I've been going to the same church since 1975. I've been there through half a dozen preachers. So I get a pretty good feel for what goes on.
Recently, two or three (very new) members of the church have aggressively promoted themselves to the (fairly new) preacher. You might say they've 'gotten in good' with him. For brevity, I will refer to this group as the 'cabal'. The cabal is pushing for a multi-media program for the church, in which (of course) they play a central part. The preacher has committed himself to this program in a big way.
First, the cabal promoted implementation of a projection system in the church sanctuary, to the tune of around $16,000. It was voted on and passed, and that was OK and reasonable. Many of us didn't see why we needed it, but there wasn't a really good reason not to do this, so it was voted on and passed. It's working now, too, but suffering a number of growing pains that are sometimes comical, such as lack of coordination with the music director. Final cost around $20,000 after associated expenses.
This system was purchased based on one quotation. This is absolutely awful business practice, not to imply anything else.
Funny how it worked out that, a month or so later, we suddenly had to have a new sound system to go with the projection system - around another $20,000. This wasn't mentioned or promoted until after the projection system was in place.
Another purchase based on one quotation - to the same company as before.
This next part involves some conjecture. I would lay very heavy odds that the cabal planned both of these at the same time, but broke it up into two portions in order to get them passed in the church business meetings - it's unlikely that the church would have gone for the combined price in one pass. If this is true (about which, to be fair, I have no proof), then I think it was dishonest of them to conceal the full cost of the program from the church at the very beginning. Because of the timing, I do think it was planned in advance. So, in my view, the cabal is manipulating the church to bring about changes that, taken together, probably would not have been approved by the church body.
If I am correct, the cabal is manipulating the church body, to achieve their own goals. If I am not correct, the sudden additional need for a sound system represents mismanagement, poor business practice (1 bid?), and poor planning at best. And it's really peculiar that we've now spent around $36,000 to $40,000 on a project introduced by people who haven't been members of our church but a few months. The total of these expenditures is about 1/3 of the church's total cash reserves, as listed in the last business report.
The next thing to happen is the cabal's expressed desire to take control of the church website, which was created at the request of the church a little over a year ago. The access codes were turned over to the cabal by the author without delay. Although a complete website was already in place, I was surprised to see that the very next day, the entire website is gone, replaced with a single placeholder page promising a whole new site in three months. Now, the site could have been left in place until they were ready to implement the new one, but instead they chose to destroy it.
The cabal may be able to do a better website than existed before. If so, good. But there wasn't anything wrong with the old one, and it represented many hours and days of work. Furthermore, they blew it away three months before they plan to have anything to replace it with. They were in a hurry to get rid of it. An old site is better than no site, in my mind.
There are at least a couple of other issues of which I am aware, but in one case I do not have permission of the involved persons to discuss it, and in another I do not have enough confirmed and verifiable information. My intent here is to convey only incidents for which I have both solid knowledge and when appropriate, permission of the sources.
So, in summary - a very small group of very new people, along with a fairly new preacher, are now in direct control of every form of communication and publishing our church has. There is some possibility of deliberate manipulation of the church body. And there is some question as to the wisdom of certain business practices.
Bending over backwards to be fair, I suppose that some of this could be subject to a different interpretation. But this account shows how it looks from where I'm sitting. This whole situation is, at best, a stewardship problem - and at worst, something much worse.
Not a very flattering view of the management at my church. This is a true account of recent events at our church, but I have named no names - not even the name of the church. This is to protect the innocent, as well as myself.
I haven't posted this out of spite, or anger; but if there's one place that you should be able to find openness and truth, it is your own church; and just at the moment, I feel a little sick about it, instead.
-Pop
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Comment on church management
I liked your article on church management. It was well written and looked like the product of a lot of thought. Unlike you, I have never been in the same church over a period of decades so I could observe how a core group of members adapt to different pastors, but I have seen a lot of different churches. So my experience lies more with observing a variety of cliques in a variety of denominations.
With maybe one exception, I saw pretty much the same type of infra structure in all of them. There was usually a small, central clique who made all major decisions concerning church expenditures and church directions. Quite often this would be a long- standing family with charter church members or a multi- generation deacon board.
What you describe in your article is perhaps a third type of polity that I have not observed before now. It sounds like a “grow-your-own” infra structure in which the new players come into the church; endear themselves to the members; are placed on strategic committees; and influence the church to follow a new direction. With patience, this can be done in such a way that no one in the congregation feels threatened by the change. And with proper planning, they might even think it’s their own idea.
Judging by the size of the church (40k is 30% of the general fund), it is not large by big church standards. Now, if some people come into a small church with preexisting big church appetites it will of necessity cause a strain on the church’s finances. At the risk of sounding crass, where I come from that would be called a champagne appetite on a beer-belly budget. To be fair, it is not always easy to differentiate between a sincere desire for church growth, and a personal agenda for achievement. I would surely hope for the former, and not the latter.
Sadly, none of these follow the servant pattern Jesus laid out in Luke 22:25 or the cooperative example Paul explained in the twelveth chapter of 1 Cor. The body of Christ should mirror the attributes of Christ without drawing attention to any individual member
or clique.
But now I would like to address specifics. It never ceases to amaze me how people will manage other peoples’ money in ways that they would never think of doing with their own finances. Our national government constantly spends money it doesn’t have, to make friends with nations we don’t like, in the false hope that ideologies can be seeded in foreign, hostile countries if the price is right. But at least here at home, government contracts go to the lowest bidder. Why would you not get the best price for what you are going to purchase for the church by getting competitive bids? If a committee is relegated the task of purchasing something, they are obligated for conscience sake to be good stewards of God’s money by getting the best value. If I were building my own house I would never hire a contractor because he was the first listing in the phone book. The congregation deserves to receive competitive price quotes for any major purchase, as well as an explanation of why one is recommended over another. Is there any possibility that old alliances take precedence over fiscal responsibilities?
Concerning the timing of the separate media projects, I think I would be just as suspicious as you but maybe not as gracious. Back to the house example, if my building contractor told me this month he needed sixteen percent of my total budget to buy the hardware for a great entertainment room, I think I could talk myself into it. But then if he comes back two months later and says that to make all the hardware that I’ve already purchased function properly, he now needs an additional sixteen percent of my budget for wiring and software, that would not set well with me.
No different with the church web site. Say my contractor went and purchased a lot of power tools with which he is going to build my house. It so happens he is partial to Craftsman tools. No problem there. Along comes another contractor who promises he can deliver hundreds of new features come next year, for the same price, so I turn over the contract to him. Trouble here is, he is partial to Black and Decker power tools. But instead of using the Craftsman tools between now and January, he removes all of them and construction on the site is nonexistent for the next three months. That doesn’t sound reasonable or constructive to me.
I look back in the book of Acts and see the apostles dealing with persecution, Gnostics, doctrines of demons, and church discipline. Now it seems the body of believers are concerned with appetites, agendas, and cliques. Where did we go so wrong? I can’t help but think that Jesus would offer us his servant’s apron and wash pan, tell us to humble ourselves as He did, and to esteem others greater than ourselves. And in all likelihood, my doorbell would be the first one he would ring.
C M B C
(concerned member of the body of Christ)
Post a Comment