- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Today we discussed differences in the way the LDS Church spends money and assigns leaders to positions compared to other Christian churches *the focus was on one particular denomination). From the discussion, my conclusion is that the LDS Church is on a for-profit corporate governance model, while the churches the HP were talking about were on a non-profit model. Key points from the HP group comments. These are classroom comments, not my conclusions.
1. The other churches are inefficient because it takes months for the board or committee to find a suitable minister. We just call someone.
2. Because our Bishops are unpaid, our system is better because you don’t have to pay anyone.
3. Members make big donations to the church, and when things don’t go their way, they withdraw their support. Apprently, the group thought this is bad. In our church we continue donating regardless of the quality of leadership (in most cases).
4. The congregations can fire ministers, and this is bad. In our church we call people to positions who the Lord has spent decades preparing for that position so we simply support them.
I sat back in a kind of wonder as I listened. A few years ago, I would’ve had the same pride as these high priests for the way we do things. However, I actually think the system where the congregation has more power in the denomination we discussed — is better in many ways. First, it keeps a balance between organizational interests and the interests of individuals. Second, It holds the organization accountable for bad leadership. Third, It takes into account the input of the congregation when putting key leaders in a position.
Sure there will be disadvantages to this approach, but there are also strong disadvantages to the LDS model.
Comments?
There is no perfect system, and each church runs its own organization according to its foundational principles regarding the use of its resources (money and members). There are pluses and minuses to each system, and it’s easy to focus on one over the other and miss the reasons why any particular system is put in place by the people who organized it. For example, Protestant ministers tend to be far better orators than Mormon leaders – but the average Mormon gets far more opportunities to speak in public and lead/teach than the average Protestant. Which is better? It depends on what someone wants out of church.
I had similar thoughts — that just as socialism, capitalism, and systems in the middle have problems and advantages, so do approaches to church governance. Therefore, I felt the HP Group was having a bit too much pro-church talk. Of course, I could not speak up and share my thoughts, as I may end up living in that Ward eventually. BTW, when I said the church is on a for-profit corporate governance model, I meant only in the way they use top-down approaches to funding and leadership appointments.
I’m glad at least Ray is able to see that the church system is not perfect, and that even the non-profit approach to decision-making and leadership appointments has its merits.
SilentDawning wrote:I had similar thoughts — that just as socialism, capitalism, and systems in the middle have problems and advantages, so do approaches to church governance.
Therefore, I felt the HP Group was having a bit too much pro-church talk. Of course, I could not speak up and share my thoughts, as I may end up living in that Ward eventually. BTW, when I said the church is on a for-profit corporate governance model, I meant only in the way they use top-down approaches to funding and leadership appointments.
I’m glad at least Ray is able to see that the church system is not perfect, and that even the non-profit approach to decision-making and leadership appointments has its merits.
Yes there are advantages and disadvantages to each. For me and my friends personally, I’m not just talking church here, we prefer individual choice, strong accountability from the leadership and preferably no top down approach but side to side since we can’t stomach or enjoy any top down org. Which is most.
Mostly we lack any trust to any person or org or government that doesn’t have a check system in place for all people to be held accountable especially those with a lot of influence.
Perhaps it’s my biggest beef with the church. The system isn’t set up for balances, it’s a my way or the highway system. A system I have suffered from throughout my life(not just church) so I see no glory or light in that system.
When we teach our church is not a democracy and it is only 1 way(the churches or gods which is the churches, I cry inside). I remember all those that I have meant who suffered and continue to suffer from this approach in family, government, or work org.
Outside of the church I am pretty vigilant to track the flow of money in any org or business or government I give money too, I track it to all lines I can before I give my money to them. Because with my money it is a vote, it’s how I vote.
As well as my time, I suffer from cognitive dissonance, Because I realize I would not put up with unaccountability in any other place, even my own job. Seems I leave to different standards here.
How can I survive this while staying a Mormon and married to a TBM.
I have no faith in any man, just god. Yet I am asked to place faith directly in men, doesn’t matter if they are called of god or not. I don’t respect titles in any setting. All are equal. All have as much say and attention. How can I survive this long term?
My mother is a convert to the Church from a Southern Baptist background. She said the one things she still misses from her previous worship services is the quality of the sermons on Sunday. In her Baptist church, the pastor would spend an entire week preparing a sermon, and they were always very well thought out and well delivered. Never any talks that started with “Well, Bishop Johnson called me last night and asked me to speak today, so I put a few thoughts down on paper this morning ….” I see value in both approaches – I like a laity that is involved and engaged with callings and service. On the other hand, it’d be nice to have consistently good sermons on Sundays.
I don’t mind giving people the chance to grow, but I have to confess, with the volume of speeches you have to listen to, after 30 years it gets pretty stale. And the thing that gets me is that there is a lot of PR about how having inexperienced people speaking all the time is a wonderful, spiritual experience.
Sometimes it is, but most of the time, it isn’t. I now use Sacrament meeting to read my kindle, and the time is valuable. I have read 5 books in a month and the time in Sacrament meeting is part of the reason I’ve been able to do that.
