Why Some Disdain Administration

In the minds of many there is an undesirable connotation attached to the thought of church administration. This is noticeably true with some ministers. There is a variety of reasons to explain why they feel as they do. It will be helpful to ac-knowledge some of these ways of thinking. Generally, it could be said that most of the disdainful thinking about church ad-ministration stems from inadequate or inaccurate concepts of what constitutes church administration. The remainder might be attributed largely to unfortunate attitudes about oneself and/or others. Some observers might reverse the proportions of the two previous statements.

Faulty Concepts of Church Administration

To some church leaders, church administration is a conglomeration of “frazzling details” which keeps them from getting on with the ministering to which they were called. Typically, these irritating details are identified as the paperwork, office work, troublesome equipment, maintenance bothers, money problems, and other similar items which sometimes harass all ministers and almost always harass some.

Equating Administration with Poor Administration

It is admittedly difficult to envision oneself as being at the pinnacle of ministry while laboring with rolled-up sleeves over a usually cantankerous copy machine, with smeared ink gradually menacing the bottom of the roll in the sleeve. This situation, however, does not illustrate good administration but poor administration, especially if this predicament is frequent or routine. As Seward Hiltner stated in a thoughtful chapter on “The Ministry as Administration,” “For some administration is poor not because it is administration but because it is poor.’’

Almost all occupations have some tasks which may be unsuited to the taste or liking of the doer. The field of church leadership is no exception to this. Church administration has its share of toilsome work. These tasks can become almost infinitely burdensome if the minister’s concept of what comprises church administration is limited to baneful work.

Preferring “Spiritual” Things

Some have the work of the church organized into spiritual and temporal. These see themselves called to work in the spiritual realm, not the temporal. They follow in the train of bygone leaders who thought that the preacher should preach and not bother (or be a bother) with things like church finances. Such mundane affairs were thought to be the just share of the laity. Such a view may have served effectively to keep the minister from becoming bogged down in details. It also served effectively in keeping him on a social pedestal in the church and community which dulled his influence on life as it is lived in the home and the marketplace. Some ministers prefer such isolation, and some churches prefer to perpetuate it.

Those who avoid giving leadership in the temporal aspects of the church apparently have missed the point that it is possible to minister (a spiritual act) to the needs of persons as together they plan and do the work of the church. This world of work may afford the minister his best channel by which to validate for his people the great truths of life he enunciates by word and manner of living. It is possible that minister and members alike might experience more Christian growth and maturing as they work together in church ministries, and the supporting services thereof, than they would by typical or traditional Christian growth programs—as important as these are. The ministry of administration rejects the artificial dual-ism of spiritual and temporal in the life and work of the church. Such dualism reflects an inadequate and inaccurate concept of church administration.

Rejecting “Executive Image”

Some disdain administration because they reject the “executive image” with which some others have implemented ad-ministrative responsibilities. These usually sincere persons don’t want to be thought of as executives. They, too, are con-fusing a legitimate activity with a mistaken concept. There is no “big wheel” self-concept in the best executive. To execute is to put into effect, to carry out, to perform. An executive is one who puts into effect, carries out, performs. None of these actions is wrong. All of them are right to do. The problem is that of a great idea maligned by poor performance. It is all right to be the right kind of executive. Almost any worthy and noble function could be distorted by one who performs it in a wrong or crude manner. Such performance by some is hardly justification for avoidance of good performance by others. Unfortunate Attitudes Toward Self and/or Others

Some disdain church administration as espoused in its best forms because of unfortunate self-concepts, or poor concepts of others, or both. To identify all of these problems would not only be beyond the scope of this treatise but would also likely tax the most competent analyst. Perhaps to point out some of these problems would serve as a mirror to some persons, there-by enabling them to see themselves, and, possibly to deter-mine to leave the ranks here indicated. With that hope, let us proceed. Inflated Ego Problems

Some who have a distaste for church administration have equated it with the lowly chores of the church, which they feel themselves to be above doing. These are not included in their call to minister, and they are not about to be caught doing them, even if they go undone. If the church wants these chores done, “they” can get someone else to do them, or do them themselves. These people feel called to be the “chiefs” at every gathering, and the “Indians” at none. Besides, to act like an ordinary member might lower the esteem in which the other members hold them. They might become just another person, without a lordly pedestal elevating them above the common herd.

