- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was reflecting on this a while ago….as I composed something in another thread. It has been dawning on me that “never say no” to a calling and “never ask to be released” may well be more destructive to the church than beneficial. On the surface it seems to be highly beneficial because the idea seems to
a) promote a steady stream of labor to staff the church
b) allows people to grow in ways they might have rejected, exposing them to important, serendipitous experiencea
c) puts people in the heart-changing mode where you have to sacrifice your own desires to God — assuming you believe the calling did in fact come from God. This can be good for the spirit.
On the other hand, I think it may well have some harmful effects that our priesthood leaders (formerly, even myself) don’t realize. Here are the harmful side-effects of the “never say no, never ask to be released” norms.
1. People accept callings for which they often have no personal enthusiasm. When working with volunteers, I have found you get far more in terms of results when people’s work is aligned with their natural passions and ability. So, encouraging people to say “yes” when their hearts are not in it often leads to lack of motivation and results. 2. Leaders get frustrated when they have people in place who have no natural passion for what they are doing. They have bodies in callings, but don’t feel they can call on these people, and end up working alone. This has happened to me over and over again. 3. Leaders find themselves starting initiatives, but never finishing them as the people who take assignments, or even fashion the initiatives — choose not to follow-through. This can impact the enthusiasm of the leadership themselves. 4.
The people who reluctantly take callings and then lose the fire often feel estranged from the organization as they are not functioning.If they feel the need to “quit” they often feel they have destroyed their reputation. This can hurt activity rates as they have been known to stop coming to church out of embarrassment. 5.
After they stop functioning, it can be some time before they are formally released and a replacement is found. During this period, the member and teh church lose the benefits of the person serving formally in other callings. The benefits are next…
On the other hand, if people felt they had less pressure to serve where asked, the following benefits could accrue: 1.
The church will get strong information about areas that have operational problems. When I say activities, I mean functions. If you find hardly anyone is interested in being a hometeacher, then this might highlight problems with the program that need to be adjusted to make the experience worthwhile and meaningful. 2.
Turnover due to loss of interest in the calling may well fall, creating greater stability in the organization, and freeing up priesthood leadership time. People tend not to quit when they are engaged. 3.
People may well be more willing to serve in new capacitieswhen their time in a calling is done — having had a positive experience serving in the church, they may well be more likely to accept future callings in which they have a choice. 4.
There could be greater progress in those areas where people are serving willingly. With enthusiasm and engagement comes results and progress. Members in the organizations that are staffed with enthusiastic people may well enjoy better experiences at church, furthering its mission. 5.
People who have lost enthusiam for their calling, and are quickly released, could the move quickly to new callings where they can serve meaningfully, have spiritual experiences, and feel connected to their organization again. Anyway, I throw this out based on experience in various Bishopric, Stake and Ward callings….it’s direct application of theory based on intrinsic motivation, and for me, balances individual needs with the needs of the organization. And by the way, I applied this in my own little corner of the church as an HPGL and got great results one quarter.
Yup – another great paradox that both frustrates and benefits me individually and so many others. I don’t see this fitting into the paradox box though. It’s not like a gospel principle which can be true, and false at the same time, for example. For me it’s matter of which approach (high pressure to take callings, versus greater choice) generates the greatest overall benefit, after subtracting the costs. And there are costs to both approaches, definitely. However, I favor the choice model because I find that its results tend to be the ones that accrue anyway under the high-pressure-to-serve model anyway, with less frustration to a wider number of people.
For a while, I chose to work alone rather than have any assistants as a HPGL and the amount of results achieved was the same as when I had assistants. This was because the two assistants I had barely functioned in their callings when they had them, in spite of my attempts to work with them in kind, participative ways. Sure there are some that will knuckle down and do whatever is asked out of duty. This sounds like a point in favor of the high-pressure-to-serve model, but these stalwarts tend to be the same ten people, and they do it matter where they are placed. It’s the people on the margin that will make the difference….that’s why I favor the choice model — it has great potential to ignite these people.
I’m not arguing or disagreeing with you in calling it a paradox, SD. I think laying out benefits and problems is a good thing, generally, and a critical thing, in this particular case. I’m just pointing out that some people benefit greatly from being asked (even pressured in some way) to do things, while others aren’t benefited by such an approach. There is an inherent contradiction in both extremes – always accepting assignments and never accepting assignments that aren’t appreciated or wanted. Many people benefit from each approach in different situations and different times of their lives.
The real paradox occurs when the word “should” enters the discussion – since we really should accept callings, except for when we shouldn’t. We really shouldn’t put limitations on service, except when we should. We really shouldn’t dictate the terms of our service, except when we should. Sacrifice really is a great principle, except when it isn’t. We really should give until it hurts, except when it hurts too much.
