Gordon T. SmithSpirit and Institution: How Chrisitan organizations and churches be more intentionally responsive to the guidance of the Spirit
[originally published with the Canadian Council for Christian Charities]
Spirit and Institution
Gordon T. Smith (Executive Director for Christian Higher Education Canada)
Church politics! It can be exhausting, confusing and so very frustrating. I am struck by how many pastors dread the AGM – the annual general meeting – and how often I encounter younger Christians who cynical about the church if they have not actually given up on the church because of “politics.” But it is not only with the church; the same frustration is found within non-profit organizations, especially when there is a founder or lead executive who runs the organization like a personal fiefdom. Or I think of those who have given up on denominations because they seem to be nothing but the local church writ larger with debates year in and year out that are deeply polarized and, to say it again, exhausting.
And the question arises: is this the way that decisions should be made? And might there be another way, ideally a approach to governance and decision making that reflects the input of the Spirit? Can we even speak of institutions and the Holy Spirit in the same sentence?
Spirit. Institution. By “Spirit” I mean not to the spirit or ethos of the organization but rather the third person of the Holy Trinity. Spirit in that sense. By institution we mean a social structure defined by protocols, and policies, and the exercise of authority and power to accomplish a mission. And yes, this includes church congregations that have a board or elders or church council with bylaws and policies and agreed upon protocols. And it includes non profit agencies, as well as colleges and universities.
Many assume that institutions by their very nature supplant or bracket out any direct influence of the Spirit of God. And those who speak of the Spirit are often wanting to bypass anything that seems to have an institutional character to it. They think of the Spirit as spontaneous and immediate and thus inherently limited or unduly restrained by the protocols, policies and due process of institutions.
And yet, we need to speak of Spirit and institution. Surely one of the more pressing questions of our times how we can foster the capacity of our institutions to be more attentive and responsive to the presence and witness of the Spirit. We especially feel this when it comes to the deliberative process, when a vital and essential decision is on the table. We have a choice before us that will shape the health and well-being of our institutions. And we want and need to know the mind of God.
Can our institutions be more intentionally alert to the presence and witness of the Spirit, especially when critical decision-making happens? Can we make theological, moral and missional decisions that reflect the calling and guidance of the Holy Spirit? We ask this out of a conviction that we can honour both: the institution with a structure of governance that assumes the exercise of authority for implementing the mission of the organization; and the shared conviction that we want to be attentive to the Spirit – not as mere lip service, but with a pattern or way of being that genuinely brings the Spirit into the process, not as one voice in the process but a the defining and determinative voice. What does it mean to pray “Come Holy Spirit Come” as those who want what is best for our churches, denominations, non-profit organizations and institutions of learning?
From Antioch to Jerusalem
When we think Spirit and institution, one helpful point of reference is the book of Acts – not so much for abiding principles, which would be found throughout the New Testament, but for an actual example of decision-making in direct response to the witness of the Spirit. Of particular note is the sequence recorded in Acts 13 and 15.
First, in Acts 13 we read:
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a childhood friend of Herod the ruler,[a] and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
Then two chapters later, and after their extensive ministry in Asia Minor, we read that Paul and Barnabas are in Jerusalem for what is often described as the Council of Jerusalem. James, the brother of Jesus, presides over the deliberations. From Acts 13 to Acts 15 we have one of the most dramatic and significant inflection points in the history of the church and in redemptive history. Yes, from the beginning, it was clear that the Gospel was for all peoples: Jews and Gentiles could be and would be children of Abraham and Sarah. And yet it took a while for this to be fully appreciated. But early on, Paul came to see that Gentiles – non-Jews — would be included in this covenant and this is what brings him to the Jerusalem deliberation – the huge question: would Gentiles need to become Jewish before becoming Christians? Would they need to submit to and live by Jewish regulations to be a Christian or could they be Christians in their own right. We know that eventually the “dividing wall” between Jew and Gentile would come down [Ephesians 2:14] but that was not fully appreciated at this point in the story. Yes, we know it today; but for this understanding, we can be grateful for the good work of those who participated in the Acts 15 Council. It was an intense debate: would Gentiles be required to keep the Levitical laws, as was the practice with Jewish Christians? What was deliberated and decided on was a theological, moral and missional question, all in one. And the process led to the remarkable words of James, when he said about the assembly: “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28)that . . .” and the conclusion was then sent by formal messenger to the church in Antioch where all of this had started. How fitting: the resolution and the work of the Spirit had come full circle. The church in Antioch was responsive to the Spirit and now the Council confirmed the significance of what they had and were dong.
