To what do the foregoing considerations lead? By "foregoing considerations," I mean the articles that are summarized in a separate box¹, and to which a lot could be added. I will make  a few conclusions.

In the first place more attention should be given to the managerial aspects of our church life. The charisma of the managerial competence (1 Corinthians 12:28) is being neglected among us. Too readily it is assumed that the managerial organizational aspects are being studied in the office of supervision and discipline (study subject: poimenic/pastoral and diaconal care) and church development.

In the second place more attention is needed for the fact that many things in the church have a procedural character. Equipping the congregation is done by interaction. Next to the metaphor of the shepherd and flock, there should be other images that showcase the relationship between the offices and the congregation.

In the third place we should increasingly take into account that it is not only “Thus says the Lord” but also “your hearts were hard.” The more the independence of congregations and its members increases, the more difficult it becomes to come to an agreement.

Applied to the aforementioned offices, in my opinion, this means we should no longer try to perform managerial organizational tasks through large committees — not even under the "regulation" that the consistory (with deacons) is responsible and everything should be done under its supervision.

A small committee for organization and management would be able to manage as well; delegation and authorizing is not forbidden by the church order.

In the second place a critical reflection on leadership and equipping could lead to a difference in dealing with the congregation (members), through which more things might be possible.

Mutual advancement and equipping, community living and supervising each other could find a place without the consistory having to dwell on it in their meetings.

It is a given that times are changing, and we as well.

More than in the past, many are stimulated to form their own opinion,  to form their own view, to waylay matters they think differently about, to talk to those who are in disagreement, through which they sharpen their own views.

One does not have to be a reader of a Reformed magazine to ask questions about a true or false church in relation to their own church. One does not have to read Graafland² to be critical about their view of office. As well as one does not have to have a lot of contact with other denominations to critically reflect upon the functionality of the church order.

Essence⤒🔗

The above I summarize in the title of this contribution: Policy demands insight, time and perseverance. They are three catchwords  which deal with the heart of policy and acting in accordance with policy. Disregard any of them,one and the cure is worse than the disease.

Policy demands insight←⤒🔗

Policy needs not only insight but also discernment and overview. In the previous article³ I distinguished between four kinds or levels of problems. Next to routine problems and reasonably easy problems, there are also far-reaching and extensive problems that need policy. Complex cases even need a policy for policymaking.  So insight is needed into the nature of problems, what it is all about. Insight is also needed into the complexity of a case: whether it is a problem of the first order or a complexity of higher order.  And insight is needed into the processes that occur when addressing the issue. Insight is also needed into the expression of church and the functioning of the congregation, the position and functioning of the consistory and deacons with all the complexities thereof, and the necessary means to be able to lead and the necessary supporting facilities for implementing policy. If there is a problem, soon the comment is that there is a need for proactive policy, especially when the problem is more complex. Intricate schedules have been designed for this purpose. In practice, however, it is not so simple. The set of policy preparation (including vision and mission development), policy decisions, policy implementation, and policy evaluation sound impressive but often too good to be true. In addition to what I wrote in previous articles, note the following.

Some process factors in policymaking and policy decision←⤒🔗

Policymaking — for example, to support the work of a minister or making a profile for the work of a minister — requires consultation, decision-making and implementation. The consistory has to deliberate and decide. Suppose there is a preliminary report. In that case the consistory has a relatively easy job of it. Then we see the following enfold, and this time I draw on the literature and less on my own experience. Many office-bearers – literature talks about decision makers – are individually and as a team cognitively limited and as such selective in the way in which they process the report information. Furthermore they are willing to use manoeuvres to save mental energy and maintain their self-image. For some proposals, their consequences cannot be foreseen; for example more group work and less individual pastoral care by the minister. How will this turn out? The stress could lead to evasive or panicky decision-making behaviour. Every office-bearer has to deal with a constituency. Social norms and assumed manageability of the options by the constituency start playing an important role. Not only personal expectations toward the content of the report and the consequences of propositions are relevant, but also those of the constituency. Can I come home with certain resolutions? Preferences can be manipulated through the choice of reference material; the same result can be either positive or negative depending from which perspective you look at it. The representation someone gives can be of great influence, without the content of the report giving reasons for this impression. A complex decision-making process consists of many steps, with the risk of people digging around in it without coming to a choice or decision.

Clearly the more office-bearers are involved in such a discussion, the more complicated things become and the harder it is to manage the process. Councils dealing with these kinds of questions may not be too large if it is to remain workable. Furthermore it requires a lot of insight of the president into what is going on, if only procedural. Especially when discussions are spread out over more than one meeting, measures for policy are a must in order for it to result in anything — but not only for the president. It is necessary to have a strong board supporting the president in his tasks, which has insight into the above mentioned issues. Good preparation for a meeting is more than organizing received documents. Properly structured handling of a subject is more than talking about a report page by page.

