Saturday, February 21, 2009

Committees

I’m in both an honored and dubious position. Two different committees want me.

The problem I’m having is not which committee to serve on, but am I called to serve on any committee? Don’t get me wrong, I have the utmost respect and gratitude for those that are called to fill those positions! Committees are a fundamental part of the Presbyterian way and are the nuts and bolts of the everyday operations. It’s that everyday focus on one aspect of church life that prompted me to turn down the request to serve on Session last year and makes me reluctant to attach myself to a committee now.

My experience, at work, home, and church has showed me I have a gift for seeing how things interconnect across boundaries. These boundaries are often artificial and established by people to make things, understandably, more manageable. The two projects I’m currently most interested in have arisen from just such insights to interconnection. It is also these two projects that are making me attractive to these two committees. However, this gift, and the unknown of where it and the Spirit will lead me next is why I’m leaning toward addressing my commitment to these two projects and not to a particular committee(s).

It may seem like I’m splitting hairs here. Being on Session is a definite solid commitment for three years and I made the right choice there. A commitment to a committee is less rigid but signing on to two committees because I’m interested in two projects doesn’t ring fair and honest with me. But if I make my commitment to helping launch these two projects I am more than willing to attend the committees that they fall under. I just want to make it clear that, for now at least, it’s these projects that are my focus. Now if I’m just worried about semantics and this means I’m “on” the committee, so be it. I just want to be clear about expectations.

I suppose this loyalty to a project rather than “structure” is showing my leanings toward the emerging culture attitudes in this regard? Something we need to be more aware of these days. Ah, the joys of being born at the transition!

Maybe the two committee Chairs can live with this committed non-commitment? :-)

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I respect your position and desire here, Dave, and am confident that God will use you with this project. We don't need warm bodies and names to fill a committee position but called disciples to do God's work of His Church with the gifts He has blessed you with.
Your Sister in Christ, Lori

Anonymous said...

Dave,

I agree that committing to a project rather than committee can be a wonderful thing, and I think this model is probably more attractive to most people, not just younger members.

I've lately thought about committees this way: we committee folk will mind to the day-to-day details so that the Dave McGhee's of the world can follow their ministry passions and bring others along. Committees should support you as much as their resources allow. I think it's a great model, IF.

IF, folks proposing great ministry projects have the energy and plans to carry them out. I know that you do, but I've been in churches where certain people were great at developing new ministry ideas, but wanted others to carry them out. When that happens, all of these great ideas fall on already-busy committee members that may or may not have the passion, time, or talents to see the project through.

The other IF concerns communication. IF you are willing to communicate with both committees, and the commmittees communicate back to you, I see no reason why your project wouldn't be a success. Communication is a challenge in any organization, and Faith is certainly no exception.

Thanks for what you do for the Kingdom, Dave.

--Brent

DSM35803 said...

Thanks Brent! I appreciate the confidence. As I said, I have the utmost respect and gratitude for those that are called to fill committee positions!

I think the key here is for folks with the good proposals to communicate and shepard that project until it is understood, accepted, and picked up by those that have the gifts for doing. Many times the one who envisions the project isn't the one that has the gifts for running it.

You mentioned the committees running the day-to-day. I guess I see in my mind's eye an alternative where the committee is the guiding authority that studies, reviews, architects, and discerns the overall directions while initiating ministry teams to actually run the day-to-day. This seems more appropriate to me for a Session committee? Neither model is right and neither is wrong, they're just different, as long as they don't keep flip-flopping back and forth.

Someday I need to get someone to better explain the difference between the Session and Diaconate committees to me. On the higher level I understand the difference (Spiritual direction and service?). But the actual implementation and relation sometimes confuses me and it is different in different churches.

Dave