one group has all the right answers.
G-1.0307 says, " Now though it will easily be admitted that all synods and councils may err, through the frailty inseparable from humanity . . . ." I would hope we can add caucuses, so that the provision would read----
" Now though it will easily be admitted that all synods and councils and caucuses may err, through the frailty inseparable from humanity. . . ."
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
A new thing for me
I have never blogged before and I rarely read them. So I am in very unfamiliar territory here.
But I start this blog because I shortly will publish my book. I believe I have some significant things to say to the Church, so I have the temerity to think some folks may wish to talk about what I have proposed.
I am very aware that what I have written may upset some, unsettle some, confuse many. This is not easy stuff. If we knew how to fix things, we simply would do it. As much as we are aware and troubled by what is happening in the Church, we have to learn new things to respond effectively.
However much what I have written may trouble some, that is okay. Because what I have proposed is not the solution but an overture to learning. This means that I expect to learn a lot by any dialogue and discussion that emerges. And I will cherish every learning.
But I start this blog because I shortly will publish my book. I believe I have some significant things to say to the Church, so I have the temerity to think some folks may wish to talk about what I have proposed.
I am very aware that what I have written may upset some, unsettle some, confuse many. This is not easy stuff. If we knew how to fix things, we simply would do it. As much as we are aware and troubled by what is happening in the Church, we have to learn new things to respond effectively.
However much what I have written may trouble some, that is okay. Because what I have proposed is not the solution but an overture to learning. This means that I expect to learn a lot by any dialogue and discussion that emerges. And I will cherish every learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)