Trust of the congregation by the ministry in conservative Mennonite Churches

[mike]

I think that the main thing that would demonstrate respect of the non-ministers by the ministerial team is transparency. Explain how a decision will be made before-hand if possible, and ask for the voice of the church. When this advance action is not possible, explain openly and fully afterwards, and if there is 'push-back' demonstrate humility by either rolling back the decision, or learning from it for future cases.

This is the sort of thing that would demonstrate trust. I’m curious whether this is something that actually happens.

[barnhart]

I think that the main thing that would demonstrate respect of the non-ministers by the ministerial team is transparency. Explain how a decision will be made before-hand if possible, and ask for the voice of the church. When this advance action is not possible, explain openly and fully afterwards, and if there is 'push-back' demonstrate humility by either rolling back the decision, or learning from it for future cases.

This is the sort of thing that would demonstrate trust. I’m curious whether this is something that actually happens.

Our leadership team proposed a change relating to church membership for the very young and it was rejected by the members so it faded away.

[ken_sylvania]

I agree with your last statement, and I also agree with it in the reverse.

So how would you answer the questions? What practices or policies exist that demonstrate trust of the congregation by the ministry in your church?

Well, I'm not sure that I can answer that question much better than I could answer a question about policies or practices that demonstrate a lack of trust. We kind of just work together. Lay people are tasked with operating the Sunday School without much monitoring by the ministry. I don't know that I've ever known the ministry to sit in on any class to monitor what is being taught. Same with cottage meetings and singings - ministerial involvement is no different from that of lay members except ministry isn't asked to have devotions or lead singing. We might discuss everyday life and occupational pursuits, but I've never felt like I was being scrutinized or examined to see if I was "up to snuff" in every detail. Opportunity is always given for the congregation to weigh in on membership transfers, baptisms, ministerial transfers, and ordinations among other things.

[ken_sylvania]

I suppose I don't think of most of those items as a lack of trust, just like I don't think it's a lack of trust if a shop foreman is regularly present on the shop floor and the schoolteacher is regularly present on the playground with the pupils.
Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

I don't think I will try, but I think these analogies reveal a reason why something that doesn't look like a lack of trust to you might to someone else from a different background. I think that in our circles, minsters vs. congregation relationships are often characterized in ways like teacher vs. student, or employer vs. employee, or parent vs. child. Where in other congregations I have been familiar with there is more the view that the brotherhood is on one level. When the ministry views the congregation as pupils, or children, or employees, and themselves as the teacher, parent, or employer, I think they can easily slip into treating them in the patronizing way that one relates to a child, student, or employee as opposed to an equal in Christ.

Again, what I am looking for is the ways churches you are familiar with demonstrate a trust between the two.

The idea of treating leadership as "equal in Christ" makes me recoil just a bit due to having seen that concept used by carnally minded church members as a cudgel to beat down godly leaders with whom they disagreed. It is certainly very possible that I was just very unfortunate in being exposed only to situations where that wasn't done well, but I tell you after spending quite a few years in settings where that was the prevailing mentality it has been refreshing to spend some time in a setting where leaders are allowed to lead and where time and energy can be spent on Bible study and reaching out to others instead of constantly trying to build consensus among heads of homes on items that frankly can be handled more efficiently by a team of spiritual leaders.

One of the ways I see a demonstration of trust between ministry and laity is when both feel free to share struggles and difficulties on a personal level and can (generally) count on information not being shared beyond a need-to-know basis. If, for instance, I were dealing with emotional difficulties such that I didn't feel able to teach Sunday School or share a prayer meeting topic, I could share that with my ministry and count on them not broadcasting it to the entire congregation - and my name wouldn't show up on the schedule. Over the time of a recent ordination, a brother who had reason to believe he would likely be nominated talked to the bishops in advance and asked to be excused. The bishops agreed that he had valid reasons for his request, and anyone who put his name in for nomination was advised of that request and given opportunity to give another name instead. Knowing that situation was handled carefully and confidentially gives me confidence and trust in sharing with my ministry.

Of course, that need to be able to maintain confidences can also be abused. A certain individual I know has a tendency to regularly invoke the "confidential sources" argument when challenged about certain wild claims that he makes. In thinking about what makes the difference, I've concluded that when a person is commonly open and transparent with reasons and information that doesn't need to be kept confidential, I'm more likely to give them latitude and actually believe them when they feel they can't go into detailed reasoning for certain items. (Not sure this last paragraph accurately reflects what I'm thinking - it's hard to put into words.)

[ken_sylvania]

I think that the main thing that would demonstrate respect of the non-ministers by the ministerial team is transparency. Explain how a decision will be made before-hand if possible, and ask for the voice of the church. When this advance action is not possible, explain openly and fully afterwards, and if there is 'push-back' demonstrate humility by either rolling back the decision, or learning from it for future cases.

This is the sort of thing that would demonstrate trust. I’m curious whether this is something that actually happens.

I've had a bishop explain to me how he felt the bishops had made a mistake in how they handled an issue (even though if I understand correctly he had been agreed with the plan of action at the time) and how he would like to handle it differently in the future.

