CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN NETWORK Continuing the work of Jesus : Peacefully ~ Simply ~ Together UNOFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN |
General Board Redesign Steering Committee
Survey 1
by Christopher Bowman
(General Board Chairperson during Redesign)
Survey 1 - Summary of Responses In our first survey, the Redesign Steering Committee of the General Board asked respondents what they would place a greater emphasis on in the work of the General Board and what they would place less emphasis on. Here is a summary of responses: Calls for greater emphasis Support for congregations and districts. This was far and away the most frequently mentioned core function, gathering more than 50 percent more comments than any other category. Many said they believe the front line of ministry is at the local and district level, and that denominational staff and program should be geared toward supporting these activities. There were many complaints about lack of contact with denominational programs and staff, which can be viewed as a tremendous opportunity. Rather than simply dismissing the denomination as irrelevant, our congregations are hungering for denominational support that will make them more effective. Communications Congregations and districts want to know about each other and about denominational activities. They want to hear what is working for other people and what issues are important. Networking is a word that appears frequently. While there is support for current publications, there is also an undercurrent that we rely too heavily on print media -- particularly at the expense of personal contact. There were several complaints that denominational staff are "always in meetings when I call;" don't return calls; and seldom (if ever) have contact with congregations, especially if the congregation is small, rural, and western. Leadership development This was a very close third (just three responses fewer than communications). There is great concern about a perceived lack of leadership in the denomination, all the way from local pastoral leadership to the district level to the national level. Several current programs were cited as good tools for developing leadership: National Youth Conference, National Older Adult Conference, and work camps. Another strong component in this category was a call for the General Board and General Secretary to model leadership by establishing a clear vision and clear goals for the denomination, then communicating this vision to congregations. This was expressed in a variety of ways, but a very strong call was made for the board to focus on a few things we can do well rather than diluting our efforts by trying to do everything. A related issue is concern about lack of leadership and management skills among denominational staff. People want denominational programs regularly examined to determine if we are getting our money's worth; if not, then the program needs to be halted. There is a clear perception that at least some denominational staff "live in ivory towers" and are more liberal than most people in the pews. Whether or not this is true, the perception is real. We believe it is likely this perception is related to both of the previous two issues listed above. Mission Our people are still very concerned about reaching beyond themselves and see the denomination as the place this effort is organized. However, most want much stronger congregational and district involvement in mission efforts. Mission needs to be packaged in realistic, "bite-sized" chunks that congregations and districts can take to heart. Individuals want to feel they are making a difference. Other Beneath the initial four categories listed above, support quickly fragmented. However, there were a number of important items mentioned that should not be lost. They are listed below: Denominational organization -- Many expressed concern that the issue of redesign needs to go beyond the General Board level. There is great concern about how congregations, districts, denominational structure, and Annual Conference structures relate to each other. Who is in charge of what? How can we coordinate the work of all levels rather than putting them in competition with each other? Following Annual Conference directives -- Many people believe a primary function of the General Board is to carry out policies established by Annual Conference. This was also expressed as a negative by some who said the board should not bypass Annual Conference, and that denominational staff should not be allowed to pursue their own personal agendas at the expense of Annual Conference actions. Brethren heritage and identity -- People want this incorporated in many ways (Sunday school curriculum, leadership development, etc.). It perhaps most closely fits under the heading of support for congregations. Promote management skills -- This can be viewed as a subheading under leadership development. It was specifically aimed at denominational leadership where it was observed we have too often hired people based on "church" skills rather than management skills. Perhaps surprisingly, this was more frequently mentioned by those who are not staff members. Frequency of Annual Conference -- Several people questioned the current pattern of holding Annual Conference every year in its current form. Some suggested the event should be held every other year. Options for the off years ranged from a shortened national gathering emphasizing worship, to a handful of regional gatherings. One person suggested the off year emphasize some of the newer national meetings for special interest groups such as National Older Adult Conference and National Young Adult Conference. Calls for less emphasis Duplication of effort There is a strong sense that some of the things the denomination is doing on its own are also being done elsewhere, often better. A number of specifics were cited: The Andrew Center, the Washington office, SERRV, On Earth Peace Assembly in addition to denominational peace programs, and Brethren Press. The overall sentiment is more important than the specifics at this point. The message is this: Stop putting time and effort into programs that can be more efficiently and effectively done by someone else or in cooperation with someone else. Simply being able to say they are Brethren programs is not good enough justification. This message also applies to denominational versus district functions. People clearly do not want both levels of the church providing overlapping services. In addition, a number of people question the stewardship of supporting two separate sites (Elgin and New Windsor) for denominational offices. Special interest groups There is a strong sentiment (missing first place by only one response) that much of the denomination's efforts are being diluted by attention to special interest groups. Specifics cited include women's issues, Hispanic ministries, urban ministries, liberal versus conservative theology, homosexuality, evangelism, and several others. While none of these issues is considered unimportant, there is great concern that too much time and resources are being poured into them at the expense of issues that should be of greater priority. The fear is that a few loud voices are being allowed to sidetrack the denomination into a series of dead ends. Ecumenical involvement There is very strong sentiment that denominational staff members are spending far too much time in this area. It is important to note that only one called for ending ecumenical contacts (e.g., National Council of Churches, World Council of Churches). In fact, many people listed this as important to the denomination, especially when cooperative efforts could end duplication of program. However, a large number of respondents believe too much time and effort are being spent in this area at the expense of more important things -- specifically at the expense of congregations and districts. One respondent summed up his feelings this way: "We should reduce our involvement to the 'observer' status we claim to have, at least until we have our own house in order." This was also an area where a number of people believe staff members have been allowed to pursue their own personal agendas at the expense of the denomination. Local and regional fund raising There is great emotion behind this one. Congregations and districts are tired of denominational fund-raising programs being shoved down their throats that they see as being in competition with their own efforts. The new Behold program was specifically targeted as a case in point. Part of this ire can be traced back to the issues of communication and support for local ministry. The strong message was that denominational staff should spend more time promoting denominational vision. If this were done, money would not be an issue. (We recognize this is difficult for staff who are faced with the reality of current budget shortfalls.) It should be noted this sentiment was not aimed at specialized stewardship work such as that being done through Brethren Foundation. There was also a strong call for more programs that will help local congregations work at the issue of stewardship, particularly as it relates to money. World mission On the surface, this would seem to be in direct conflict with what was earlier cited as an important core function. However, deeper examination reveals a marked difference. People believe we are spread too thin and should refocus our efforts so the task becomes more manageable for a denomination our size. In addition, mission efforts should be redesigned so programs are more closely linked to congregations and districts. The specific program cited for elimination more frequently than any other program in the church (including non-mission related) was Korea. This is somewhat ironic given the call for adherence to Annual Conference policy since the Korean effort came about as a result of Annual Conference action. We suspect this is related to the sentiment expressed above about too much effort being expended toward special interest groups. SEB |