There is this phenomenon in the life of almost any organized group of people, including the church, called the "committee." Some people dread them. Some love them. None of us can get away from them — either serv­ing on them or being affected by their decisions. For bet­ter or for worse, we are stuck with committees.

Committee Work⤒🔗

On the one hand, committees serve an important purpose. They are the agent of the governing body to do part of that governing body's work. Take the committee of administration, standard in many of our congrega­tions. The council will appoint several members with a mandate to look after the assets of the church, including the church building and property, the manse, the ad­ministration of the finances, and other such "bricks and mortar" matters. The decisions they make affect every church member. From the way the church building is heated or cooled, to how cars are parked, to the upkeep of the buildings, to the paying of bills, we all are touched by the results of their work.

The council (i.e. consistory with the deacons) often appoints other committees for other work, also important. There is the evangelism committee, the library commit­tee, the music (or organ) committee, and perhaps also the nursery committee. Each plays a role in the tasks that need to be done in the church — all of which is under the super­vision of and remains the responsibility of the council.

Committee Issues←⤒🔗

All of this is well and good much of the time and a diligent, faithful committee is a real blessing, but prob­lems can arise when a committee begins to take on a life of its own. This isn't necessarily nefarious or even intended by the committee members. But, well-meaning persons who sit on a committee for a long period of time, who diligently do the work behind the scenes, can at times begin to think in terms of it being "their" work. Over time, they begin to take initiative in matters going beyond their mandate. The idea of seeking permission from the council becomes irritating and quickly dismissed. Then answering to the council becomes a growing nuisance. Sometimes a tug-of-war takes place between the wishes of the council and the wishes of the committee.

Committee-ocracy←⤒🔗

When this happens, the committee effectively runs that area of church life and we have a cancer setting in, what I call committee-ocracy. Literally, that means "rule-by-committee." Historically we as churches have been very concerned (and rightly so) to guard against hierarchy, a system of ruling the church by grades or rankings of authority, like a pyramid structure. Re­formed churches firmly acknowledge Christ as the only head of the church and that Christ has appointed elders to rule the church on his behalf. But lurking in the background of our presbyterian church government is the danger that committees usurp some of the office­bearers' authority, making and implementing decisions outside of their purview or which have not been sanc­tioned by the council.

Committee-ocracy can lead to things like evangel­ism committees promoting courses not first evaluated for faithfulness to Scripture and brought to Council for ap­proval; or music committees bringing in additional instru­ments without Council's permission; or library committees placing doctrinally questionable videos and books on the shelves since they have been given no criteria to go by.

Committees of administration have been known at times to do an "end-run" around councils (in matters beyond their mandate) in or­der to "get something done." Committee-ocracy is like the tail wag­ging the dog, an abnormal and hazardous situation!

Neglect←⤒🔗

Councils can let this happen by never asking for an ac­count. Some committees don't have a place on the regular council agenda item and so rarely are reported on. Some don't have a liaison. Some are almost forgotten. The library committee and the music (organ) committee seem to fall into this vacuum more often than not. How many councils hear regular reports from these committees? How many councils have even assigned specific mandates to these committees? Councils can unintentionally frustrate their committees by not providing clear direction (no mandate) or failing to deal with their requests in a timely manner.

In many cases, things will run quite fine. People, in general, mean well. But when trouble strikes, when strong wills take over and begin to push agendas, how will they get reigned in if there is no regular check and balance? It is no easy task to put the brakes on a run­away committee and it usually comes with a great deal of stress, unpleasantness, and damaged relationships. Councils will do well to head this off at the pass by re­viewing all appointed committees, mandates, and terms of service very carefully and ensuring there is regular reporting taking place.

Committees are Servants←⤒🔗

Every committee needs to remember that it exists to serve the governing body which appointed it. Individual members of those committees need to remind themselves of this fact and keep focused on their mandate, neither to exceed it nor to do less than asked. Committees do not have "their own" turf. They work on behalf of the council, which works on behalf of Christ for the bene­fit of the whole church. And while every wise council will give its committees sufficient room to do their work without feeling suffocated (councils should not do the work they've assigned to a committee or bother with all the small details), committees should be happy to report to and answer to the council.

There should be good harmony — greatly aided by an active and diligent liaison. The council will wish to know the general direction of the committee's work and its progress. Council should commend and express thanks for the faithful work of a committee. After all, members give voluntarily and freely of their time and talents to serve on these committees and most if not all do it out of love for Christ and his church. This should not be taken for granted but properly acknowledged and promoted. Council may also give direction or, in some cases, re-direction, through the liaison, for at the end of the day, council is in charge and takes responsibility for whatever its committees do.

