In my small church workshops I challenge the attendees to focus the ministries of their churches on one or two things they can do with excellence. Many smaller churches are trying to do too many things. Often, they are still structured as they were when they were a larger congregation and trying to do all the ministries they did back then, or they are trying to compete with the larger churches in the area in an effort to attract people. Either reason will get a small church in trouble. They simply don't have the resources to offer a lot of ministries. Such churches offer all kinds of excuses why some programs or ministries are not effective, and fingers are pointed, but the bottom line is they just do not have the resources to do more than a few things.
When a church tries to do more than their resources allow they end up doing a lot of mediocre things. Great ministries are built around excellence, not mediocrity. Despite what many people believe, a small church can enjoy an excellent ministry, but only if they focus on doing those few things they can do with excellence.
Leaders in smaller churches need to take a hard look at their structure. How many of your committees and boards are really necessary? Committees and boards focus on making sure things are done right, but are they doing the right things? Does their work actually contribute to achieving the mission and vision of the church? Committees and boards do maintenance work; you need to free people up to do ministry. I would guess that most churches could eliminate 80 percent of their committees and boards, and no one would be able to tell the difference.
How effective are the ministries your church currently offers? Many of those ministries exist today because at one time they provided excellent ministry opportunities for your church, but have you evaluated their effectiveness today? Things change, and what was effective in the past may not be effective today.
When I was growing up the churches in our area offered two-week Vacation Bible School, and our small church was full of kids both weeks. Later, when I was a pastor, churches offered one-week VBS. Today, I see churches offering weekend VBS, one night a week for a month VBS, and other alternatives. Still, many complain that it's hard to get the kids to come because there are so many other things for them to do. Maybe it's time to consider if this is really a good use of our resources.
I'm not picking on Vacation Bible School. This is just one example of how things have changed over the years. I know many churches that still have vibrant Vacation Bible School programs, and it would be a mistake for those churches to eliminate that ministry. But, what about your church? Is this a vibrant ministry in your church or is this one that needs to be changed or even eliminated for something that might be more productive?
Many smaller churches will have much more effective ministries if they can focus on a few things they can do with excellence rather than trying to be all things for all people. For some churches, that may mean doing only one or two things, and that is alright if they can be done with excellence.
Showing posts with label Structure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Structure. Show all posts
Monday, August 24, 2015
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Your church will accomplish more by doing less
A common complaint in many smaller churches is the lack of commitment people have, but in reality I find that most such churches are actually over-committed. They are structured for a time when they were probably a much larger congregation and have far more committees and boards than they need. These churches often find it difficult to fill all their teaching and leadership slots and can only do so by having people volunteer for four or five positions. If you want, you can argue that if more people would accept these positions then the few who are willing to work wouldn't have to have so many responsibilities. However, the reality is that the Pareto Principle is alive and well in the church. Twenty percent of the people are going to do eighty percent of the work. Stop fighting that, accept it as reality, and adjust your workload accordingly.
When I meet with churches having this problem I assure them that if half of their committees and boards never met again, no one would be able to tell the difference. Yes, some of these are needed in the church, but ask yourself how much real value do most of these add to your church. How has your church been significantly impacted by the work of most of your committees? The only reason some of them are still in existence is because they were created years (decades) ago to meet a real need, and no one has had the courage to suggest they are no longer needed.
Along the same line, many small churches try to offer too many programs and ministries for the resources they have available. They do this thinking they must compete with the larger church in town. That is like a Mom and Pop store thinking they have to compete with Wal-Mart on price. It's not going to happen! Mom and Pop, if they are to stay in business, have to find something that sets them apart from Wal-Mart and compete in that niche. Small churches are the same way. You cannot offer the same ministries the largest churches in your community offer because you do not have the manpower and finances to do so. Attempting this will result in doing many things mediocre, and you cannot build a ministry around mediocre.
A much better ministry strategy is to identify the giftedness of your people, find out what they are passionate about, and then prayerfully begin to discern how God would have you use that to meet ministry needs in your community. Believe me, there are many such needs going unmet where you live. I am convinced that many smaller churches are uniquely positioned to meet those needs, and it is there where those churches are going to thrive.