Using Acts 13 and 15 as a key reference, what can we learn about Spirit and institution? Coming to this from our own experience of institutions and what we are learning about effective decision-making within these organizations, what can be said? What is offered here is not in any way a final word on the question, of course, but merely a contribution to the on-going discussion about what it might look like for our institutions to be more intentionally responsive to the witness of the Spirit in the work and ministry to which we are called.
It is common protocol within Christian circles – denominations, churches, and non-profit agencies, including Christian schools and colleges – that in anticipation of a synod meeting, or a general assembly, or a board meeting or a committee meeting, to have a prayer at the beginning of our deliberations. We start with a prayer. We ask God to bless our deliberations and provide us with the wisdom we need in the face of the challenges before us. Sometimes these are complex theological and moral questions; at other times, we are facing a crucial strategic decision – to expand the organization or perhaps build a new facility?, or make a critical personnel decision or appointment. We pray and ask God for wisdom and insight and then we tackle the issue that is at hand, trusting in God’s guidance and direction.
This is good and appropriate, of course. And yet, this practice raises a first or preliminary question. Are there conditions that might make us more amenable to the gift of wisdom and discernment from the Spirit? Are we collectively aligned in heart and mind so that we can be receptive to the guidance of God? Related to this, to ask: might there be an impediment that makes it very difficult if not impossible to discern well? We recognize that our hearts need to be open and clear and attentive to the guidance of the Spirit as a collective. And so we ask: are we disposed to know the guidance of God?
Cultivating the Capacity to Know the Presence and Guidance of the Spirit
What does it mean to be receptive – collectively – to the guidance of the Spirit? There are at least seven essential conditions for being fully present to the Spirit and receptive to the Spirit’s gift of wisdom. Our collective disposition will be marked by:
Holy Indifference
First, it is a given that we come to this process with a shared resolve that we will each l defer to the will of God as mediated to us by the Spirit. We will each set aside our own proclivities and desires and with holy indifference open heart and mind to the Spirit. This does not mean that we are not invested in the outcome. It does not mean there is no debate. It does not mean that we will not argue for this or that or the other. But it will mean that we know that while we might be deeply invested, we care deeply, we will not insist on our own way or our own understanding. For instance, as an academic administrator who is invested in this institution, you trust process and the vote – be that on faculty or the board – and defer. Or, as a pastor, you know what it means to care deeply through the process and the potential outcomes but still you say: “not my will, but thine be done.”
Holy indifference is not apathy; it is not that we are not engaged. It is rather a posture of humility where we acknowledge to ourselves that, “I do not assume I know best or have the final answer on this or that or the other.” We come to the process eager for wisdom and discernment and not assuming we already have it. We know the process itself is crucial to the wise decision.
Related to this matter of holy indifference is that a mature organization will have a well developed conflict of interest policy in place – a policy that leads to specific protocols that are honoured by each participant in the deliberation process. We cannot discern well when there is an inherent conflict of interest – be that on a church council or a faculty committee in a college or a board of trustees gathering for a non-profit organization.
Word and Spirit
Then also, any appreciation of the witness of the Spirit in an institution assumes the interplay of Word and Spirit. The witness of the Spirit will be deeply congruent with the written witness that is found in the ancient text. Those who know and recognize the guidance of the Spirit are typically those in whom the Word dwells richly (Col 3:16).