[Neto]

I think that the main thing that would demonstrate respect of the non-ministers by the ministerial team is transparency. Explain how a decision will be made before-hand if possible, and ask for the voice of the church. When this advance action is not possible, explain openly and fully afterwards, and if there is 'push-back' demonstrate humility by either rolling back the decision, or learning from it for future cases.

This is the sort of thing that would demonstrate trust. I’m curious whether this is something that actually happens.

Our leadership team proposed a change relating to church membership for the very young and it was rejected by the members so it faded away.

Perhaps something similar? In our congregation, a person younger than 18 may be baptized and become a member, but voting is restricted to 18 and older.

[Neto]

....
One of the ways I see a demonstration of trust between ministry and laity is when both feel free to share struggles and difficulties on a personal level and can (generally) count on information not being shared beyond a need-to-know basis. If, for instance, I were dealing with emotional difficulties such that I didn't feel able to teach Sunday School or share a prayer meeting topic, I could share that with my ministry and count on them not broadcasting it to the entire congregation - and my name wouldn't show up on the schedule. Over the time of a recent ordination, a brother who had reason to believe he would likely be nominated talked to the bishops in advance and asked to be excused. The bishops agreed that he had valid reasons for his request, and anyone who put his name in for nomination was advised of that request and given opportunity to give another name instead. Knowing that situation was handled carefully and confidentially gives me confidence and trust in sharing with my ministry.

Of course, that need to be able to maintain confidences can also be abused. A certain individual I know has a tendency to regularly invoke the "confidential sources" argument when challenged about certain wild claims that he makes. In thinking about what makes the difference, I've concluded that when a person is commonly open and transparent with reasons and information that doesn't need to be kept confidential, I'm more likely to give them latitude and actually believe them when they feel they can't go into detailed reasoning for certain items. (Not sure this last paragraph accurately reflects what I'm thinking - it's hard to put into words.)

Would a lot of "unspoken prayer requests" fall into this category, or am I misreading your comment here?

[eccentric_rambler]

I think that the main thing that would demonstrate respect of the non-ministers by the ministerial team is transparency. Explain how a decision will be made before-hand if possible, and ask for the voice of the church. When this advance action is not possible, explain openly and fully afterwards, and if there is 'push-back' demonstrate humility by either rolling back the decision, or learning from it for future cases.

This is the sort of thing that would demonstrate trust. I’m curious whether this is something that actually happens.

I've had a bishop explain to me how he felt the bishops had made a mistake in how they handled an issue (even though if I understand correctly he had been agreed with the plan of action at the time) and how he would like to handle it differently in the future.

I don't know what sort of issue this was, so maybe my thoughts don't apply. That sort of openness is good. You say "the bishops" so was this a church-wide issue? To me the better path would be to acknowledge the mistake to the congregation/s involved rather than telling the handful of people who might ask one of the more open-to-discuss-the-issue bishops. Openness on a person-to-person level isn't lacking as much. The sort of openness that is missing is on the united-front-ministry to congregation level.

This has been a real mess for us recently. The congregation had, if not unanimous close to it, support for an idea that had first been floated several years ago. Half the ministry supported the idea, half did not. Officially, the only comment made was "You've been heard". Unofficially, comments were made and plenty of hints were dropped. Rumors were flying. Somehow those related to the ministry always had more information than the rest. There was no transparency about the decision-making process or the status of the idea until the ministry had made a decision. To me it showed a lack of trust in the congregation. Not that I expected we would be involved in the decision, but that we were not kept reasonably abreast of the glacially slow progress of the idea. Sure, you could ask the ministry. You could even ask the ones you knew supported the idea and thus were likely to give you some hints of information instead of telling you it was a bad idea or that the congregation had been heard. But institutionally, as Mike says, it felt like a lack of trust.

[Neto]

I think that the main thing that would demonstrate respect of the non-ministers by the ministerial team is transparency. Explain how a decision will be made before-hand if possible, and ask for the voice of the church. When this advance action is not possible, explain openly and fully afterwards, and if there is 'push-back' demonstrate humility by either rolling back the decision, or learning from it for future cases.

This is the sort of thing that would demonstrate trust. I’m curious whether this is something that actually happens.

It's difficult to make a fair assessment about this, because the natural tendency is to remember the times when it wasn't done that way than it is to remember the times when it was. But the exceptions can really stand out, and can lead the membership to think that "in this case" there is some sort of cover up going on, or a decision that is based on a personal conflict with another person, or a favoritism. Sometimes a misunderstanding can be the result of a perhaps unfortunate choice of words. A possible error I made in this sort of thing is that last Sunday in SS (I am currently serving as the teacher - discussion leader) I made a reference to the previous Sunday, when the class was very small. I said that "It was slim pickings last Sunday." I meant that the attendance was low, not intending any negative connotations about those who HAD been there. Maybe I should apologize next Sunday?

[ohio jones]

Sometimes a misunderstanding can be the result of a perhaps unfortunate choice of words. A possible error I made in this sort of thing is that last Sunday in SS (I am currently serving as the teacher - discussion leader) I made a reference to the previous Sunday, when the class was very small. I said that "It was slim pickings last Sunday." I meant that the attendance was low, not intending any negative connotations about those who HAD been there. Maybe I should apologize next Sunday?

It could be interpreted as negative connotations about those who had NOT been there: the excessively portly ones were absent.