However, you won't be able to do this if you insist on continuing to ask your twenty percenters to do more and more maintenance-type work. They only have so much time to invest in church work so you want to use that time wisely. Eliminate the tasks that add little if any value to the church and free people up to do ministry that will make a difference. Then begin the task of discerning how to have the greatest impact on your community for the Kingdom of God.
When I meet with churches having this problem I assure them that if half of their committees and boards never met again, no one would be able to tell the difference. Yes, some of these are needed in the church, but ask yourself how much real value do most of these add to your church. How has your church been significantly impacted by the work of most of your committees? The only reason some of them are still in existence is because they were created years (decades) ago to meet a real need, and no one has had the courage to suggest they are no longer needed.
Along the same line, many small churches try to offer too many programs and ministries for the resources they have available. They do this thinking they must compete with the larger church in town. That is like a Mom and Pop store thinking they have to compete with Wal-Mart on price. It's not going to happen! Mom and Pop, if they are to stay in business, have to find something that sets them apart from Wal-Mart and compete in that niche. Small churches are the same way. You cannot offer the same ministries the largest churches in your community offer because you do not have the manpower and finances to do so. Attempting this will result in doing many things mediocre, and you cannot build a ministry around mediocre.
A much better ministry strategy is to identify the giftedness of your people, find out what they are passionate about, and then prayerfully begin to discern how God would have you use that to meet ministry needs in your community. Believe me, there are many such needs going unmet where you live. I am convinced that many smaller churches are uniquely positioned to meet those needs, and it is there where those churches are going to thrive.
However, you won't be able to do this if you insist on continuing to ask your twenty percenters to do more and more maintenance-type work. They only have so much time to invest in church work so you want to use that time wisely. Eliminate the tasks that add little if any value to the church and free people up to do ministry that will make a difference. Then begin the task of discerning how to have the greatest impact on your community for the Kingdom of God.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Your structure is perfectly designed for the results you are getting
The title of this post is true regardless of what kind of organization you are discussing. Whether you are thinking of a business, a family, an individual, or a church, your structure is perfectly designed for the results you are getting. Since this blog is primarily for and about smaller churches we will focus on them.
Virtually every small church I talk to tells me they want to grow. When I work with one that is seeking a new pastor they say they want a pastor who can grow their church. A couple of years ago when a search committee said that I responded, "Are you sure about that?" They looked stunned that I would say that so I continued, "If you could grow your church by doing what you've been doing you would already be growing. So, what you are telling me is that you want a new pastor who will come in here and change everything you are doing in order to grow. Is that what you really want?" They smiled at one another and said, "Maybe we need to think about that a little more."
The reason churches do not grow is because they have structures in place that prevent growth from occurring. Your church has a structure that permits it to grow to a certain point and then plateau. Unless that structure is changed more growth is unlikely to occur. The problem is that most churches do not want to change their structure which means that those churches are the size they want to be regardless of how much they talk about wanting growth. Let's take a brief look at what some of those limiting structures might be.
One is how the church views the role of the pastor. Most smaller churches seek caregivers as pastors, not leaders. Leadership is limited to those persons who have been in the church for a number of years; the pastor is called to provide pastoral care to the members. Even if a search committee tells the pastor candidate the church wants a pastor to help them grow, he or she will often find that their role is limited to that of a chaplain. Very seldom will a church grow without strong pastoral leadership.
A second limiting factor is the lack of adequate seating, parking, and classrooms. If a church wants to average 85 people in attendance it needs seating for 100-125 people. In addition, it will need parking for 40-50 cars. Without these capacities it is highly unlikely the church will grow to 85 people. This alone can be a major factor for many smaller churches that do not have the space to add either seating or parking. Unless such churches are willing to relocate they are unlikely to grow.
Many smaller churches see themselves as a family which can be either a positive or a negative. There is a family atmosphere in many smaller churches that often feels good, at least for the family. Guests may pick up on that rather quickly and decide they will never be part of the family and move on to another church. Churches that are convinced they are "the friendliest church in town" may need to realize that outsiders do not see them as so friendly. These churches need to find ways to be more inclusive and welcoming to those outside the family.