Some are unwilling to acknowledge that they are not sufficient for every need. These are very likely as busy as one can be with administration as they see it (doing things), and despising almost every minute of it. But to call for help would be to admit that they, too, have some limitations.

Some formally educated persons who got the idea in their theoretical concept of ministry that higher education elevated them to the position of telling others what to do and expecting them to do it wonder why much of what they tell someone to do goes undone. Soon administration becomes a bad word for them. These have made the lofty trip up to great ideas in learning but have not engineered their lofty learning to make contact with real life. Their education has just made one direction of a two-way trip. These persons have a lot yet to learn. It is conceivable that they might learn much of what they yet lack through more formal study, if it could be the right kind. Others may learn through informal ways. This group has potential. Low Opinions of Others

Some suffer from overwork in administrative matters be-causes of an inability or an unwillingness to rely on others to do any significant parts of the work. Some of these persons have a series of poor experiences to show for the few times they did entrust something significant to someone else. Now they feel that if they want something done right, they'll have to do it themselves. So why not just go directly and do the work themselves? These persons may turn out mountains of certain types of work but never as much as if they concentrated on multiplying their energies through others they could develop. It is possible that someone else might do the work at least satisfactorily and, at the same time, realize a sense of vital satisfaction in service. One might even become capable of doing more difficult jobs through successes in doing less diff-cult ones. A few might even do some jobs better than the leader. Then where would the person with ego needs look for satisfaction? How could he or she change their low opinion of others? A low opinion of others may be reflected in other ways. One rather common way is for the leader to pretend he is involving others in significant ways in the guidance of the church but always to make sure those he involves are kept busy on small details, while he handles the strategic ones. Still another variation of this theme is for the leader to let others go through the motions of meaningful participation in the administration of the church, particularly in matters calling for planning and deciding, but to be certain that the out-comes are predetermined. The duration of a given work session in this psuedo-leadership situation is just how long it takes the group to arrive at the only way acceptable to the leader in the first place. Leaders who practice this deception often confuse their successes in manipulation with high-quality church administration. They have their reward.

Hiding in “Busywork”

Some don’t know how, or think they don’t know how, to do those parts of their work calling for higher skills. They may hide in the busywork of church administration and consciously or unconsciously excuse themselves for poor performance in other responsibilities. These seldom make good administrators.

Wanting to Do Everything

The simple pleasure of doing everything one thinks is part of one’s work can become an “ego trip.” A newspaper account of the work style of a real-life minister illustrated this weak-ness. In performing a wedding this minister was reported actually to have done these things: donned his coveralls to clear the pews; disappeared for a quick change before coming to the organ bench to play the prelude; hurried back to march out with the groom; performed the ceremony; sang the closing prayer; raced to the vestibule, asking the people to remain in their places until he arrived there; and with one hand greeting the attenders and another pointing guests to the visitors’ registry, he placed one free foot in the church bell rope and tolled the bell! When asked by an interviewer why he didn’t get someone to help him, he replied that he’d rather do it all himself. The comic senselessness of this kind of behavior seems too obvious for further comment.

Views of Persons and the Church

Some cannot or will not bring themselves to approach the work of the church in a way that reflects genuine love for and confidence in people as creatures made in the image of God, with intelligence and potential for commitment and for re-sponsible service as children of God. These have some serious cause for reexamining their view of persons and of the church. Certainly no one is perfect on the human scene. But consider Hiltner’s statement at this juncture: There is no reflective Christian who has not at some time asked the question, “Was God out of his mind to entrust this most precious treasure to people like us and churches like ours?” And if he has answered the question rightly, he has finally said, “Yes, we are as bad as that; but God was willing to risk it, and he must know what he is doing.” If even God felt it wise and right and essential to risk his purposes and his love through fallible human instruments, who is a minister to be unwilling to acknowledge that his ministry must be risked through fallible human beings who are, in actual fact, no more fallible than he?