A Different Kind of Risk

(July 31,2012)

A Different Kind of Risk

In June of this year I presented, with a colleague, Eric Craymer, a workshop on risk governance at the International Policy Governance^® Association annual meeting in Detroit. We synthesized our experience and the recent risk governance literature and discussed it in the context of Policy Governance.

However, more recently as I reflected on my experience and studied the history of organizations of faith, particularly those alleging to be evangelical, I noted a class of rather serious risk unique to them—that of defecting their original fundamental beliefs, the most critical of which, I believe, is their high view of Scripture as inerrant. Experience shows that, for these organizations, abandoning inerrancy begins an inevitable and (nearly) irreversible slide away from all their previously held fundamental beliefs—typically toward more post-modern positions and usually pro-naturalistic science positions. Eventually their doctrinal statement will be changed, a pastor, or president and faculty  hired that is mixed or largely disbelieving in the institution’s original fundamentals, the original support base defects, and the products (such as graduates, if a college, and intellectual products) reflecting of the more liberal position.

How can such an institution or church prevent, detect, and deal with this very serious, even fatal, risk? What is the board’s role? Since the board is the highest and prevailing authority, possessing full accountability for the organization, it also holds accountability for sustaining the doctrinal stand of the organization!

Here is my quick list for a Policy Governance board. There may be other options as well.

1.)    Thoroughly understand the issues (doctrinal positions of the organization) and why they are considered important and the risks concerning them. Seek outside expert input from like-minded people (theologians, pastors, experienced presidents, etc). Many board members are business men or women, executives of other ministries, etc. and, while knowing and believing the components of the doctrinal statement as laypersons, will not understand them to the depth appropriate in a Bible college or seminary setting. If they are to govern an academic institution, they especially must have sufficiently deep understanding to assess a reasonable interpretation of their doctrinal policies.

    Church elders also (or other equivalent church officers) must include the study of their church’s doctrine as an important part of being a board member. Most lay elders or board members cannot detect error that may have crept into the church via a Bible study or Sunday School teaching, (or the pulpit). Strangely, even staff can hold differing views on key doctrines, such as soteriology, in the same church and the board be total oblivious!

2.)    Craft and/or modify the necessary board policies dealing with doctrine in sufficient detail to the point where “any reasonable interpretation” will be acceptable to the board. Note that in the area of doctrine and theology, words can be slippery and “work-arounds” by creative faculty, or a pastor, might be attempted in the future.

3.)    Carefully recruit and vet a president, executive director or pastor, one who enthusiastically endorses the position expressed in policy. Research the candidate’s past education, papers, articles, talks, and books, etc., besides the performance and references of the candidate. (Including any Ph.D. or Th.D. thesis).

4.)    Monitor the CEO (president, pastor, etc.) carefully initially. I know pastoral candidates that have lied to their board or search committee while secretly intending to change the doctrinal position of the church or institution. Consider the newly hired official to be “on probation” for a year and/or be prepared to terminate and have the spine to do it if necessary—quickly. Boards have the baffling capacity to overlook being lied to and not see it as a fundamental character issue in their CEO or pastor. (Otherwise, a power battle will develop, and the pastor has the advantage of the pulpit; the results will not be pretty and be very damaging to the church and to lives.)

5.)    Avoid short term service cycles for board members. Board memory is crucial.

6.)    Select board members with the same attention to the candidate’s doctrinal positions as given to the selection of the CEO or pastor and assure that he or she has sufficient understanding of the organization’s doctrinal statement.

7.)    Bylaw strategies: Make the doctrinal statement irrevocable and unchangeable, if possible, (this applies especially to churches with congregational control over the bylaws). Be advised, the problem with using this device is that, as a board learns more, or needs to address a particular attack on its doctrine, it may want to refine the doctrinal statement to improve its precision.

8.)    Have a bylaw provision permitting the elders (or equivalent board) to unilaterally terminate the pastor during the first year without requiring a congregational vote.

9.)    For a Christian college or university, a Policy Governance board must include some form of monitoring the classroom and the intellectual products of the faculty as part of data supporting compliance with policies concerning doctrine as well as the other board policies dealing with other institutional matters. Simply signing concurrence with the doctrinal statement is insufficient since faculty members can be very inventive with words and meaning, and in some environments are permitted to sign “with reservations.” In the higher education academic environment, academic freedom, an Enlightenment concept thought to facilitate truth-seeking and protect “intellectual integrity,” perhaps appropriate to secular higher learning, becomes an assumed rule also in faith institutions, and this eventually impedes or even prevents faculty products from being monitored for compliance if the institution permits this assumption to become a “rule.”

 Richard M. Biery, July 30, 2012