The Christian education program in a church can be a limiting factor. Smaller churches often struggle to find sufficient teachers and may combine children's classes into age groups that make it difficult to teach. For instance, first graders are much different than third graders, but some smaller churches will combine them into one class. Even worse is when the junior high and senior high students are put together. Adult classes can be just as challenging. It can be very intimidating for new people to break into a class when the people there have been together for years (decades?). Growing churches are always looking to start new classes to make it easier for people to participate.
A final structural piece we'll look at again concerns the pastor and/or staff. It is largely recognized that 120 people is about all that one person can watch over. This is why single staff churches seldom grow beyond 120. Some excellent administrators can care for more than that, but not many more. If a church has a bivocational minister that number will be reduced to perhaps 40-50. This means that without the addition of more staff a church is unlikely to grow beyond those numbers.
The challenge with this structural limitation is that additional staff has to be added before reaching the next level of church size. In other words, if your church wants to grow to 200 people you can't wait until you are averaging 200 to add an additional staff person. You have to add that person when you are at 120 to grow to 200. If a bivocational church wants to grow to 85 people another staff person will need to be added before achieving that number or it is unlikely to happen. In the case of the bivocational church, that person may be another bivocational minister or it could be an administrative assistant. What makes this more challenging is that churches often do not feel they have the financial ability to add such staff when they are still at the smaller size. What such churches must remember is their structure is perfectly designed for the results they are getting. If they want different results, they must set up different structures.
For a good book that goes into much more detail than I can in a blog post I would recommend you read Taking Your Church to the Next Level: What Got You Here Won't Get You There
by Gary McIntosh. This book examines how churches of every size needs to adjust their structures to grow beyond their current level. Whether you lead a small church or a large one, you'll find helpful information in this book for your situation.
Virtually every small church I talk to tells me they want to grow. When I work with one that is seeking a new pastor they say they want a pastor who can grow their church. A couple of years ago when a search committee said that I responded, "Are you sure about that?" They looked stunned that I would say that so I continued, "If you could grow your church by doing what you've been doing you would already be growing. So, what you are telling me is that you want a new pastor who will come in here and change everything you are doing in order to grow. Is that what you really want?" They smiled at one another and said, "Maybe we need to think about that a little more."
The reason churches do not grow is because they have structures in place that prevent growth from occurring. Your church has a structure that permits it to grow to a certain point and then plateau. Unless that structure is changed more growth is unlikely to occur. The problem is that most churches do not want to change their structure which means that those churches are the size they want to be regardless of how much they talk about wanting growth. Let's take a brief look at what some of those limiting structures might be.
One is how the church views the role of the pastor. Most smaller churches seek caregivers as pastors, not leaders. Leadership is limited to those persons who have been in the church for a number of years; the pastor is called to provide pastoral care to the members. Even if a search committee tells the pastor candidate the church wants a pastor to help them grow, he or she will often find that their role is limited to that of a chaplain. Very seldom will a church grow without strong pastoral leadership.
A second limiting factor is the lack of adequate seating, parking, and classrooms. If a church wants to average 85 people in attendance it needs seating for 100-125 people. In addition, it will need parking for 40-50 cars. Without these capacities it is highly unlikely the church will grow to 85 people. This alone can be a major factor for many smaller churches that do not have the space to add either seating or parking. Unless such churches are willing to relocate they are unlikely to grow.
Many smaller churches see themselves as a family which can be either a positive or a negative. There is a family atmosphere in many smaller churches that often feels good, at least for the family. Guests may pick up on that rather quickly and decide they will never be part of the family and move on to another church. Churches that are convinced they are "the friendliest church in town" may need to realize that outsiders do not see them as so friendly. These churches need to find ways to be more inclusive and welcoming to those outside the family.
