Clergy-Focus, the Critical Clergy System and how the Middle Judicatory can help

Clergy:  Power and Vulnerability

With the exception of family-sized congregations, clergy are generally the individuals who hold the most power in a local parish.  Depending upon the polity, this includes the political, relational, moral, and platform dimensions of power.  The introduction of organizational intelligence (OI) into a system has the consequence of making the clergy person one of the most vulnerable, because he or she is the only person in the system where perceptions are individually focused.  This combination of power and vulnerability merits sensitivity on the part of OI interpretive and application consultants.

Since most middle judicatories are charged with particular oversight of their clergy, it is desirable for these bodies to prepare resources for clergy in congregations that are utilizing OI, especially if they are using OI systematically as an information system.  This is particularly true for clergy-focused systems.

The technical definition of a clergy-focused system can be found elsewhere.  Here it will suffice to say that a clergy-focused system is one where members tend to evaluate the vitality of the church through the lens of perceived clergy performance.  A clergy-critical system is one where members perceive that an improvement in the pastor-congregation relationship is the decisive factor in improving the vitality of the church.

Implications for a Clergy-Focused System

The fact that a system is clergy-focused can have a number of different implications and possible trajectories:

  • A “front and center” clergy person who can parley his/her relational capital into ministry and is a good fit for the congregation. The middle judicatory can help the clergy person/church leadership manage any narcissistic risks.
  • An overfunctioning clergy person who is paying a psychic price for success. The middle judicatory can help the clergy person/church leadership manage tendencies to burn-out or flame-out.

Implications for a Clergy-Critical System

A clergy-critical system is essentially a clergy-focused system where things are not going well.  Again, there are a number of different implications and possible trajectories:

  • A pastor who is exercising the necessary leadership to shift the culture of a congregation. The middle judicatory can help the clergy person/church leadership by publicly and privately standing with them.  This usually occurs within the first several years of clergy tenure.
  • A pastor who is no longer, or never was a good fit for the congregation. The middle judicatory can help the clergy person/church leadership in a process of discernment regarding the pastoral relationship.
  • A leadership team that is beginning to engage in a project (strategic planning, leadership development, financial campaign) that avoids the clergy issue. The middle judicatory can help the clergy person/church leadership avoid the costs of those failure paths by keeping the system focused on the primary issue.  Are they being led to (a) shift the church culture, (b) work on the pastoral relationship, or (c) dissolve the pastoral relationship?

In many cases, these will not be easy conversations.  However, many issues in clergy-
focused or clergy-critical systems will not improve with time.  Sometimes they will devolve into full-fledged crises of one kind or another in which no one wins and options are diminished.

Regimagesardless of where the congregation is, whether a clergy-focused or a clergy-critical system, there are important roles and conversations that the Middle Judicatory can be a part of – both in the short and long term.  Those early conversations on the part of middle judicatories can avoid painful, costly interventions down the road. These conversations and efforts can also aid clergy who may feel the weight of the congregation on their shoulders – before that weight becomes too much to bear alone.

From Holy Cow! Consulting and Crow’s Feet Consulting 

 

A picture of health- Vitality and Somatic Knowing

imagesOne of the points of conversation in the broader faith community is my definition of a vital (what I call “transformational”) congregation.  Most definitions of a vital congregation follow what I would call a conceptual-behavioral approach.  A conceptual-behavioral approach establishes a set of externally developed metrics that focus on customs, beliefs, and values against which the congregation is evaluated.  For example, some groups would define a vital congregation as one which meets in a worshiping space that is free of symbols, holds an evangelical set of beliefs, and values individual
conversion.  The middle judicatory of a mainline denomination may have a very different set of customs, beliefs, and values, usually skewed to benefit the denomination itself.

The weakness of the conceptual-behavioral approach is that it fails to take into account the actual experience of the members in faith communities.  Neither concepts nor behaviors create meaning.  Most of us have been in situations where someone argues for ideas that leave us wondering what they have to do with real life.  In addition, we have participated in ritualized behaviors after which we have felt that we were simply going through motions.    In other words, the conceptual-behavioral approach fails to establish meaning, and faith communities are generators of meaning if they are anything.

The alternative approach that we have taken with organizational intelligence is what folks are now calling somatic-knowing, that is, knowledge that is attained through the experience of the body.  A somatic-knowing approach probes the emotional states that arise from the actual experiences of members.  Specifically, organizational intelligence defines a vital congregation by looking at two dimensions of somatic knowing: satisfaction (the experience of fullness and wholeness) and energy (the experience of excitement and purpose).  Fullness, wholeness, excitement, and purpose generate meaning in a way that custom, beliefs, and values alone cannot.

This definition of vitality solves a problem that denominations and religious systems have struggled with for years, namely, how to reach consensus on the particular customs, beliefs, and values that constitute vitality.  In the conceptual-behavioral approach, any group of thirty different leaders will develop thirty different lists that are then to be applied as external standards to the faith communities under their shepherding.

The fallacy of this approach can be seen in reflecting upon the behavior of a healthy individual.  A healthy individual has many different ways of expressing that health.  He could be a runner, a biker, a swimmer.  She can serve as a doctor, a lawyer, a barista, or a construction worker.  He could have many casual friends, or a few close ones.  She could earn a million dollars a year and give a hundred thousand to charity.  He could live on social security and volunteer in a local food pantry.  Health has so many options.

Similarly, a vital congregation has many different ways of expressing that health.  Some are going to be noisy and boisterous in worship.  Some are going to be quiet and reflective.  Some are going to focus a large percentage of their resources on international mission.  Some are going to excel at equipping individuals to understand their work as vocation.  Some are going to be led by a pastoral team.  Some are going to have a strong, central leader.  Some are going to meet in a warehouse.  Some are going to meet in a school.  Some are going to meet in exquisitely appointed sanctuaries.

Healthy churches have options.  In fact, one of the characteristics of healthy churches is that they capitalize on opportunities in ways that are creative and unique.

Unhealthy churches, like unhealthy individuals have restricted options.  I broke my ankle skydiving, and the injury limited many of my options that required physical activity.  In fact, if you look at persons who have broken their ankles, they all look pretty much the same.  They have a cast on their leg.  They keep their leg elevated.  They use crutches. They don’t move very fast.

The same is true with churches.  While healthy churches look very different from one another, struggling churches look very much the same.  Conflicted.  Settled.  Inwardly focused.  Fixated on scarcity.  Here’s the thing:  if you look at these churches through a customs, beliefs, and values lens, they may be holding up fairly well.  However, if you look at them through the lens of somatic knowing – fullness, wholeness, excitement, and purpose – their corporate lives are starved for meaning.

Do I worry that congregations with high levels of somatic knowing – fullness, wholeness, excitement, and purpose – have simply abandoned all interest in customs, beliefs, and values?  Not really.  That’s like asking if I worry that a healthy person might not be eating right, exercising, or getting enough sleep.  Vital congregations, like vital individuals, tend to be paying attention to the habits of mind and behavior that contributed to their health in the first place.

Russ Crabtree
Founder of Holy Cow! Consulting