Church Organizational Structure: Help or Hindrance?

(Part 1 of a 2-Part Article)

Rev. Dr. Jack L Daniel

A few years ago, a friend who is a denominational executive sent me a copy of the proposed organizational structure drafted by one of his member churches. He wanted my opinion. After reading the complicated, convoluted, and overly detailed document, I emailed my friend with my conclusion that this was the church structure from Hades. Little did I know, he forwarded my comments to the pastor of the church (be careful what you email!). Within days, I received a message from the pastor, thanking me for my candor and asking if he could meet with me. As a result of several meetings with him and his leadership, we became good friends, and his church asked me to help them transition to a simpler, elder-based organizational structure.

This pastor acknowledged that the previous church structure had led to much role confusion, conflict, and ministry stagnation. Since adopting their new structure, the church has been able to gracefully navigate several huge decisions, including recasting the vision of the church, relocating to a nearby ethnically diverse neighborhood, acquiring a larger church building, changing the church’s name, and letting an ineffective assistant pastor go. The new leadership structure and some wise, godly elders have helped this pastor and church begin a completely new ministry in a strategic urban neighborhood. How did this dying church reinvent itself and begin to grow with a new mission in a new location? They still have the same Holy Spirit, the same pastor, the same doctrine, and many of the same leaders. What changed was the church’s organizational structure. 

Church structure is not neutral: it can work for or against the unity, vitality, and mission of a church. Pastor and church consultant Kennon Callahan, in his still-popular book “Twelve Keys to an Effective Church,” lists church structure as one of those twelve keys. According to Callahan, effective churches “have a solid, participatory decision-making process and a streamlined organizational structure…” (1983, p. 55). He points out that there is a direct correlation between a church’s ability to make decisions and its structure. A simplified structure enables church leaders to listen effectively to Christ, the Head of the church, and to the people, the Body of Christ, and then make the decisions needed so that the Body obeys the Head and follows His lead. In contrast, a complex structure works against the spiritual vitality of a church. The more cumbersome the structure, the more difficult it is for churches to hear from Christ and make those decisions necessary to lead a church to health and set it on its mission.

In this first part of a two-part article, I want to show how a church’s structure can unintentionally work against its mission. In my next article, I will offer a template for an efficient, effective church structure that is widely used in different variations. This organizational structure (1) allows for responsibility, authority, and accountability and (2) values decisions over discussions.

Why Churches Cling to Complex Structures

Ironically, small and even mid-sized churches often have very complicated forms of government, which usually work to keep the church small. Here are some of the reasons why this may be true.

Family Mentality. Small churches operate like families; they don’t want to leave anyone out. One of their strengths is an “all hands on deck” work ethic. This mass participation may work well to get a specific task done, but it hinders decision-making. The more people needed to make a decision, the more likely the easy and unimportant decisions are made first, leaving the important and ultimately crucial decisions to be delayed or avoided. This is because an inordinate amount of time and energy is expended getting the necessary “buy-in” to make even a simple decision, so there is little appetite to tackle tough issues.

Democracy Mindset. Small churches tend to think of themselves as a democracy in which everyone has equal authority, including the pastor. In my first ministry, a small and declining church, I was repeatedly told that I was “just one vote.” Small churches are used to leading themselves in between their frequent pastors. Thus, they tend to undervalue the biblical authority and leadership of a pastor. A pastor ends up having all responsibility but no authority.

Committee Overload. Many of today’s small churches were once big churches that required many people to fill all of the leadership positions. It is not uncommon for these churches to have more committee positions than members of the congregation. Consequently, any person can fill any slot with little consideration for his or her spiritual gifts or Christian character. As a result, qualified leaders are not developed.

Reaction to the Past. The bylaws are intentionally more complex to limit a pastor’s authority in reaction to experience with an authoritarian pastor. Hoping to avoid repeating the past, the church structure is fortified with safeguards, checks, and balances. Such overreaction stymies the pastor at every turn, and important decisions are never made. A church, in this situation, operates more on fear and mistrust rather than grace and trust.

Commitment to Committees. The church lives in the past and operates on the outmoded idea that the way to get people committed to the church is by putting them on a committee. As a result, filling committee positions becomes a major goal, way out of proportion to its value and squandering the church’s time and effort. Clearly, no one really believes that new members are eager to serve on committees or that this is how to make disciples of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, many older, declining churches still operate this way and rely on the Nominating Committee for rescue.

Afraid to Change. The church realizes it is dying but fears the changes needed to reverse the decline. An unwieldy organizational structure is a sure way to keep the status quo.

How Structure Can Sabotage Mission

The more complicated a church structure is, the more it works against the mission of the church. Here are four reasons certain organizational frameworks are counterproductive.
 
1. Structures that require a lot of buy-in from members operate under the belief that full agreement is both desirable and possible. Neither of these beliefs may be true. In a church with a spectrum of doctrinal or ecclesiastical views—that is, most churches—full agreement may mean a church is compromising on vital matters to get compliance from everyone. An inordinate amount of time and energy is required to reach complete agreement. There is a time and place for seeking unanimity on decisions (I will discuss this in the next article), but a church structure that is uncomfortable with dissent will ensure they stay wedded to the status quo and stagnation.
 
2. Structures that separate authority from responsibility are, in my opinion, the least workable. In these systems, a church hires pastors and staff to do a job that they are qualified to do but then dictates how they are to do it. The staff has plenty of responsibilities galore but little or no authority to take action. Pastors and staff must spend time “working the system,” garnering support for their plans rather than actually ministering. A system that bifurcates responsibility and authority fosters a hireling view of leadership. This frustrates pastors and staff and all but guarantees that the church will have trouble retaining qualified leaders.
 
3. Complicated structures often enable the most dysfunctional members to control events. The more steps needed to make a decision, the more opportunity for disgruntled members to delay or derail the decision. These systems rely on hearings or open meetings, which are notorious for allowing “shouters” to dominate, drowning out the moderating voices. These systems pay too much attention to the “squeaky wheel,” regardless of the nature of the complaint or the motivation of the complainer. The Apostle Paul gives much warning in his letters to Timothy against allowing quarrelsome people a forum in the church. When properly made decisions are second-guessed and subjected to unrealistic scrutiny, the fragile fabric of trust that a healthy church needs to function is undermined.
 
4. The more complex a system, the more it focuses effort on church maintenance rather than church mission. When a system spends more resources on institutional maintenance than on Christian mission, those who are dedicated to real ministry become discouraged. When most of the time, energy, and money are spent on keeping the institution going, a divide forms between the most committed members and the least committed members. In World War II, this was referred to as the “front line—rear echelon divide.” The front-line troops pleaded for more ammunition while the rear echelon troops longed for colder beer. The values of those doing front-line ministry and those keeping the church afloat are very different, and usually the rear-echelon wins out.

The whole reason for a church’s governance system is to effectively equip and deploy members for the task of winning their communities to Christ. Unfortunately, a cumbersome church structure is like a Rube Goldberg machine: it goes through a lot of motion but results in little of value being accomplished for the Kingdom of God. While there is no perfect church structure, in my next article, I will describe the organizational structure that we adopted in the church that I served for 35 years. In the several decades since moving to this streamlined, biblically sound system, the church has grown, found deep unity amid diversity, and been able to make major decisions adroitly. Some of the lessons we learned may help you and your church.