The Christian education program in a church can be a limiting factor. Smaller churches often struggle to find sufficient teachers and may combine children's classes into age groups that make it difficult to teach. For instance, first graders are much different than third graders, but some smaller churches will combine them into one class. Even worse is when the junior high and senior high students are put together. Adult classes can be just as challenging. It can be very intimidating for new people to break into a class when the people there have been together for years (decades?). Growing churches are always looking to start new classes to make it easier for people to participate.
A final structural piece we'll look at again concerns the pastor and/or staff. It is largely recognized that 120 people is about all that one person can watch over. This is why single staff churches seldom grow beyond 120. Some excellent administrators can care for more than that, but not many more. If a church has a bivocational minister that number will be reduced to perhaps 40-50. This means that without the addition of more staff a church is unlikely to grow beyond those numbers.
The challenge with this structural limitation is that additional staff has to be added before reaching the next level of church size. In other words, if your church wants to grow to 200 people you can't wait until you are averaging 200 to add an additional staff person. You have to add that person when you are at 120 to grow to 200. If a bivocational church wants to grow to 85 people another staff person will need to be added before achieving that number or it is unlikely to happen. In the case of the bivocational church, that person may be another bivocational minister or it could be an administrative assistant. What makes this more challenging is that churches often do not feel they have the financial ability to add such staff when they are still at the smaller size. What such churches must remember is their structure is perfectly designed for the results they are getting. If they want different results, they must set up different structures.
For a good book that goes into much more detail than I can in a blog post I would recommend you read Taking Your Church to the Next Level: What Got You Here Won't Get You There
by Gary McIntosh. This book examines how churches of every size needs to adjust their structures to grow beyond their current level. Whether you lead a small church or a large one, you'll find helpful information in this book for your situation.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
The church needs a pastorpreneur for 21st century leadership
You may have stumbled a little with the title of this post over the word pastorpreneur. I can assure you my spell checker doesn't like it one bit, but this is exactly the kind of leadership our churches need today. The word comes from the book PastorPreneur
written by John Jackson. I think the book may be out of print, but there are still copes for sale at amazon.com if you click on the above title. If it is out of print, it's a shame because it is a book that pastors need to read. It is especially appropriate for bivocational ministers because many of us are entrepreneurial by nature anyway. The title is a combination of the words pastor and entrepreneur. The author defines a pastorpreneur as "an innovative leader..., a creative dreamer who is willing to take great risks in church ministry with the hope of great gain for Christ and his kingdom."
The book describes five strategies for leading one's church beyond "business as usual." They are
Almost every family in every community in the country is interested in topics like marriage, parenting, finances and handling debt, and finding purpose and meaning in life. Does the church have anything to say about these things? You bet it does! Can the church use its classes on these topics as outreach tools? Of course. Entrepreneurs can help the church understand how to position these events to reach the maximum number of people.
Compare that approach to reaching a community for Christ to what smaller churches often ask for. Several times a year I'll get a call from a church leader knowing if I know anyone who could come and lead a revival to try to get people to come to the church. Do they really believe a revival is going to attract people? Probably not, but they don't know what else to do. It's all they've seen modeled, and just because it hasn't been effective in the past twenty-plus years it's still the only thing they've got. Jackson would argue there are many things a church could do to attract people and earn the right to share a life-changing message with them, and he gives numerous examples of churches that are doing just that.
Churches need a new style of leadership to be effective in the 21st century, and I believe it will be entrepreneurial leadership that is needed. Denominational leadership may not like it very much because entrepreneurs tend to color outside the lines. Their work is often messy, and we often prefer things to be neat and tidy. Their structures tend to be a little loose. But, I'm afraid our neat and tidy structures have brought so much order and predictability to what we are doing that they have effectively kept many people from experiencing God in any meaningful way. If what we've been doing isn't working then maybe it's time to do something different. Maybe it's time to replace our managerial styles of ministry with one that is more entrepreneurial.
written by John Jackson. I think the book may be out of print, but there are still copes for sale at amazon.com if you click on the above title. If it is out of print, it's a shame because it is a book that pastors need to read. It is especially appropriate for bivocational ministers because many of us are entrepreneurial by nature anyway. The title is a combination of the words pastor and entrepreneur. The author defines a pastorpreneur as "an innovative leader..., a creative dreamer who is willing to take great risks in church ministry with the hope of great gain for Christ and his kingdom."The book describes five strategies for leading one's church beyond "business as usual." They are
- Grab the community's attention.