And yet, it is important to stress that while Scripture is a fundamental and authoritative guide to the life and witness of Christian churches and organizations, it needs to be used with care. Of note is that for the Council of Jerusalem, those who were quoting Scripture were those who in the end did not represent the witness of the Spirit. We read that the Council faced “no small dissension and debate with them” as they demanded that the verses they were quoting be the definitive guide to the decisions that were being made about the Gentiles. Scripture was still the defining authority, but in the end James was also quoting Scripture when speaking to the conclusion that had been reached by the Council. Scripture was the base line but it was in and by the Spirit that they discerned how the Word would shape their common life and the decision they were making.
Name Reality
We get beyond either nostalgia or wishful thinking. Receptivity to the Spirit in our institutions assumes that the Spirit guides us in this time and in this place. We name our current reality as it actually is, rather than what we might wish it to be. For example, perhaps the neighbourhood in which our church facility is located has changed rather significantly and is now made up of a new demographic or population. Or perhaps we come to see that an authoritarian government is now in place in our country and this calls for a different stance or posture towards the civic square. Or perhaps a college comes to recognize that its mission and programs simply no longer are needed or attracting potential students. Accordingly, rather than bemoaning a development, we discern what it means going forward. We name reality with a confidence that God is calling us into this time and place. On the global scale if the epicentre of global mission has shifted to the global south. We do not resist or deny this development but rather ask: what then does this mean for our participation in the global mission of God?
This also means that we get beyond what we might speak of as “franchising”, which is a way to bypass the hard work of discernment: we merely visit a “successful” church or school or non-profit and then replicate it as best we can. But could it be that God is calling us to this time and this place and what happens elsewhere while good in that context is not necessarily what is happening here, in this time and in this place. The Spirit may well be calling us to engage our immediate context in a very different manner. Yes, we can learn from others, but there is no substitute for the due diligence and hard work of discerning how the Spirit is calling and equipping us here, in this neighbourhood, in this city and in light of or unique circumstances. But we can only do this if we name our reality and move beyond both nostalgia about the past and wishful thinking about our current reality. And it may well be that two churches in the same neighborhood discern differently – each responding to the Spirit, not competing but trusting the Spirit to guide both as they both witness to the grace of God in that context.
When we consider the sequence from Antioch to Jerusalem one cannot help but wonder: did the church in Antioch see something and envision something that the mother church in Jerusalem would never have come to on their own? Was the Antioch church, in the hinterland, on the forefront of the initiative of the Spirit? Did the Antioch church, rather than being the Jerusalem church writ small, instead become a new frontier of the work of the Spirit? And did they thereby open up a new vista for the whole church, including of course the church in Jerusalem. And thus credit James and the leadership in Jerusalem that they recognized the Spirit was doing something in one place that in the long term has implications for the global church. And thanks be to God the elders of the church in Antioch were ready and willing to engage this new frontier under the guidance of the Spirit.
Intentional Interdependence
In this process, we need one another. Very specifically, we each know that we will come to our decision jointly. As a committee, we are wrestling with a complex question – theological or moral or missional. We want know the mind of the Spirit. And to that end, we recognize that we need one another to come to the wisdom we need for this hour. We might say as we enter into the process: “No one person has the wisdom we need for this complex question . . . but the wisdom we need is in the room.” And thus we learn to listen twice as much as we speak. We listen and learn and come to see that the ‘solution’ to our vexing question is here in this space and in this conversation. But to stress: it is not housed in any one person – the “smartest” or “wisest” or most “spiritual.” The wisdom we need is found in the collective and arises out of the deliberative process. This means that in this process there is no place for bullies or narcissists, or know-it-alls. We all need the humility that acknowledges that we see through a glass darkly, that we are all learning and that we need one another in order to discern well.
It also means that those in senior levels roles – administrators in a non-profit, pastors of congregations or denominational leaders – know that they are not the sole bearers of the wisdom that is needed for this hour. But the wisdom is “in the room”, so to speak: if we just learn to listen, especially to those who are on the front lines of the work and ministry of the organization – the equivalent of the church in Antioch for the leadership in Jerusalem. And on that score be alert to leaders who claim to be listening but in reality are only attending to voices that tell them what they want to hear.