Committees of General Synod←⤒🔗

In this year of another general synod, let's not forget to pay close attention to the committees appointed by our previous general synod, for the same danger exists here. Perhaps the danger is greater at this broadest level. Unlike a local council, general synod is not a permanent body, which is as it should be. However, the committees are re-appointed from synod to synod and do much of the on-going work of the churches as a federation. Com­mittees and their members are usually given terms of nine years which make the membership of committees more stable than that of successive general synods.

In some special cases, as with our Standing Committee for the Book of Praise, terms have at times been extend beyond the nine years. For example, of the five current members, four have served since 2001 (twelve years) and one since 1995 (eighteen years). There may have been special reasons for this but, generally speaking, this is not healthy. Regular turn-over in membership helps to ensure there are no long-term agendas begin played out (I'm making no such allusion here to our SCBP; I speak in generalities and refer to the risk level that long terms bring). Because of the longevity of committee appointments, there is a risk that committees become the dominant, driving force of synod decisions when, according to our Church Order, the churches should be in the driver's seat.

Synodical committees operate independently for long stretches between synods (three year periods). Much goes on and not everything gets reported. I know this because I sit on one such committee and have previous­ly sat on another. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing or done with any ill intent. The truth is, commit­tees can hardly report exhaustively on all their activities between synods. They usually (and properly) present to the synod a summary of what has taken place concerning the handling of their mandate, highlighting the salient points for the churches to know in order to make deci­sions. When committees stick to this and do their work well, the churches will be well-served.

Missing Information←⤒🔗

It's when committees begin to be less careful and/or less complete in dealing with their mandate that problems can begin. There are at least two ways in which this can happen, the first of which is leaving out important infor­mation. A committee, through its report, has great control over the flow of information both to the churches and to the delegates to a general synod. Churches write letters to syn­ods based largely on these reports and synods make deci­sions based largely on the same. When a committee chooses not to pass along all relevant information to the churches or to the general synod itself, a great disservice is done. The situation will not be well-understood by the assembly and this can easily lead to a weak or poor decision.

There is an example of this arising in the BBK, a committee of deputies appointed by the General Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated), our sister churches. This is brought out in the current report of our Sub-Committee Netherlands of the Commit­tee for Contact with Churches Abroad (available publicly at www.canrc.org). Our sub-committee has spent much time discussing the direction of our sister churches in The Netherlands with their counter-parts in the BBK, but they experienced an obstacle. They report:

The problem in the discussion was that though some brothers perhaps even personally shared similar con­cerns, as body of deputies they did not really wish to interact with and comment on the issues we brought forward ... The BBK seemed to think that concerns should be addressed by a CanRC synod to an RCN synod, whereas we see the BBK as the body to discuss those concerns and pass them on to synod. Report to General Synod 2013, p.41

This indicates that although the BBK heard the concerns of the Canadian delegates, they did not do very much with them. Thus, their Synod Harderwijk 2011 missed important information and especially internal analysis from its own committee.

Over-reaching the Mandate←⤒🔗

Committees can under-report but they can also over­reach their mandate, another key way in which commit­tees can begin to control the agenda of the churches. Each synod gives a committee a new (or renewed) man­date. The committee is responsible to stick to and ful­fill its mandate to the best of its ability — and no more. Some committees or individual members are eager to do the work (which is in itself commendable) but in their zeal may seek to be "pro-active" and address issues not included in their mandate but which they feel to be relevant to their work. In this way, the churches sud­denly find things on their agenda which weren't there previously and which never arose out of the churches themselves. When this happens, we are on the verge of committee-ocracy.

Being Watchful←⤒🔗

I don't think committees begin with this intention but it can work out that way if they are not called out on their mandates. This is the task of the churches, in particular of the councils as they review the reports to General Synod Carman 2013. I would urge all coun­cils to carefully review all committee reports to Synod. Compare the mandate with the report and check and see whether there is neglect of or over-reach beyond the mandate. Churches can then write their concerns to General Synod and General Synod will be well-in­formed to commend or correct the committees according to their faithfulness. In addition, all committees should have a regular turn-over of membership, capping terms at nine years (even as decided by Synod Abbotsford 1995, Article 116). Exceptions should be rare and for specialized reasons.

In this way, the churches, as individually ruled by the elders under Christ, will retain their freedom and authority to make well-founded decisions and set the dir­ection for the churches in common by way of their dele­gates to general synods. Then the dog can keep wagging its tail, as it should be.