- Build strategic partnerships.
- Conduct faith-building events.
- Everyone's a 10 - get them moving.
- Multiply your impact.
Almost every family in every community in the country is interested in topics like marriage, parenting, finances and handling debt, and finding purpose and meaning in life. Does the church have anything to say about these things? You bet it does! Can the church use its classes on these topics as outreach tools? Of course. Entrepreneurs can help the church understand how to position these events to reach the maximum number of people.
Compare that approach to reaching a community for Christ to what smaller churches often ask for. Several times a year I'll get a call from a church leader knowing if I know anyone who could come and lead a revival to try to get people to come to the church. Do they really believe a revival is going to attract people? Probably not, but they don't know what else to do. It's all they've seen modeled, and just because it hasn't been effective in the past twenty-plus years it's still the only thing they've got. Jackson would argue there are many things a church could do to attract people and earn the right to share a life-changing message with them, and he gives numerous examples of churches that are doing just that.
Churches need a new style of leadership to be effective in the 21st century, and I believe it will be entrepreneurial leadership that is needed. Denominational leadership may not like it very much because entrepreneurs tend to color outside the lines. Their work is often messy, and we often prefer things to be neat and tidy. Their structures tend to be a little loose. But, I'm afraid our neat and tidy structures have brought so much order and predictability to what we are doing that they have effectively kept many people from experiencing God in any meaningful way. If what we've been doing isn't working then maybe it's time to do something different. Maybe it's time to replace our managerial styles of ministry with one that is more entrepreneurial.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Low trust churches
A Baptist pastor recently called me frustrated over recent events in his church. A group within the church had worked for some time preparing a proposed change to the church constitution that would eliminate the need for the congregation to vote on every decision that had to be made. Steps were included to ensure that people would continue to have input on major decisions, but a vote would not have to be taken for every decision. This was especially needed since the church had already eliminated its monthly business meeting and now only had two business meetings a year. Numerous special called business meetings had occurred to vote on issues so the church would not have to wait for the next semi-annual meeting to made a decision. The new proposal would streamline the decision-making process in the church while ensuring that the congregation would continue to be able to vote on larger, essential items such as the calling of a pastor, the budget, and major changes that would have a large impact on the church. A number of people who do not normally attend business meetings were there to oppose the recommendation. The proposal failed on a tie vote. The pastor said the church was split 50-50 when he went there and after several years of ministry it remains evenly divided.
This pastor and I had talked about the challenges he faced in this church before. It is a divided church, and it is a church that has little trust in its leadership and in one another. Low trust churches insist on voting on every issue simply because the people do not trust one another. People insist on having a say on matters even though they may never have studied the issue or really know anything about it. In one church I know the congregation is primarily made up of four families, and each of the families have to be represented on every board and committee in the church because they really do not trust one another. They have been going to this church for years together, but there remains little trust in the church among the various families. This lack of trust has been a major factor in each of these churches inability to experience healthy growth.
As a life-long Baptist I was raised to appreciate congregational decision-making. For most churches it worked well for many, many years, but it is not a model that is effective today. Things change too rapidly in the 21st century to expect a group of people attending a church business meeting to be able to make a rational vote after a 5-10 minute presentation on some matter. Think for a moment on this scenario: a church committee examines a particular issue for several months. They talk with various experts to get the best advice they can find. They explore numerous options and visit other churches to learn how they handled this issue in their churches. They make a presentation to the congregation prior to a vote, and at the end of their presentation people who know little or nothing about the matter vote against it because the proposal doesn't fit what they expected it would be. I've seen this happen twice in the past few years, and both times it was devastating to the churches. I anticipate the ramifications of their decisions will cripple those churches for years to come.
The bulk of the decision making has to be handed over to the primary leaders in most congregations so decisions can be made in real time. If you cannot trust them to make good decisions then maybe they shouldn't be leaders in your church, or it might be a sign that it's time for you to move on to another church where there are some leaders you can trust. In a worst-case scenario it may be that you don't trust anyone to make decisions except yourself because only then can you be sure that the decisions that are made will be beneficial to you and your agenda.