We are at peace with each other
As we participate in this deliberative process, asking the question “what is the mind of the Spirit on this matter” we come to this process at peace with one another. There are no anger (1 Tim 2:8; James 1:19 and 4:1). We are not carrying long-standing grievances or resentments. We might not literally “pass the peace” but we nevertheless know we are at peace with one another. Just as we cannot come to the Table in shared worship with a grudge or in King James language an “ought” against our sister or brother, in like manner we cannot discern well, together, until we can look one another in the eye and confirm that “there is nothing between us.” Unresolved wrongs will always complicate the process and impede our capacity to get to the outcome we seek.
This is why it is perhaps so very good when decision-making bodies also know what it means to worship together, eat together and even play together. We foster an intentional comradery that inevitably leads to a greater capacity to discern well.
Honouring the minority perspective
Organizations and churches and denominations that value the witness of the Spirit will be communities that respect and honour the minority voice and actually encourage it. This is so because as often as not the Spirit speaks to an organization through the minority voice – of which the Acts 13-15 developments are a prime example.
This does not for a moment mean that the minority voice is by definition the voice of the Spirit – that they are one and the same. We have all experienced minority voices that were nothing but an angry rant, or a nostalgia appeal to a previous time, but a perspective that is very much out of sync with the Spirit. No, the minority voice and the Spirit are not one and the same. But because the Spirit often comes to us through the minority voice [see Acts 15] this means that we have to find a way to honour, respect and graciously give space to this voice and not shut it down.
Those in the minority need to respect the process and protocol and the weight of the majority or the leadership. But the point is that this voice needs to be given air time and those in the minority need to know they have been heard, even if their perspective did not carry the day.
This means that organizations that demand compliance, deference and submission without debate and deliberation are organizations that by the very nature of things are not attentive to the presence and witness of the Spirit. Nothing quite captures whether we are Spirit attentive or not by how we manage the phenomenon of the minority perspective and voice.
This means that we resist any move towards authoritarianism. We see this in the civic square when government leaders get frustrated with an opposition that holds them to account or when they are called out by the media. And so they do all they can to shut down dissent – any pushback to their agenda. The tragedy is that this spirit of authoritarianism can so easily creep into the church and our Christian non-profits. Leadership gets impatient with the due process; they do not appreciate the dissenting voices that challenge their perspective. And so – out of fear or impatience – they rule through the exercise of power to accomplish what they think is right. But authoritarianism is the antithesis of what it means to be an organization that is responsive to the witness of the Spirit. And it merits notice that some people – many people – find comfort an assurance in a strongman approach to leadership: men, as often as not, though not always, that get things done and do not tolerate messy debate and extended deliberations – leaders who dismiss, as we say in Spanish, ‘la paralysis de analysis’ on the assumption that effective leaders get things done and do not get embroiled in debate and deliberation and analysis.
Authoritarians assume that they are uniquely anointed for their leadership roles and their accountability is to God. They reject any notion that they are accountable to their constituents. Or to anyone who might question their decision. And so they do all they can to dismiss dissent; they have no patience with an alternate voice or perspective to their own.
We can agree that wise leadership is marked by the capacity to do what needs to be done. With courage. And yet we also insist that effective leadership arises from the willingness to hear from others. There is an inherent recognition of the legitimacy of the alternate view or perspective. Wise leaders value diversity of perspective; they know what it is to agree to disagree; they are not threatened by those who respectfully differ with them. They actually value the dissenting voice; they want to hear from those who see things differently. They do not assume that wisdom and the counsel of the Spirit is uniquely housed within them; they know that wise leadership that is responsive to the Spirit is leadership that values debate, deliberation and accountability.
