An unfortunate enmity grew between Michael Downing and me. I want to believe that I was not responsible for this, but I also know that it is a subject about which I cannot be objective. I’m sure that the truth is that we were both responsible, and we should both be ashamed of ourselves.
My guess is that the average person doesn’t really know a whole lot about the inner workings of the church, and probably isn’t too bothered by that. From a political perspective, the church isn’t significantly different from other human institutions. The pyramid paradigm works well to illustrate the very few at the top who actually have influence over the governance of the organization, while the increasingly large base represents a proportionate disinterest in the affairs of the institution by those who in some way identify themselves as belonging. In other words, my estimate is that two-thirds of any congregation is only nominally involved, and of the remaining third perhaps ten percent are actively engaged in the work of the church through its committees, councils, etc.
Ideally, a strict application of the process outlined in the Discipline of The United Methodist Church would democratically involve the majority of members of a local church. In practice, it is more often than not a backroom, good-old-boy, tit-for-tat enlistment of those with a hunger for power that can’t be satiated by more appropriate means. Consequently, a status quo comprised of an extremely small number of people who determine the direction for the rest of the church emerges. The pastor-in-charge significantly influences which of these two methods is employed, and my observation is that the majority of pastors prefer to keep a tight grip on the process to ensure that they are working only with like-minded supporters (think the George W. Bush White House).
Michael wasted no time gathering together his group, and he was cunning in his ability to cut the little deals that defined if someone was with or against him. His biggest problem was his diplomatic ineptitude which resulted in the serious alienation of those who were not “on his side.” He rather arrogantly flaunted his chosen ones to the growing distress of those, including me, who realized that they were intentionally being excluded from the decision making process. In local United Methodist churches there is an annual Charge/Church conference at which the various board and committee members are elected. Michael failed to achieve a popular consensus within the congregation-at-large, and the result was a number of church officers who were elected that were not from his inner circle. I will never know if Downing was actually smart enough to have done it on purpose, but intentionally or unintentionally he succeeded in dividing an already fragile congregation.
This miscalculation became most readily apparent with the Staff-Parish Relations Committee (the “human resources” department of the local church). In the course of covering up the Smith/Altman debacle, Bishop William Dew, District Superintendent Thomas Mattick, and Senior Pastor Michael Downing were all less than truthful in their dealings with the S-PRC. There was ongoing concern about Linda Petty’s complicity in Altman’s misdoings, and Michael was not discrete about his intentions to terminate her employment, as well as the Director of Music, Raymond Barnes (Raymond had done nothing wrong; his style just didn’t appeal to Michael). Petty’s predicament was compounded by her direct involvement in the selection of the new pre-school director who in short order absconded with more of the church’s money. The S-PRC (which was composed of far more novice members than the Discipline properly applied would have allowed) was beginning to doubt Downing’s ability to effectively administrate. His lack of experience was making mine look impressive by comparison, and my willingness to cooperate with the committee rather than direct it to do my bidding resulted in a process of natural selection that was in my favor.
No comments:
Post a Comment