I enjoy college football very much. I will watch any college football game on any day and often
lose entire Saturdays to random games with inconsequential outcomes.[1] As
all college football fans are aware, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system
that is currently used to “determine” the national champion is being replaced
with a 4-team playoff. The selection of these four teams will be up to a
13-member committee.
One storyline coming out of the transition from the BCS to
the playoff system has been the inclusion of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as one of the
committee members. Some sports commentators have criticized Rice’s inclusion on
such an important committee, claiming that Dr. Rice has no experience in the
game of football and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to make judgments about
which four teams are the best.[2]
Rice responded to the criticism by saying that she is a “student of the game.”[3]
This committee is important to me as a college football fan.
Rice’s inclusion will certainly influence the outcome of the college football
season. Should a non-player be included? Should a woman be included? Many of the opinions on this issue have revealed
sexist perspectives or, at the very least, the notion that a person cannot make
informed decisions about something like college football without having
actually played college football.
The discussion of
Rice’s inclusion in the committee got me thinking about the importance of
committees in Baptist congregations and the decisions we make regarding who
should serve on certain committees in our fellowships. We annually place people
on committees that manage ministries and the administration of the church, but
what are we requiring of the people who serve on those committees?
I am fortunate to be involved in two congregations that have
excellent committee structures. Northminster Baptist Church is a committee-led
congregation in the strongest sense of the word; the ministerial staff is
beholden to the committees of the church and the committees take their
responsibilities seriously. Madison Chapel has a strong tradition of
whole-church decision-making (because of its small size). The ability to come
together as an entire congregation to prayerfully decide congregational action
is impractical in larger churches, but for our small fellowship it is a wonder
to behold.
I have worked with churches that had relatively impotent
committees, non-meeting committees, and too many committees. In one case the
congregation decided to make a rule that a person could only serve on one
committee per year, which necessitated the reduction of the number of
committees by half!
The committee structure of Baptist churches is often at odds
with other powers in the congregation, especially the deacon body or the
pastor. There are certainly faithful Baptist churches that are led by strong
elder or deacon groups that function as a board of directors. Similarly there
are Baptist churches that function well with authoritarian CEO-style pastors
who determine many of the church’s decisions.[4] There
is certainly Biblical precedent for many types of church organization, so let
us not be too hasty to either condemn or condone one form over another.
For Baptists, church organization and polity is based upon
the principle of the Priesthood of the Believer.[5]
Since we assume that the gift of salvation is offered to all and that the
Spirit of God is pored out on all people who believe on Jesus Christ for
salvation, the Church must be the collection of those people gathered together
in the name of Jesus Christ to do the work of God’s Kingdom in a specific place
and time. The Church is, therefore, an exercise in democracy: with Christ as
the head of the congregation and the members rendered equal by the outpouring
of the Spirit we gather to make decisions as peers.
Direct democracy is cumbersome and slow, though, and often
impractical. Baptists have adopted the practice of forming committees to deal
with certain aspects of congregational life, ranging from bereavement and
ministerial visitation to figuring out who should mow the lawn. These
committees are formed out of the congregation and are beholden (usually) to
that congregation rather than to the pastor or the deacons.
So who serves on our committees? In a perfect church I
suppose the committees would be made up of the wisest, most mature, most
committed members of the congregation. What I have found, though, is that in
many cases the committees are filled with the first people who agreed to serve.
Further, in smaller churches people are required to serve on multiple
committees because of a simple lack of numbers.
A fellow pastor told me a story over lunch recently about
one experience he had with a committee in his church.[6] A
group in his congregation had been tasked with the formulation of a statement
of faith that was more appropriate and relevant to the congregation than the
one presently in the church’s Constitution. After weeks of non-discussion and
no action to revise or create that statement, the pastor commented to the
committee that they “just don’t care.” He was right. Even on an issue as
fundamental as the development of a statement of faith so little enthusiasm was
mustered that the issue died on the committee floor.
Our committee structure is a good thing. As Baptists
emphasize the Priesthood of the Believer we quickly emphasize congregational
church governance. The two go hand-in-hand. What is also necessary to
emphasize, though, is the essential nature of Christian discipleship in the
Priesthood of the Believer and therefore in our Baptist church polity.
A Baptist church committee can only function in so far as
its members have set themselves to the difficult process of maturation in
Christian faith and life. There is a direct correlation between the
effectiveness (I dare say relevance) of a committee and its members’ relative
spiritual maturity. Yes, we could make the church finance committee be nothing
but expert accountants and financial managers. But unless these individuals
have committed themselves to following the Lord in ever-increasing knowledge
and development, they will miss the true nature of a church’s mission and
therefore miss the point entirely of serving on a congregational committee.
If a congregation’s committees are weak or ineffective,
perhaps we should emphasize discipleship and the clear call to progressive
maturity in faith demonstrated in the Scriptures.[7]
Only through the spiritual maturity of the constituent members of a committee
can that body truly serve the good of Christ’s church.
Further, let us take seriously the selection of committee
members in our congregations. If these committees are important, then the
selection of their membership should be important.[8]
Not everyone who has balanced a checkbook is spiritually prepared to serve on
the finance committee, and likewise a person should not be excluded if they don’t
have a degree in finance. Our spiritual maturity as disciples should be the
guiding principle in our selection committee members rather than our ability to
find volunteers.
Cooler heads have prevailed in the case of Dr. Rice serving
on the college football selection committee. Although she has defended her
inclusion based upon her knowledge of the game, such excuses are irrelevant.
Dr. Rice should be included in the decision making process because she has
proven her maturity in making important, difficult decisions. She has
demonstrated an ability to evaluate the facts and to make informed choices
without being distracted by the passion that I would certainly have were I on
that committee.[9]
We must seek maturity in our committee members because it is
those who have been discipled by the church the most who are best equipped to
make decisions on behalf of that church.
[1]
However, Sic ‘Em Bears!
[2] http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9830542/condoleezza-rice-officially-college-football-playoff-committee.
[3] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131016/condoleezza-rice-college-football-playoff/.
See also http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/16/college-football-playoff-committee-includes-condol/
[4]
The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) has been interpreted in ways that
contribute to the Pastor-as-CEO model of church governance. There is no language
in that document concerning a committee structure in a congregation; such
language and direction is usually present in a congregation’s Constitution and
By-Laws.
[5]
See Leonard, Bill J., Baptist Ways.
Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 2003.
[6] It
was at McAllister’s, and was very tasty.
[7]
For more on this progression of discipleship, see me recently posted work on
Catechesis as Discipleship.
[8] An
argument can be made that serving on a committee is an act of discipleship
whereby less mature members can be compelled to grow through their service.
This is certainly true, but for growth to occur there needs to be a critical
mass of relatively mature members on the committee to disciple the less mature
members throughout the year.
[9]
Again, Sic ‘Em Bears!
No comments:
Post a Comment