As long as the church membership cannot trust their leaders to make many of the decisions that need to be made without calling for a church vote, the church will continue to experience decline. It will be unable to make the necessary adjustments quick enough to meet the needs of this century. A pastor trying to lead a low-trust church will find it almost impossible to do so. Such churches prefer managers over leaders, and they are unlikely to follow a leader
It will be uncomfortable, but members of low-trust churches need to grant their leaders decision-making powers. If that happens, the leadership needs to be very careful to make good decisions to demonstrate that they can be trusted to do so. If these two things can happen the trust level in the church can be raised to a place where the church becomes much healthier, and that health will be reflected in the quality of ministry that occurs within the church and community.
This pastor and I had talked about the challenges he faced in this church before. It is a divided church, and it is a church that has little trust in its leadership and in one another. Low trust churches insist on voting on every issue simply because the people do not trust one another. People insist on having a say on matters even though they may never have studied the issue or really know anything about it. In one church I know the congregation is primarily made up of four families, and each of the families have to be represented on every board and committee in the church because they really do not trust one another. They have been going to this church for years together, but there remains little trust in the church among the various families. This lack of trust has been a major factor in each of these churches inability to experience healthy growth.
As a life-long Baptist I was raised to appreciate congregational decision-making. For most churches it worked well for many, many years, but it is not a model that is effective today. Things change too rapidly in the 21st century to expect a group of people attending a church business meeting to be able to make a rational vote after a 5-10 minute presentation on some matter. Think for a moment on this scenario: a church committee examines a particular issue for several months. They talk with various experts to get the best advice they can find. They explore numerous options and visit other churches to learn how they handled this issue in their churches. They make a presentation to the congregation prior to a vote, and at the end of their presentation people who know little or nothing about the matter vote against it because the proposal doesn't fit what they expected it would be. I've seen this happen twice in the past few years, and both times it was devastating to the churches. I anticipate the ramifications of their decisions will cripple those churches for years to come.
The bulk of the decision making has to be handed over to the primary leaders in most congregations so decisions can be made in real time. If you cannot trust them to make good decisions then maybe they shouldn't be leaders in your church, or it might be a sign that it's time for you to move on to another church where there are some leaders you can trust. In a worst-case scenario it may be that you don't trust anyone to make decisions except yourself because only then can you be sure that the decisions that are made will be beneficial to you and your agenda.
As long as the church membership cannot trust their leaders to make many of the decisions that need to be made without calling for a church vote, the church will continue to experience decline. It will be unable to make the necessary adjustments quick enough to meet the needs of this century. A pastor trying to lead a low-trust church will find it almost impossible to do so. Such churches prefer managers over leaders, and they are unlikely to follow a leader
It will be uncomfortable, but members of low-trust churches need to grant their leaders decision-making powers. If that happens, the leadership needs to be very careful to make good decisions to demonstrate that they can be trusted to do so. If these two things can happen the trust level in the church can be raised to a place where the church becomes much healthier, and that health will be reflected in the quality of ministry that occurs within the church and community.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Church structure is key to its growth
This past weekend a colleague of mine and I had the privilege of meeting with leaders of six churches to discuss the importance of church structure on its ministry effectiveness. Each of these churches average less than 100 people on Sunday morning. Many of them are pastored by bivocational or retired pastors. Each of these are older, traditional Baptist churches that are involved in an eighteen month process to help them experience renewal and revitalize their ministries. They found they shared many common characteristics regarding how their churches are structured, and that those structures often limit what they are able to do. None of those present struggled with the discussions and exercises they worked through as they examined how they might make changes in their structures, but it might be a different story when they return to their congregations and begin to talk to the larger bodies about those changes.