Getting to a good decision means that we do not dismiss the minority voice prematurely. We do not assume the “boss” or the majority knows best. The minority voice might be the essential perspective that helps us get to the mind of the Spirit. Spirit-led institutions recognize the value of vital and vibrant conversation that includes diversity of perspective along the way to getting where we need to go. Healthy and Spirit-led institutions intentionally listen to those who are at the forefront of the work and ministry of the organization: whether is it faculty in the classrooms of a college or seminary, or ushers and greeters at the church who actually see and welcome those who arrive for morning worship or development staff who are in the field, investing in the strategic work of the relief agency.
At the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas entered into the process as the minority voice, coming from their ministry to Gentiles, facing the opening barrage of those who were quoting Scripture to them and at them, challenging what they had seen and experienced. But in the end, it was the voice of Paul and Barnabas that carried the day when James said the immortal words, “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us that . . . .”
Attending to the Witness of Experience
Noteworthy here is the voice of experience. Paul and Barnabas witnessed the presence of the
Spirit in the Gentiles with whom they shared the Gospel. But of particular note is that of Peter in his encounter with Cornelius described for us in Acts 10 and 11. Peter was reluctant to go and witness to Cornelius; but he obeyed and he went and to his amazement the Spirit came upon Cornelius when the Word was preached. And he comes back to Jerusalem and has to defend his ministry – specifically that he baptized Cornelius and eaten with him. The defense in response to this criticism is powerful, in that Peter declared: “If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us, when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God? (Acts 11:17). And with these words we read that he silenced his critics. And then Peter witnessed further to this at the Council of Jerusalem and was thus a key voice in affirming what Paul and Barnabas had also experienced.
Peter had seen the hand of God in the lives and experience of those Gentiles to whom he had preached. And this fundamentally altered his understanding of what the Spirit was doing.
Transcending a Culture of Fear
Finally, in a culture of fear we know what it means to lower the anxiety level. We approach our deliberations not only at peace with one another, but also in the peace that transcends understanding (Phil 4:8), evidence of our deep confidence that the Spirit will do what only the Spirit can do in the timing of the Spirit.
Can we intentionally cultivate each of these conditions or pre-requisites for discerning well and receiving the gift of divine wisdom for the challenges we are facing?
Can we transparently identify a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest that might complicate this process?
Can we learn what it means to foster mutual regard and respect within our community or our synod or our board meeting so that we are truly attentive to and listening to one another?
Can we eat together and laugh together and thereby see and feel that we are at peace with one another and that together we share a deep confidence in the purposes of God for this institution?
And can we learn to respect and appreciate the minority voice? And not buy into the false notion that unanimity indicates a higher level of Spirit attentiveness.
The Deliberative Process
Some might think that if the above conditions are met then surely the process or decision and discernment should be easy and straightforward. Oh that such would be the case! But as married couples know, all those conditions can be there – a profound commitment to one another, deep mutual respect, full agreement on the nature of the situation and eagerness to do only the will of God – and yet it can be a challenging process to come to closure on an essential decision.
A board of trustees or church council might have all those conditions in place but that does not preclude the hard work of a deliberative process, wrestling with options and seeking to recognize what is right and what is best and what is most consistent with the calling or vocation of this organization or church. The conditions make it possible to do the hard work; they do not mean that the hard work is over.
Rather, assured that the conditions are in place, we can fully engage the deliberative process. It is still very much a process “in the Spirit”. Acts 13:1-4 may sound like it was a very straightforward for the church in Antioch; and perhaps it was, though we do not know all that happened. We just have the oh so very brief summary. But Acts 15 is another story and as such a good reminder that sometimes the process can be complicated and challenging.
When it comes to the process of deliberation and decision making, ‘in the Spirit’, there are elements or conditions that merit our attention.
Clear Terms of Reference
Without doubt, we need to begin with clarity about what this group or body has the prerogative to discuss and debate and decide: clear on the terms of reference. What can this body decide and what needs to be referred to another entity? Is this what happened in Acts 13 and 15 – that the church in Antioch recognized that they needed to refer this question to the elders in Jerusalem? For example: the nominating committee in a search process is not making a decision but rather coming to a preliminary decision that will sent as a recommendation to a board or a general assembly or synod. Be clear on the parameters and what this body or group has the responsibility to discern. In an academic institution, what is within the purview of the faculty to decide and what is housed with the board of trustees? Within a congregation, what is the responsibility of the elders board or parish council and what needs to be referred to the whole congregation? Within a congregation, what is the prerogative of the pastor or perhaps the pastor in consultation with the board chair? And what requires a more extensive deliberative process?