We really should submit to the will of God (and, to a degree, even to our mortal leaders) – but we should never stop being agents unto ourselves.
Here’s another: Callings can be some of our greatest blessings and our greatest curses (trials, whatever else fits here). I think SD brings up some excellent points but let me provide my own perspective: A number of years ago, I was called as a Sunday School teacher to the 12 year olds in my ward. There were about 10 kids in the class and they were as squirrely as you’d expect kids that age to be. I hated the calling. I didn’t hate the kids (though some them were a challenge) but I HATED teaching them. I absolutely dreaded Sundays and one Sunday the experience was so difficult that I had to go home before Church was over. I simply wasn’t a good fit for the calling…at all. Then something happened. After a few months, it got easier. The kids seemed to settled down a bit and I became more comfortable in the calling. The end of the year came and the kids moved on to the next class and another smaller, calmer class took their place. But I remember the Sunday when two of my former students came to my Sunday school class instead of their own because “their teacher didn’t teach them anything.”
I have never been comfortable with teenagers (not even when I was one) and so this calling was a nightmare for me …until it wasn’t. I would NEVER have chosen it and yet I grew because of it. I don’t know that every calling we receive has to be a perfect fit for our desires and abilities. I can see that it would make things easier but do our wards HAVE to run smoothly and efficiently? Bumps and lumps and awkwardness and difficulty are just a part of our imperfect lives and the wards (which I consider to be the most important unit of the Church) are probably going to be a reflection of that. I don’t think God wants a smoothly running operation; he wants an organization that will help people become better than what they are. To become better means we have to stretch ourselves sometimes.
Oh, and just for the record, PUH-lenty of people do say “NO” to callings. I have that on good authority from my own father (who was a bishop) and several other acquaintances that have served in that calling. It might be fair to say that it’s one of the biggest challenges that bishops have–staffing the ward.
I think Ray and Gerald bring up some good points. I see now, Ray that you weren’t simply poo-pooing the choice-model. I do see the point though — the need for balance. BKP’s “Unwritten Order of Things” is definitely not in balance, that’s for sure.
I do maintain that we tend to hear mostly the pressure-to-serve model at church, and only the choice-model when priesthood leaders try to bring an unsuccessful call to a soft-landing,or perhaps in on-on-one meetings, or in Bishopric meeting. I’ve heard it quietly alluded to there, but not very often.
Just remember though — a large portion of the membership takes everything said from GA’s hook, line and sinker without a lot of critical thought or “claiming their agency”. So, extremist statements like BKP’s have great potential to do harm to people if not tempered by concepts like the choice-model.
SilentDawning wrote:It’s the people on the margin that will make the difference….that’s why I favor the choice model — it has great potential to ignite these people.
Through participating in a smattering of other Christian churches I have seen some other options.
1) Paid positions – I’m not totally sure how this works but some churches seem to have a good number of people on staff. There’s the pastor and associate pastor, the children’s pastor, the youth pastor, the worship leader, the secretary, the janitor etc. I’ve even known the babysitter lady (equivalent of nursery leader) and the choir director to get a small remuneration. So this leaves me guessing how many people are getting compensated for their efforts and how many are serving without. What about the outreach ministry leaders? What about the A/V tech? For some positions it is a full time job, for others the money is small and more of a “thank you.”
2) I’ve also heard the pushes to serve by choice. By this I mean that one should look at the needs around you, analyze your ability to help, pray to God to ask if that is something that he wants you to do, and then go for it. This seems very liberating. God could be calling you to do anything, from cataloging the church library to dedicating your life to the decrease of infant mortality rates among small Tibetan tribes. The possibilities are endless and some people thrive in this context. Miracles do happen, etc. Unfortunately I think that the majority of people do not operate like that – especially those in the fringe or margin. I imagine that a out of the whole congregation, only a percentage give offerings. Some of those individuals will not see the need to serve in the church other than the financial donation – “don’t we pay people to do that?” So I imagine an even smaller percentage of people that willingly serve without remuneration.
If your church is big enough (from biggish to mega church style) this model may work for you having both enough money to pay for a cadre of dedicated professionals and a large enough congregation to get a fair amount of people willing to serve for free. But I think that the smaller churches suffer in this model – not having the funds or the bodies to get stuff done.
Maybe there are just to many callings in each ward. How about we streamline what each ward actually needs. Then each calling can have multiple individuals to take on the responsibility. The day I realized I did not have to accept any calling I did not want to do made my time at church more enjoyable, or at least tolerable. Nothing worse than dreading to go to church because you have to fulfill some assignment you are pathetic at.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.