Gil Rendle
POLITY GRIDLOCK
Finding the Path in the Wilderness
Middle Judicatory Case Studies and Learnings
by Gil Rendle, Director of the Alban Institute’s Center for Learning
Defining Clarity of Purpose
Middle judicatories are often unclear, or unthinking, about their purpose and then are surprised to discover that what they do is unclear or that they have produced reactions they hadn’t thought about. Ezra Earl Jones, former general secretary of the General Board of Discipleship in the United Methodist Church, discovered through a conversation with a friend one of the essential truisms of organizational systems: “The system is designed for the results it is getting. If you want different results, you will have to redesign the system.” (Ezra Earl Jones, Quest for Quality in the Church (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1993), p. vi.) While that may be embarrassingly obvious, the results of not being clear about what a middle judicatory is trying to produce can be obviously embarrassing.
For example, in working with a United Methodist middle judicatory office of district superintendents (in this case eight denominational executives within a middle judicatory, each responsible for 50 to 70 local congregations) we pushed the question of what they actually produced with their work. We were seeking to discern and define what they felt called to “do” to support major efforts at transformation for the congregations to which they were related. But, before trying to define the new work they needed to do, we set about trying to describe honestly the present work that they did in the current system in which they were working. These middle judicatory executives were asked to describe their mission and what they felt responsible to produce (their aim). They were then to describe the tasks or activities they needed to practice to accomplish that aim. What they produced is found below.
MISSION: To fulfill the role of District Superintendent as spelled out in the Book of Discipline (United Methodist statement of denominational polity) and tacitly perceived by the laity and clergy of our middle judicatory.
TASKS:
Congregational and clergy contact (awareness) |
 |
Congregational and clergy intervention to solve problems |
|
Manage clergy deployment |
|
|
|
|
 |
Provide nominations for conference and district committees |
 |
Raise apportionment money (bill collecting) |
|
Communication and interpretation (promotion) |
|
|
|
|
|
Manage conference rules and programs |
|
AIM: To manage concerns of the judicatory and local churches; to keep churches and clergy happy, and to keep the money flowing. |
||
When they shared their work with others in their middle judicatory not everyone was happy and some accused these executives of being flip or cavalier about the aim they identified. But the executives pushed back and stated that the identified aim was in fact what they felt others held them responsible for. After a time there was considerable agreement that not much would be new and transformed in a system where key leaders were responsible for the happiness and measures of the status quo.
This group of middle judicatory leaders went on to clarify the new purpose (mission and aim) that they felt called to in a time of transformative need in their congregations. They identified the new behaviors and tasks into which they would need to put their effort, as described below.
MISSION: To create an environment of appropriate missional risk and resource congregational leaders in their task of transformation and/or faithfulness.
TASKS:
Articulate the vision |
|
Assess readiness for transformation |
|
Leadership identification |
|
|
|
 |
|
Leadership deployment |
|
Leadership development and support |
||
 |
|
|
|
|
AIM: Local congregations involved in calling and nurturing persons to be disciples and addressing immediate needs locally and globally. |
||||
As you might imagine, the difference for these executives between the old understanding of their system and the new was electric. They were surprised, and a bit embarrassed, by what their “system” was originally designed to produce once they honestly described it. But they were no longer surprised by what they were actually producing (or not producing) under the old system in terms of the congregational transformation that they talked about wanting to support. Rather than tinker with their system it was clear that they needed to redesign what they were called to do by discerning and redefining their purpose. From that point the rest began to follow. Different end points (aims) demanded a different priority of tasks and behaviors. If you can be clear about ends, the means will follow.
Defining clarity of purpose is one of the key leverage points of learning “how to do it.” Some middle judicatories will find this task of seeking clarity is best done in a formal way such as strategic planning, where a public process of inquiry and discernment is designed and multiple voices are invited to participate. Other middle judicatories may find it more appropriate to approach this task in an informal way, such as through the personal study, prayer, discernment, and listening of the executive working with much less formal gatherings of colleagues and conversation groups. The strategy for this work must be appropriate to the middle judicatory leader and to his or her system, as we will explore later. But the critical importance of working toward clarity of purpose cannot be understated.
To join the threaded discussion on Polity Gridlock, click here: www.alban.org/talk
To email this excerpt to a colleague, click here: Share This Idea!
To read the full article, Finding the Path in the Wilderness, click here: Full Text.
To learn more about author, Gil Rendle and The Alban Institute, click here: www.alban.org.