Second, let’s consider whether councils are successful. Zech and his associates identified the features of successful councils. Some view themselves as planning bodies. Others view themselves as bodies that coordinate ministries. Zech and his associates reported that both types of council are effective.  Councils that plan are more effective than councils that do not, and councils that coordinate are more effective than those not involved in coordinating (p. 131).

These are really important questions. There is a certain logic to answering them, so let me answer them in order.

First, who should continue on the council? The main purpose of the pastoral council is a threefold task. Under the pastor’s direction, the council (1) investigates some aspect of the parish reality, (2) reflects on the results of the investigation, and (3) reaches a conclusion that the council recommends to the pastor. That’s what the Vatican II Decree on Bishops (no. 27) says. So the people who should continue are those who are good at doing the three tasks — investigating, reflecting, and reaching consensus.

Second, you asked how to recruit new members. That raises the question of what makes a person want to contribute his or her efforts to the council. The greatest success of any council is this: the pastor accepts the council’s recommendations and implements them. If your council is successful, people in the parish will know. The pastor will let say that he is consulting the council and is getting good advice from it. People want to be part of a group that is making a positive difference.

But if the council has not been that successful — that is, the council has not made recommendations that the pastor has accepted and implemented — then you need an alternate plan. I recommend that pastors choose a theme that they intend to be consulting about (e.g., about hospitality, religious education, building a new building, evaluating the liturgy, etc.). When the pastor announces the theme, it will attract people who share his interest and concern. An open parish meeting can help you recruit. Interested people will come to such a meeting. There pastors can talk about the subjects they want to consult about. People who attend can indicate an interest in serving on the council or nominate someone else. Often it is possible to choose the councillors right then and there.

Your third question was about ensuring that new council members are suitable. A suitable council member is one who can accomplish the council’s threefold task — investigation, reflection, and recommendation. You’re looking for someone who is a good listener, who knows and loves the parish, and who has the patience to do the work of investigation and reflection that belongs to the council. The best way to identify such a person is to invite parishioners to an open meeting about the council. You can then create an opportunity, at the meeting, to see how the person interacts with others. Is he or she a good listener? Does the person ask good questions? Does he or she understand what the pastor is consulting about?

All of this is common sense, but it is important. Councillors have a well-defined task. The challenge is to find people who are up to the task. Pastors don’t want to consult people who are unable to accomplish the threefold task. They don’t want to consult people who can’t advise them properly. So focus on the task, and then you can attract the kind of people who are able to achieve it.

As the editor of A Concise Guide to Catholic Church Management, I appreciate the attention you give the book. This book was conceived of as a partner to our earlier book in the Concise Guide series, A Concise Guide to Pastoral Planning by Dr. William L. Pickett. The planning book addresses long-range or strategic planning at parish, regional, and diocesan levels, whereas the management book that you review here tackles day-to-day management or operational planning. Some of the topics you rightly point out as missing from A Concise Guide to Catholic Church Management are treated in the Pickett book and so not duplicated in the former. For example, parish councils, parish communication/ information sharing systems, and group process/ decision making.

First, let me take a moment to thank Professor Fischer for taking the time to review our text and especially for the time he spent reviewing my chapter on stewardship.

Financial reporting in the for-profit world has been evolving for the past one-hundred years. It had its beginnings with an emphasis on the “Balance Sheet.” It now encompasses the results of operations (hence, the business focus on “Earnings per Share”) and the sources and uses of cash from all aspects of the business, not just operations. Therefore, I felt it appropriate to apply this perspective to parish operations. I believe it would take much more time in the chapter to develop this topic, especially as to how these financial statements interact. I felt in that in writing the chapter the time would be better spent discussing parish fraud and its effects.

The review failed to mention the time devoted to the chapter presentation of the effects of fraud. The results of fraud are not only felt in an individual parish, but the bad publicity which may result can have long-lasting effects on the ability of the “Universal Church” to raise the funds necessary to finance its operations. Hence, I believe that understanding of controls over all the parish assets, including cash, buildings, purchasing and equipment are essential. For this reason I devoted a good portion of the chapter to the bad publicity that resulted from a series of actual parish frauds and how they were perpetrated. I believe an understanding of these negative effects is essential not only to the pastor, but also to the parish board. Hence, I believe that the text is essential reading not only for pastors, but parish board members also.

On the down side, to profess a commitment to servant leadership carries a very serious challenge, but so does Gospel-living which fortunately provides for forgiveness and redemption. It also seems that in our current environment, the language of “servant” is not easy for some to internalize as a value. For some it may connote too much mildness if not weakness, and for others it may demand too much detachment and imagination. It also requires as well a generous share of prudence and patience, not the most easily acquired or practiced virtues in this fast-paced world..

But still, because of the universality of the Gospel message, I think the servant leader approach provides for adaptation to particular needs or provides the repertoire advantage you mentioned in your critique. Indeed in our interactions, we need to individualize according to the needs of others.

· I am sorry to say that I have not read “The Concise Guide to Catholic Church Management.” There were a couple of things in your review that caught my attention, and that I may see somewhat differently.

· First-and-foremost, I do not view authentic servant-leadership as a “style” of leadership that one may use or not use based upon a given situation. Greenleaf is clear that servant-leadership (the-servant-as-leader) is a philosophy of life that puts serving others first, then leading out of that deep desire to serve. In that way, servant-leadership may be seen as part of one’s authentic self. That doesn’t mean that servant-leaders are perfect.