Policy requires time←⤒🔗

If the preparation of a policy decision requires a lot of time, the real work starts once a decision is taken. We often talk about implementation. On its own it is a useful term only if one does not forget that after the implementation a lot of time and attention is needed for the set objectives. Based on the former paragraph we can assume that once (eventually) a certain policy is chosen, only a few brothers will know the full extent of the decision. Therefore a lot of time and attention is needed for the carry-over — in the consistory as well as outside it.

This situation requires sensible limitations to what a consistory and deacons does or does not handle: a wise prioritising of policy issues. A consistory with deacons gives the impression of being busy with many things when there are long agendas, long sessions, sometimes more than once a month. The congregation is often disappointed in the actual results. The administrative pressure law threatens to be continuously applicable.⁴ The intended policy output threatens to be way more than consistory and congregation can handle. The result, unfortunately, is a lot of hot air: decisions without effect. Far better to have one policy decision with lots of attention to implementation and continued effect than good intentions that address (too) many policy issues. A good policy decision takes time to ripen and bear fruit in the congregation. Allot enough time for this.

Policy is not so much the decision taken by the consistory but the continued effect in the congregation. The congregation lives in the flock, not in the consistory meetings. So take time to equip, encourage, pay attention to, and so on, the congregation there. This takes time. If this time is taken and office-bearers do their job in the congregation and in association and interaction with the congregation, then the effects can make themselves felt in the consistory meetings. I think it is an incorrect allocation when an office-bearer spends more time in meetings than in actual work in the congregation. To ensure a fair calculation, we also count preparation and processing time of a meeting.

Policy takes time. More policy takes more time, with the risk that this leads to fewer results, so to less policy. This negative decline lays in wait more often than we realise. Longer meeting hours and increasing meeting frequencies are a bad omen.

Policy requires persistence←⤒🔗

After the previous two sections this goes without saying. Nevertheless I want to continue on this particular topic: namely, the decision-making. Decision-making processes of groups — for instance, consistories — involve a lot of toil and sweat. I know this from experience, but I also read it in the literature.⁵ For meaningful decision-making, groups should not be too large. Even then there is a lot of toiling and sweating.

Dilemmas with decision-making←⤒🔗

This I want to clarify through a few dilemmas that manifest themselves in the process. Office bearers among other things are chosen to have input in the policymaking. So it matters very much if every office-bearer can be done justice. In principle they will seek equal participation. Secondly, we will want to do justice to everyone in case of difference of opinion, interests and feelings. After all, discussions must come to an end, so a certain decisiveness is wanted. There are three possibilities to come to a decision. In the first place someone — for instance the president — can force a decision in a dictatorial manner. Stated like this it sounds a bit harsh but in actual practice this image is recognizable. With a dictatorial decision, justice can still be done to the wanted decisiveness and to the principle that everyone’s convictions and feelings should be included as far as possible. The latter presupposes an integrity and competence of the president. It is, however, in contradiction with the principle of equal participation in the decision-making of every office-bearer. Secondly, a decision can be made by majority vote. Everyone can cast his vote while at the same time serving decisiveness. The decision, however, would violate the feelings of the minority; they can be wronged: — outvoted instead of having their concerns met. In the third place one can aim for consensus. Then everyone can have a say while everyone’s conviction can be done justice, but decisiveness is often sorely lacking in that case, especially if we take into account that diversity of opinion is more common nowadays than conformity of thoughts and feelings.

Whichever way a decision is made, there is always something to find fault with. When voting, the complaint can be lack of care for the minority. When seeking consensus, there is no end to the deliberation. When forcing a decision, some are excluded from the decision-making.

The larger the decision making group, the disproportionately larger the chance of frustration. For this, there are no recipes. Working on and with policy plans asks a lot from the necessary decision-making processes. Sometimes the remedies are indeed worse than the disease.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

Once you are captured by the issues of policy and acting in accordance with policy, it won’t let you go. You are fascinated with the complexities, although the basics look so simple: preparation, decision, implementation, evaluation. But this simplicity is deceiving. Especially with an increasing group, which consists of more than fifteen people, there is a serious risk of unmanageability.

My simple advice would be to perform a limited amount of tasks with a lot of dedication, love and faith and leave the administrative – organizational problems to a select few; they can underwrite that decisions are subservient to the pastoral and diaconal building of the congregation and the proper working of pastoral care for the congregation. And let the board thoroughly prepare the still necessary meetings. These  measures save a lot of time and frustration. But above all, it is better for the congregation. Furthermore, it seems to be more in accordance with the spirit of the offices, for which the charisma of managerial skills are given to “some.” This completes the circle of the first articles.

Points for discussion←⤒🔗

1. How do you feel about the factors insight, time and perseverance for policy and acting in accordance with policy? Name situations in which you felt that not enough attention was being paid to one or all of these factors.
    
2. Try to make an estimate of your time use for the different kinds of meetings (preparation time and processing-time included) and for pastoral work.
    
3. Indicate what, according  to you, is the Biblical core of your ministerial commission.