I remember my first few weeks of starting up my first church job after seminary – I was still getting used to working full-time, trying to find my groove, and honestly, not 100% sure how best to be spending my days. But I will tell you – that meetings seduced me. I could be on my way to a meeting, and there was no little voice in the back of my head saying, “Are you sure this is the best way to be spending your time?” Of COURSE it was – because I was in a meeting – and churches do meetings – and therefore, I was doing ministry.
But let’s be honest. Most meetings suck.
And they suck our time and our energy – and they really make us think that we’re making good use of our time. That’s generally a lie.
So, here’s what I’d like you to do. Take 5 minutes (you ALL have 5 minutes) – and watch the video above of Al Pittampalli sharing his ideas for a Modern Meeting Revolution. But while you’re watching it – imagine that he’s speaking to your church. Try to imagine what this would look like in a church context. I have some ideas of my own, and I’m going to share that after I read his book, “Read This Before Our Next Meeting
So until then – please share your thoughts below: how could this idea of the modern meeting work in churches? How would this revolutionize the way your church handles all of its committee meetings? I’m aware that there are obvious limitations of taking corporate ways of doing business and trying to translate it directly to the world of churches and ministries. But I’m guessing that churches could learn a TON from the business world (at least from folks like Al Pittampalli).
that didn’t really resonate with me. my experience with church meetings hasn’t been about non-decision. i think we might need a pre-revolution. my experience with church meetings, and why they are usually a nightmare, is that we ‘go over’ things that don’t need to be gone over. the meetings are usually an hour, wherewithin only 2 minutes-worth applies to me. so my vote for churches, is that they need an internal communication revolution.
my favorite example, is the ‘going over the church calendar’ — a printout copy of 2 or 3 weeks worth of the church calendar is passed out, and we spend about 20 un-mediated minutes of ‘making sure everything in your ministry areas is correct’. my thoughts are always, “doesn’t anyone else think we can just look this up on our own time and send any edits to the person in charge of the calendar?”
That would work if the people who are supposed to look over the calendars themselves would actually do it. We have a huge problem with staff actually reading and responding to emails – therefore, the meeting. I kinda like meetings because to me, meetings are talking with people about awesome things like serving people, service planning, creativity, how we are doing, scripture, etc.
I think a HUGE part of the problem for us as churches is WHO is making thedecisions– sometimes we don’t really know, or can’t figure out how to make decisions in a more functional way. We rightly don’t want to go back to the authoritative pastor controlling everything (although in some vague way the pastor is responsible for us not making good decisions), and we get stuck in consensus models when folks who differ strongly dig in with their positions. So mostly, we don’t go anywhere… (sigh).
I agree that most of the churches I’ve been a part of had had a lot of dysfunction around meetings, but I’m not sure that Pittampalli’s suggestion will work without a more hierarchical model of decision-making & authority…
I think he has some interesting observations about a certain kind of meeting, and no doubt a lot of our meetings (I’m thinking here of, say, the Food Task Force that plans congregational dinners, or the Local Missions Ministry Group that basically checks in on how all our various partnerships with local missions agencies are going) would be improved by having a more action-oriented approach responding to a decision already made.
But I ‘t think where this guy’s argument (at least as expressed in this brief video) breaks down is that his (business-centric) model does not seem to believe that meetings can be a place where discernment happens. He quite dismissively talks about “maybe you meet privately with people” before a meeting to make a decision, and he says you should only have the meeting once the decision is made. But certainly in our Presbyterian tradition–and I think many others–the meeting is the only place where the various voices come together for discernment. No where else can everyone hear everyone else. Session, Presbytery, General Assembly — whatever — can’t be replaced so easily. A decision made apart from that “meeting” is not the kind of decision we trust or encourage.
My approach has been to encourage our church committees to think of themselves less as committees and more like mini-Sessions–with real responsibility for discerning God’s call for their particular area of the church’s life. (In fact, that’s why we don’t call them committees, but rather ministry groups.) As Peter says above: “Going over” things is not what we need. But nor do I think every meeting has to start with an announcement of what pre-made decision this meeting is designed to enact.
