CHURCH MEETINGS Part 4 – Potency: why some meetings get stuff done and others don’t
Potency
refers to the nature and degree of influence that a meeting (formal or informal) has on the life of the church. If a decision is made in a particular meeting, the degree to which this decision is carried out is a measure of its potency.
In a church that is functioning well, formal meetings have high potency, and informal meetings have less potency, but both are necessary. The following example demonstrates the potency of a church council.
Church Council decided that the grounds of the church needed to be tidied up before the church anniversary. Various important community figures had been invited and the Council wanted to make a good impression. The Property Committee chairperson was part of the meeting and agreed to this decision. On the day of the anniversary celebrations, the grounds looked beautiful. He had carried out Council’s decision well.
In this example, the high potency of the church council meeting enabled the grounds to be cleaned up with a fair degree of certainty.
Why formal meetings need to have higher potency than informal meetings
An example: If a new idea is floated between church friends (an informal meeting), it generally won’t bear fruit until it has come to the attention of the relevant council at a formal meeting. Then it can be put into practice. Thus, the potency of the informal group is less than that of the official/formal council or committee.
Interaction between formal and informal meetings
If the two types of meetings work well together, a good outcome should ensue. For example, if Church Council wants alter the time for morning worship, they need to take things slowly or risk raising members’ ire and potentially losing members. The changes and the reasons behind it are put to the congregation and then the Council waits. They may simply allow various informal groups of friends to talk to one another about how they feel. Different points of view can be aired and thought about. There may also be more formal discernment sessions with the people. Nevertheless, the informal talk is still very important. It is in these groups that people have a chance to make their preferences known to one another and, without any pressure, potentially change their opinions.
At a later date, when a formal decision-making meeting is held, there is a good chance that satisfactory changes will be made – and honoured – by the congregation. Thus, the low potency of the informal meetings directly increases the high potency of the formal meeting.
While this process is slow and, some might argue, inefficient, when working within a voluntary organisation such as a church, it is very effective. Everyone comes on board and behaviours such as white-anting and obstruction are reduced. Of course, not every decision needs to be given such time and attention. The bigger the decision, the greater the effect it will have on church life, and the more important it is to take things slowly and use both kinds of meetings.
This phenomenon is explored in more depth here.
When Potency Levels are Out of Kilter
This can occur in three ways:
1. The potency of a formal meeting is too strong
We’ve all seen power go to someone’s head. This can occur when some people are elected to a council or committee. They feel as if they can do anything they like just because of their position. The potency level of the meeting is too high. For example,
The new minister decided to have a congregation-wide consultation to discuss some new initiatives. The minister wanted to secure the agreement of most people before embarking on any major changes. Church Council was enthusiastic and gave formal approval for the gathering to proceed, and a Saturday was set aside. However, the strong network of informal groups was not consulted about this new idea of consultation. As a result, some of these groups stayed away. They had not been given the chance to chew over the idea of meeting together in such a way and were nervous about it. At the meeting, it was decided to institute a monthly family service. The consultation had formal status and it was assumed that its potency would be considerable, viz. that the family services would be successful. And so, the monthly family services began, to the horror of those who had boycotted the meeting. They responded by going to a nearby church on Family Sundays. Even though the potency of the Church Council was strong enough for the consultation to be held and the Family Services to proceed, the informal groups reduced the potency of the formal group by staying away and withholding consent. Thus, their actions detracted from the effectiveness of the new initiative.
In this example, the minister had no idea people wouldn’t want to be formally consulted, and was flabbergasted at their behaviour. However, the non-attenders had not had a chance, in their informal groups, to chew over this new idea of congregation-wide consultation. They needed to do this before the consultation was implemented. The potency level of Church Council was overestimated. It needed the cooperation of the informal system of governance for the new idea to work properly.
2. The potency of a section of the formal meeting is too strong
Have you ever been at a church where a sub-committee such as Property and Finance seems to rule the roost? In such instances, the entire Council’s work gets out of balance and other aspects of Council become subordinate to this one sub-committee. And it’s not just Property and Finance. It could be an outreach group such as an op shop or drop-in centre, Christian education, or pastoral care. The mission arm of the Council ought always to take precedence over the administrative arm. However, we can’t ignore administration. Mission needs to understand the necessity of having sufficient funds, correct building procedures, and a building in good order. When the potency of any of these sub-groups outstrips the other, the work of the church will be seriously impeded.
This phenomenon can also occur when the potency of the Congregational Meeting is outstripped by a smaller formal meeting. For example,
One congregation met formally as a group many times to decide on their mission and vision. They eventually settled on an outreach program with the legitimate expectation that the new initiatives would eventuate. However, some of the people controlling the finance and property committees decided to withhold their cooperation. The new project was hindered for years before the issue was resolved.
3. The Informal meeting’s potency outstrips the formal system of governance
It sometimes happens that decisions about church life are made in informal meetings which in turn undermine the formal meetings. For example, when decisions are discussed after a formal meeting has concluded. Some of the participants of the formal meeting gather in the car park and decide not to comply, or they decide to do something entirely different. This can have adverse consequences for the potency of the formal group, and detract from the fellowship of the church. For example,
Three of the Sunday School teachers made a habit of meeting informally to make decisions without reference to the formal Teachers meeting. This caused confusion with the other teachers who were not privy to these additional discussions. When this was pointed out, the practice ceased.
The next example comes from a secular organisation but can be applied to church life. It demonstrates what happens when the potency of the informal meetings outstrips the potency of the formal meeting.
The staff of the department held a weekly formal staff meeting where decisions were made by consensus. After the formal meeting, some of the staff would meet in one another’s offices in twos and threes, and decide if they were going to follow these decisions or make other arrangements. They often decided to do something different. Some, however, followed the course of action decided upon in the staff meeting. Predictably this led to all kinds of chaos, and there was much frustration between staff members. Eventually a meeting was held where this pattern of behaviour was openly discussed. From then on, the staff followed the formal staff meeting decisions. One person commented that at last sanity had arrived in the department.
In conclusion, the potency of various meetings needs to be taken into account so that good decisions can be made and carried out to further the work of the local church as it proceeds with its mission and discipleship.
For further reading on meetings, see:
Church Meetings Part 2 – How to get formal and informal groups working cooperatively
Church Meetings Part 5 – Do’s and Don’t for Chairing Formal Meetings
Image credit: Meeting by @yves_guillou remixed to Diverse Meeting by j4p4n (openclipart)
