Three Branches of Healthy Church Accountability
by Rev. Mark E. Tidsworth, Founder and Team Leader
Can pastors and church staff persons say and do whatever they want? Can lay leaders determine what’s preached and taught, while overriding committees? Can the congregation vote down lay leaders and silence pastors? Who is it that actually has influence in the body of Christ? Are there guardrails and do they contribute to health and well-being in congregations? Is accountability even a descriptive word; does it have a place in church life?
Those invested in church life may find themselves asking these kinds of questions right about now. As the United States government wrestles with itself, each branch working to keep its seat at the governing table, the role of each of the three branches is on our minds.
What about church then? After working with churches over the years, the view seems clear. In healthy church systems there is an inherent tension between three groups of people in church life: pastors and staff persons, lay leaders (formal and informal), and congregations. When this tension is recognized, accepted, and even blessed, healthy guardrails serve to keep us between the ditches as people networks and organizations. When this inherent tension is eliminated or muted for too long, the system breaks down, resulting in imbalance and often conflict.
Sometimes we don’t like this dynamic. Clergy and church staff often express a desire for total control over what they preach and teach, regardless of how it influences church leaders and the congregation. Lay leaders would like more control over congregational pledges or participation levels. Congregations would like their leadership to take more of a stand on issues of concern; or less of a stand. Sometimes we each wish we had more influence, being the sole decision-makers in church life.
Yet, churches are interconnected systems of people, beliefs, norms, unwritten rules, stated policies and procedures, and cultures. We are bodies of Christ, members of the same living organism. There’s no way of escaping this when it comes to bodily health and well-being.
So, what shall we do with these insights? How shall we relate to this recognition? I am suggesting that
This tension between these three groups in church life is healthy and appropriate.
We realistically understand these dynamics, followed by acceptance and blessing.
We understand the discomfort this tension brings as part of Christian formation; teaching us how to live and serve together, refining our relational capacities, becoming more loving and Christ-like as we go.
We recognize that sometimes one of these three groups will rise in influence for brief periods, while the other two step back temporarily.
We maintain this inherent tension, recognizing the healthy guardrails keeping us from spinning out into unhealthy church dynamics.
We ultimately use this tension to keep us focused on the mission; constantly aligning everything we do with the mission to which we are called.
Missional alignment… this is SO much of the work of church leadership and congregational movement. I’m hopeful that our ultimate goal is to live into God’s calling and purpose for our churches. Thus, the ongoing tension in the system is another tool for use in pursuing this calling, preventing us from going off the rails, so to speak.
Healthy accountability, missional alignment… may we live into the call of Christ ever more fully in this body of Christ called church.