I guess I’m saying this is interesting, but I’m not sure it is a strong parallel for the church committee experience.
I long to find a new paradigm for the meeting. But my concern is not the lack of decision making, but rather the long periods of time spent rehashing information or calendars. What I love about the “meeting” is when it can turn into a place of spiritual discernment, which I believe has to happen in community — not simply with a few people here and there. There is something absolutely Holy when we hear where God has been present among us as we have gathered together for meetings and work. I’m not attached to “meeting” but I am attached to gathering. Great food for thought.
You should check out Bill Easum’s book “Sacred Cows Make Gourmet Burgers.” He touches on this very idea in the context of churches. Our Session read through it together several years ago, co-opted some of Easum’s principles, and made our Session meetings MUCH more efficient (like, cut them in half efficient). Easum’s whole thing is the idea of creating “permission-giving churches” that empower people to make decisions and do ministry, rather than using the Session/committees as a way of “controlling” decisions and ministry. It relies on a strong mission/vision statement and says, “Here is who we are and what we’re about. As long as you are operating within that basic framework, go for it.” Quick read, worth your time.
Thanks Adam, for your review. The response I’ve gotten from the church community has been overwhelmingly positive. It turns out meetings are not a business problem…they’re an organizational problem, and so churches apply.
The church community does amazing work. And I think the committee mentality I see so often, might prevent the great work you do from spreading even further and deeper.
One thing to keep in mind, is that this short video is a teaser whose purpose is to sell the book. It’s not a comprehensive summary of the book by any means.
My work addresses some of the very issues I see in some of these comments. I hope people will take the 50 minutes to read my book (it’s really short). Or if you don’t feel like paying (I can’t say I blame you)…that’s what my blog is for…that’s free. Thanks.
I think that his approach needs to be dialed back just a bit for churches. Instead of saying “this is what we have decided, talk us out of it”, it is probably more helpful to say “this is what we would like to do (or the approach that we feel will work), we welcome your input.” I think about our recent Church Council meeting and much of the time was spent in just such an exercise, and in general I feel the corporate decisions were useful.
I certainly agree that just reporting the past or reviewing of calendars needs to be minimized.
Thanks for your comments, everyone. After having read Al’s book/manifesto, I think that there are some helpful things, but I don’t know that it can translate 100% to the church. I’ll be doing a follow up post with some more thoughts, but I think the important thing for churches is that these meetings are often times for community-building, and really, for discerning where God is calling us.
And I’m not one who is interested in a hierarchical form of leadership, having the pastor (or committee chair) come in and say “Okay – I’ve made my mind up — now convince me otherwise” – I don’t think that sets the right tone for discerning what it is God wants us to do…
But Al also has a section in the book that talks a bit about “brainstorming” sessions….and is very clear that these not be associated with meetings. So I wonder if he’d say these brainstorming sessions are the place where we allow room for time, creativity, all perspectives, and maybe it’s during these times that we listen for God and do the hard work of discernment…and then once we’ve figured that out, maybe our meetings can/should look more like the Modern Meeting.
Great post. I think all meetings in the church could and should be more productive. How often do we spend going over last weeks minutes, and other nonsense. I think that many leaders in the church don’t know how to lead a meeting. When would pastors learn to lead a meeting?
I don’t think I will purchase this book, but instead read the review. I found a great review here. http://www.openforum.com/articles/guru-review-read-this-before-our-next-meeting. thanks.
It always good to be able to compare your experiences with someone else.It good to get information concerning your experiences with the scriptures. Its funny how theories become law. At one point they thought the world was flat and the bible says its round:
Isaiah 40:22
22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Nice points the bible teaches this through by saying REPENT! (change) confession comes before this, which is the conflict. Peace
I like meetings because meetings are about people. People talking. That’s a meeting. True, there are bad meetings and I probably run some bad meetings. But meetings are mostly about giving more people a voice and learning and planning in community. We love the word “community” in Christian circles but we don’t like meetings. That’s odd to me.
The real point here is that we tend to focus on the meeting rather than the outcome. Listen to Al, and if we are really serious about wanting constructive outcomes, then the ways and means quickly fall into place as a result of positive contibution to the process.
Rhys