Planning

The emphasis of this General Conference had been to go along with the Council of Bishops in simplifying their ministries, presuming that would trickle down to revitalize local churches.

I’ll lay aside the theory that this was a Trojan Horse and view it as a flawed plan.

Back in 1948, a Presbyterian pastor named Humphrey Walz, working with the National Council of Churches, sketched a simple diagram outlining good planning technique.

1. Sensing a problem.

2. Getting the facts.

3. Defining the problem.

4. Having ideas.

5. Evaluating those ideas.

6. Planning.

7. Selling the plan.

8. Action.

Rev. Walz adds to his diagram the path to failure, connecting sensing a problem, having an idea, and acting, leaving out all the rest.

I contend that the bishops followed the flawed route and used some of the other aspects as cover. As a result, despite skilled selling efforts, they chose not to listen to those “on the ground” most affected by their plan. The barrage of reaction from everyone they left out of the defining of the problems and development of ideas shows the ineptness of their effort.

In addition, their definition of the problem they sensed did not include their part in it. That was the greatest weakness of The Call to Action and its clones. The Judicial Council did not let them move decision-making to where the bishops could most influence it.

Any future restructuring plan needs to have everyone at the table. Community planning techniques like “Charrette” have successfully done just that, minimizing top-down control but maintaining good order for good planning and effective outcomes.