The Pastor of Riverside Church has resigned after just 9 months on the job (that's a short time for most jobs but really short in the pastor world). For those who don't know, Riverside Church has been the home for some amazing social change-focsued pastors.
Well, this Pastor is resigning over a number of issues that are desecribed by the New York Times as having included a fierce battle within the congregation over his compensation package and the mission of the church. (Note, according to this article "his pay package exceeded $600,000 a year, including a $250,000 salary and a housing allowance"). By the way, yes it's a lot of money/value but this is not the focus of today's blog.
The controversy for this Pastor started "a week before his formal installation in April, a group of dissident congregants went to State Supreme Court in Manhattan seeking to block the ceremony, saying that he and the board had been unnecessarily secretive about the church’s finances. They also complained that Dr. Braxton was moving Riverside away from its tradition of interracial progressivism and toward a conservative style of religious practice."
So, I'm thinking that this fall-out could have been averted through any number of means but all at the pre-hiring stage. I'm thinking something seriously went wrong in the way the Committee/Board did their job -- maybe they didn't talk to congregants about the member's needs and interests; maybe they didn't find a way to "test" their selection leanings; maybe they didn't "sell" their decision well to the congregants. Certainly, they did not engage the congregants to the degree that some portion were willing to act strongly against the chosen candidate and in the end, leave the selectee needing to move on.
I believe this story is really a lesson in governance and more specifically, engagement governance. I hope the Board and Committee in particular are taking with them these lessons as they must now start over.