· Regarding your comment about Kelly and Blanchard on whether a servant-leader would seldom call on another style: Actually, I believe that Ken’s own thinking on this has evolved over the past thirty years. See his book, “The Servant Leader.” Also, my colleague Shann Ferch and I conducted an interview with Ken about eighteen months ago which underscores this. I am attaching a link to one of the interview clips from that interview that may be found on YouTube. Other segments from that interview can also be found there.

· I am not familiar with Knapp on non-verbal communication. I do know that Greenleaf wrote clearly and eloquently on the centrality of careful, receptive listening as being key for servant-leaders. His writings on the importance of listening and other characteristics have been part of my own work over the years.

· The reference to “church managers” (drawing on the title of the publication on Church Management) is a reminder to me that, in my experience, there is a lack of leadership (servant-leadership) instruction and encouragement in every kind of management education (business, church, educational, healthcare, non-profit). I believe it is useful to encourage managers to recognize that they are also leaders, and that this requires exercising a different set of muscles. The explosion of MBA programs in recent decades has done little to raise the understanding and practice of ethics, values, and servant-leadership—and this is one reason why values-based leadership and servant-leadership are increasingly coming to the forefront.

· Greenleaf was fond of talking about operationalizing (managing) and conceptualizing (leading) within organizations. To the degree that we can encourage the development of more effective servant-leader-managers (those who are able to both care for and inspire others (as a servant-leader), and who also recognize that people and vision are at least as important as managing the financial bottom line, the better off I think we will be as a society. Attached here is a link to the NBC Dateline piece on servant-leadership that I was involved in a few years back, and which has some relevance to this point.

· I have read his book, “Servant Leadership Models for your Parish,” and I think it is a very useful resource—not only for the Catholic Parish, but for churches in general.

· While I am a Quaker (not a Catholic), I think his book is written in such a way as to be helpful to a variety of faith institutions.

· I found myself generally nodding my head in agreement with your review of his book.

· I certainly agree that the pastor who wants to be an effective servant-leader must also be a good manager. I don’t think that being one precludes the other.

However, I seriously question the extent to which it can provide an effective tool in the situation where a disheartened and/or dysfunctional and/or power drunk parish priest reigns supreme. Unfortunately, the parish priest is sole arbiter in every aspect of parish life. PPC’s are participants in his ministry, however limited or negative.

There are a few truly committed parish priests and Pastoral Councils in the Archdiocese for whom the Formation Manual will be of inestimable help.

Unfortunately, the parish priest alone is arbiter.

Since 2001 when New Wine, New Wineskins was published, pastoral councils have worked to build parish life and advise the pastor on activities, programs, and finances based on a sound model of planning and collaboration. A necessary and well-received document, New Wine, New Wineskins brought council members and pastors to an understanding of the need for colllegiality, utilizing laity skills and insights, and advancing the parish in terms of future planning. The three-fold task of council as expressed in the Decree on Bishops—to investigate, to reflect on the church situation, and to recommend conclusions to the pastor—is met in this venue, yet there is no emphasis on or concern about the community at large. How does the church exist and thrive within the expanded dimension of society?

One only need go to Scripture to read how the early church responded and related to the larger community. As the leaders of these early faith communities convened, they observed and dialogued, prayed, reflected on the situations that the community embraced, and strategically thought about the faith community’s response to what was happening to the larger body. Hermann and Gaston do not suggest that we return to the time of our foundations, but rather to living the charisms today as the early church would live it in our place. History bears out that same principle in pastors such as Thomas Augustine Judge, Michael McGivney, John Carroll, Jean Vanier, and others who did likewise—reflecting with council and through counsel on the church within the bigger picture.

Build a Life-giving Parish does not minimize the importance of the role of council as outlined by the Decree on Bishops, nor does it sideline the task of parish planning. Both authors experienced years of working with councils and understand the critical nature of these tasks. Rather than minimizing these charges, Hermann and Gaston focus on the bigger picture and surmise that through their personal experiences, prayer, reflection, and counsel within council are primary to these other tasks.

In my ministry as retreat center director, I have the privilege of meeting and talking with parishioners who are involved in parish life and pastoral councils. Three such colleagues have read this book and have voiced a resounding “yes” to the authors’ conclusion. “Something is missing from the current situation,” said one. “After five years of working with the traditional planning model, we are going through the routine. It doesn’t ring true. I leave one business meeting at my workplace to sit down to another one with council members and our pastor.” And another: “No one ever asks about what was happening in our lives outside of church; the process no longer seems real.”

In addition, I continually hear how important it is to listen to what is going on in people’s lives. The phrase “prayer and spiritual reflection” prior to dialogue is the key to making the difference. The spiritual practices offered in this book are wonderful ways to bring a council to the understanding that the gifts of the Spirit must be present within the group; good listening skills will help one hear those gifts in others as well as the wisdom that they bring to the table. This is not a neat and tidy undertaking, to say the least. It does not follow a highlighted agenda. But dedication, courage, commitment, and the power of the Spirit, who can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine, can and will create a life-giving parish.

If we hope that our parishes will respond to the realities of the day through our programming and planning, pastoral councils cannot disassociate the church from the world. And we cannot continue planning, albeit practical, without looking at the deeper issues that affect our world, giving them serious reflection and prayer, and then dialoguing about a parish response. Such a response should stem from strategic thinking, which in turn can move to planning and execution of ideas. Perhaps, as these authors note, the actual planning for a parish may move to a different body. But it is the preliminary work that becomes the primary responsibility of a parish pastoral council and pastor– prayer, reflection, listening, and dialogue.