Daniel Zylstra

Amen, Darren. Though I wonder sometimes (many times, these days) if those Robert's Rules need to be stretched a bit in new ways considering the multiplicity of backgrounds with which we are faced. I know, for example, that even among those of us who are used to Robert's Rules and the sort of euro-centric parliamentary procedure there are those who are just too shy to voice their opinions, feelings and concerns. Those same people invariably have, just as often as any of the rest of us, valuable things to say. Thus, sadly, their voices are often not heard. 

Also, for those who do not come from our cultural context, the "Robert's Rules" way of doing things can still seem very aggressive, and it can be the case that those who come from a background where "consensus building" is the name of the game feel unwelcome to share. And, my experience has been that, Robert's Rules or not, it is still often the case that a few dominant voices are heard repeatedly, while others are not heard at all. In fact, I know that I have, on many an occasion, been one of those who is "heard" a little too often!

What I have been experiencing in the past number of years that has been a refreshing light in the midst of our meetings has been a kind of blending of "Robert's Rules" with some of the methods of Restorative Practices. In this way of doing things, on many significant issues, the chair will, for a few moments, prayerfully "pause" the normal function of Robert's Rules and will solicit the views of the entire body one-at-a-time going around a circle. Also, the chair may pause the conversation for a time of prayer. The body itself may explicitly declare that there are certain additional rules of respectful, safe dialog, using reflective listening techniques and direct communication between members on a particular topic....

I very much hear and agree that, for the most part, Robert's Rules are a Godsend to us as a church! However, I think there are times and places where a different set of "rules and procedures" need to be put in place--both to encourage those who are more shy, and those who are of differing cultural backgrounds, and to provide the time for a more contemplative, less adversarial and more consensus building model for our deliberations.

Bye Kim! We'll miss you very much!

Absolutely true, Scott. Excellent thoughts. Our culture has been shifted to a real "experiential" focus, which I think is great in a lot of ways, but it has also led us in part to the idea that anyone who has not actually experienced something directly should not comment--sometimes true, sometimes not, IMHO. Additionally, we have a strong tendency to be unteachable--we think that our own opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. When we get together, and someone is speaking on a topic (whether it be a pastor or someone else) we often feel free to take what we already agree with, and dismiss what we don't agree with, assuming that the person speaking has no particular authority, and that therefore we don't need to pause and deeply, humbly consider. It's unfortunate. My wife and I often say that we are better together, but we wouldn't be, if we didn't listen to one another, and take one another's views into serious, humble consideration.  To me, this should be our posture towards all people. Let's learn to humbly, conscientiously listen and consider what others bring to the table!

We haven't specifically done this, Scott. However, it seems to me that a lot of the principles and structure provided by "restorative justice" http://www.realjustice.org/, would possibly be really helpful for what you're talking about doing. 

This is really useful information, Gayla. I can't count the number of times that I have run into people who are not only oblivious to the copyright issues with regards to LUYH, but also with copyright information in general: praise team leaders who simply download chordsheets from random pages on the Internet without even considering whether their download is covered by CCLI, or any other licensing for that matter, for example.

Unfortunately, once you dive into the copyright question things get murky and difficult once you get even a little beyond what you've covered here:

1. Costs jump pretty quickly. If you want to have SongSelect + CCLI, so you can make the most of your copyright coverage, and even if you're a small church, it can cost $300.00/year+. Add in to that OneLicense.net for another $100.00/year, and another $189.00/yr for LicenSing, and you're looking at almost $600.00/yr for a relatively small church--just to cover your bases, and you STILL need to be vigilant about copyright on your songs!
2. CCLI, and the others you've listed also do not cover the showing of Videos! In the US, CCLI does have an additional Church Video Licensing option (CVLI), which can run another $220.00/yr. In Canada it's far more complicated, as you have to find the organizations that hold the licensing agreements for different films and the are four or five different major ones you have to search out, there's no annual fee, but a per-use fee, and it varies widely, and even then you aren't covered!
3. Additional media like podcasts are covered separately, and may require an additional fee.
4. Photos are not covered by this, and many, many, many churches don't even bother to look at copyright for them, but just swipe them from Google(TM) whenever they like!

If you, as a church, wanted to be really scrupulous about all of this (which we should, after all), you could either be stuck not using anything, for fear of breaking copyright, or spending more than $1000.00/yr for even a small church, not to mention all the work researching the whole thing--it's a real pain in the rear, and heartbreakingly complex most of the time!

Brian,

I agree with the other posters so far. The only caution I have is that sometimes, when we get ornery, dig in our heals and push back at the congregation, saying things like, "They need to realise that they're the ones with the problem" we could well be heading into (if not already in the thick of) sin in our own lives. I think it IS important for us to have a healthy (but not guilt-ridden) self-examination when congregations raise these issues and ask ourselves some of the following questions:

<ol>

<li>Why do I preach as long as I do? Could I say the same thing in a shorter way, would it honour God to do so? Does it honour God that I speak as long as I do? Do I hamper the delivery of the Word of God by speaking for 30 min. (I have a preaching friend colleague who thinks that no on should preach longer than 18min.)</li>

<li>Why do we introduce new songs? How often do we introduce them? Are we introducing them just to be "attractive" to people from outside our church? Or are we introducing new songs to bring new life and perspective, etc.?</li>

</ol>

If we ask ourselves these kinds of questions and others in a healthy, not beating yourself up kind of way, then the angst that others express to us about "things they don't like" can actually lead us into deeper and better servant-leadership of the church. 

That doesn't mean that we have to approach the people who've made these accusations from the Matt. 18 perspective, as if we had sinned (unless upon self-examination we've found that we HAVE sinned). In fact, quite often if I personally examine myself and find sin relating to this kind of thing, it is quite often not the same kind of sin that I have been "accused" of committing. Certainly preaching "too long" or having "too many" new songs are not sins in and of themselves, per-se. But the motivations behind doing these things can be just as sinful as the motivations of those who cry "too many", "too much" or "I don't like it!" in the first place.

My advice is this: Humbly receive the criticism, saying thank you for talking to you, then share with them the purpose for the changes, and how this isn't about like or dislike but it's about ______________ (fill in the blank).

I would also recommend that, if your church hasn't done so already, you work with the Council to come up with a statement about what you believe worship to be, why you do what you do (or don't do what you don't do) and what kind of feedback is acceptable and/or unacceptable from the congregation.

We've done that in terms of worship. We've created a document (with the significant help of a sister church's previous work) relaying what worship is, what it looks like in our context and what we expect from the congregation in response to that. It doesn't get rid of all the complaining, but at least people have something to examine and "measure" a worship service against and measure themselves against too.

More long winded than I intended. Hopefully it was helpful nonetheless.

in His service,

Dan