Discernment Takes Time [and cannot be rushed]
Nothing is gained by a speedy decision. Rushed decisions more often than not are either not wise choices or perhaps decisions that did not take account of all the potential ramifications. Patience is an imperative to the process of listening well to one another and to the Spirit. Sometimes there is a deadline: the general assembly needs recommendation and we are the committee who will bring the motion to the floor. All good, but then start your deliberations early enough so that it does not feel rushed.
But also, the deliberative process is one where we recognize our potential to mis-hear the witness of the Spirit – to get it wrong. We know, then, that we need to slow down and confirm and test if our impression is truly from God. This is not because we fear making a decision; it is not because we are conflict adverse. We will do what we need to do but we will come to this decision methodically and with due caution.
There is also much value in what we might speak of as a preliminary decision – either as a first step or as a choice made that we will live with for a season as part of the confirmation process. Thus we can commend denominations that for a major decision will have a provision that all such decisions are made over the course of two synods or general assemblies: they choose and then two years later, perhaps, confirm. As a integral part of their deliberations, they intentionally slow the process down. A married couple might do the same. They agree together that it is time to sell the house or they agree together that one of them needs to resign from their employment. But then also, they agree to not act on this but live with the idea for a time and see if it rings true and continues to reflect what they both recognize to be the calling of God. And I am suggesting that institutions can do the same or at least something similar. The principle remains: the value of patience and a slower deliberative process.
The Invaluable Role of a Good Moderator
And finally, all of this is only possible with a qualified and skilled moderator – the contemporary equivalent of a James in Acts 15. This is the person who confirms that we are deliberating effectively: that the conditions for good discernment are in place, that the process is one that addresses any conflicts of interest or underlying grievances and insists that the group name reality.
It is the moderator who discerns when it is time to bring the process to closure and to then tests the waters: “are we ready for the motion?”, she might say, or, “it is my read that as a group we are at peace to proceed as follows” and then confirms that this is indeed the will of the group. A good moderator is alert to those who are not committed to a shared outcome and will try to veto or sabotage the process until they get their own way. A good moderator will blunt the force of a bully who cannot genuinely enter into the conversation. And I might add, a good moderator will thank the minority voice – those who were perhaps outvoted – for their contribution. This seems to be precisely what James was doing in Acts 15 in his response to those who disagreed with Paul, Barnabas and the decision of the Council.
A good moderator will let the group come to a decision even if there is a continued minority voice. The moderator will not assume that unanimity is a greater sign that we have discerned well. Rather, what the moderator knows is that when we are done, we are of one mind not because we all agreed but because we have learned to defer to one another and to the Spirit. An effective moderator models holy indifference, eager to facilitate good conversation that leads to a wise outcome. A good moderator gives the minority voice air time but then reads and the room and the process and likely recognizes that the dial is not moving any more; all that needs to be said has been said and so we do not simply then allow a minority voice to keep the will of the assembly from happening.
More can be said. But in the end, it comes down to these two questions: First, do we have the right heart and mind disposition to discern well? And second, do we have a good process in place and a capable moderator who can guide us through that process?
We can and must open our deliberations with prayer, a variation of “Come Holy Spirit Come” but then, we each know that we confirm that individually and collectively we are assured that the conditions are in place to hear and respond to the Sprit and that we can and will grow in our capacity to trust God to do God’s work in God’s time. The strength of an opening prayer is that it makes no assumptions about the outcome: we come with open hands and eager hearts, attentive to one another and to the Spirit through the process. And we know that the Spirit is with us, the dove of heaven who hovers over our deliberations providing encouragement and courage for the challenges we are facing.