It goes to show how culture, policy, and training can really drive attitudes and behavior — even in the face of bad quality. If you object to the quality of the speakers you’ll get pushback and Polyanna statements about how wonderful it is, you aren’t there for yourself, etcetera — all a result of teaching and training and policy.
SilentDawning wrote:BTW, when I said the church is on a for-profit corporate governance model, I meant only in the way they use top-down approaches to funding and leadership appointments.
It is not only a top down model but the top at all levels of the organization is occupied with the priesthood. This means that women are not in any position to direct change except as they are able to influence priesthood leaders. With a local church board – women could serve on the board and not usurp any priesthood function.
It does seem that other churches struggle to get men to participate. The general church stuff is not seen to fit what our society defines as manly (with the exception of the pastor title). So the fact that our men are significantly involved in all aspects of church operation is a benefit.
Quote:It does seem that other churches struggle to get men to participate.
I’ve heard that from multiple friends in multiple denominations. They also struggle to get teenagers and young adults to participate – to an even greater extent than we do in the LDS Church. They also have very little leadership structure for those ages. I know personally of some congregations that have given up trying to include teenagers and young adults to participate on Sunday. Instead, they focus on getting them to Wednesday night church only.
My wife is in Utah right now, and told me the speeches at Time our For Women have all mentioned that we are losing a lot of youth right now. Perhaps there is a need for a structural change in how we define the church experience for youth? Quote:Perhaps there is a need for a structural change in how we define the church experience for youth?
I don’t think it’s as much of a structural issue, fundamentally, as it is an organizational issue. I think we need to empower the youth to run their own programs,
like it’s supposed to be, with adults being advisors only – and, in units with large numbers of youth, we need to establish smaller groups with individual group leadership (for example, multiple Aaronic Priesthood quorums and Young Women classes in the same ward, with no more than 10-12 in each class/quorum) so more youth can run their own programs. I also think we need to have them focus on service – real, non-missionary-focused service – much more than is the case now. I think the structure is good. It’s the implementation of the structure that I think goes awry – often because adults won’t step back and advise but insist, instead, on directing.
I was thinking that it’s time to re-evaluate whether the traditional one-way sacrament meeting is really effective anymore. We live in a society that has a lot of interaction. We hit the kids and youth with adult, one-way, boring talks that are not aimed at them most of the time, and then expect them to be engaged with it as teenagers. Regarding letting the youth run the program — that takes a high level of skill that most people don’t have. I even griped a bit about the young women’s leader who wasn’t developing my daughter, spoke to her, and found indifference. You ray, responded that my expectations were too high of people.
So, the concept of youth “self-governance” (to the extent possible) is a great pie in the sky idea, but in most wards, most leaders don’t get it, or don’t have the skills to get it.
Quote:So, the concept of youth “self-governance” (to the extent possible) is a great pie in the sky idea, but in most wards, most leaders don’t get it, or don’t have the skills to get it.
Then they need to be taught to do it.
I know it’s not going to happen without focus by local and global leaders, but I still think it’s the best answer – and I think it still needs to be preached.
I agree with that. When I was Stake Young Men’s President that was my theme for three years — youth-directed programs and youth empowerment. A few of the Ward leaders got it, but most of them continued to drive the program, plan the activities, etcetera (if they even did that much) . The other problem here is that the Stake Youth Leadership often degenerates into an activity-planning body that supports the regional and stake events for youth. They don’t get involved with faciitating programmatic changes at the Ward level. there are a few reasons for this. One is that half the Bishops see stake involvement as meddling and disconnected from the resource and other constraints in their Ward. (And in a lot of cases, that is true). So early attempts to encourage a youth-empowering program tend to end in resistance and failure. The second problem is that the Stake Youth Leaders have very little authority over the Ward youth leaders (no formal authority). So, it’s hard to effect change unless the Bishop invites you to train the youth leaders in the concept.
The most I could do as a Stake YM President was model the coaching behavior I was interested in. Our Stake Youth Council had the youth in the center at the board table, and the adults sat around the exterior. EAch youth-age Stake representative on the Stake Youth Council received coaching from a member of the Stake YM presidency prior to the meeting, and a quick recap afterwards. The Stake YW presidency would not get involved with the coaching, unfortunately. that was another obstacle — different visions by the Stake Youth Presidencies of what a thriving program looks like — in spite of the handbook.
So, it’s a great theory, but it’s not part of the culture. And it takes quite a bit of skill and discipline to be a coach. I haven’t seen this level of leadership to youth in most Wards I’ve been in for 30 years, so my hopes are not high on this one. Our conversation on this a while ago, Ray, convinced me my expectations were just too high and that it turns me into a bit of a control freak when I start expecting or encouraging this level of empowerment from youth leaders So, as they said in a Saturday Night Live skit, the key to inner peace is found in low expectations. With low expectations, all of a sudden your job looks good, your girlfriend looks good, and, we can surmise, your church experience also looks good.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.