At the outset we talked about how a church is structured is a tradition that is often sacred to the congregation. Each of these churches are older congregations, most I would imagine more than 100 years old, and for many of them their current structure is the only one the church has ever known. For some in those congregations their current church structure is almost on the same level as the inerrancy of the Bible. What these churches came to realize is that their structure, as defined by their church constitutions and by-laws, were written for a much earlier churched culture that no longer exists. New structures are needed that will enable churches to better respond to the rapid changes occurring in our society and that reflect the way people think and work today.
What are some of those changes? Due to the hectic pace in which many people live today they value their time much more importantly than people did in earlier times. They are not willing to spend endless hours in meetings discussing things that make little difference in the lives of most people. They are also not going to commit vast amounts of time to the church to sit on committees and boards. In fact, growing numbers of people will not even join a church even if they are active in its ministries. People want to able to respond quickly. While many churches were discussing having a special offering to assist those impacted by hurricane Sandy and deciding when to best have that offering multiple thousands of dollars were being immediately raised through the Internet and cell phone texts. People are also accustomed to working in teams with specific goals to accomplish. Churches seem almost reluctant to set measurable goals so we ask people to serve on committees whose primary task appears to be to endlessly discuss things. Since few of these committees work with specific, measurable goals no one on the committee can experience the joy and satisfaction of completing those goals. Many feel they have committed themselves to this committee or board for life, and in some churches they have.
Churches that fail to take these changes into account when they look at how their church is structured are likely to continue to decline in both their numbers and their ministry effectiveness. They will continue to find that fewer and fewer people are willing to serve on their boards and committees, and the numbers of empty slots on their Nominating Committee report will continue to grow. Many of these churches will blame the lack of commitment on the part of their newer members, but in reality the blame will really be on the church's unwillingness to take into account the realities mentioned above in its structure.
How does a church begin to change its structure? V-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. Trying to make wholesale changes immediately is almost sure to be a recipe for failure. Again, in many churches their structure is holy to many people. It will be critical that leaders address why the changes are needed before talking about the changes that are needed. Only after the majority of people recognize that changes do need to be made will it be safe to begin discussing what changes need to occur. One of our churches suggested that pastors need to address this in several messages while the church leaders who recognize the need for these changes talk it up with other leaders in the church. There needs to be prayerful discernment about what changes do need to occur and a consensus reached that God is leading the church to make such changes. This is not something that should be forced upon a congregation once a 51 percent majority agrees to it.
I am familiar with several larger churches that have made some major changes in their structure, and these changes did not happen overnight. In some cases there were lengthy discussions and much discernment before the decision was made to make the changes. Most of the time the changes were made on a two or three year trial basis after which the congregation would evaluate if the changes were positive or negative on the church. If they were deemed to be negative the church would revert back to its old structures. So far, none of the churches I am familiar with went back to their old structures. In every single case, the changes were seen as positive. This is a model that smaller churches could follow as well. It is much less threatening to make temporary changes that can later be reversed after a sufficient trial period.
Your structure is perfectly designed for the results you are getting. If you are not satisfied with those results it may be the result of a structure that is limiting your church's ability to effectively minister to your community. If so, a leadership team needs to begin exploring what changes might be needed to make that structure more conducive to ministry.
At the outset we talked about how a church is structured is a tradition that is often sacred to the congregation. Each of these churches are older congregations, most I would imagine more than 100 years old, and for many of them their current structure is the only one the church has ever known. For some in those congregations their current church structure is almost on the same level as the inerrancy of the Bible. What these churches came to realize is that their structure, as defined by their church constitutions and by-laws, were written for a much earlier churched culture that no longer exists. New structures are needed that will enable churches to better respond to the rapid changes occurring in our society and that reflect the way people think and work today.
What are some of those changes? Due to the hectic pace in which many people live today they value their time much more importantly than people did in earlier times. They are not willing to spend endless hours in meetings discussing things that make little difference in the lives of most people. They are also not going to commit vast amounts of time to the church to sit on committees and boards. In fact, growing numbers of people will not even join a church even if they are active in its ministries. People want to able to respond quickly. While many churches were discussing having a special offering to assist those impacted by hurricane Sandy and deciding when to best have that offering multiple thousands of dollars were being immediately raised through the Internet and cell phone texts. People are also accustomed to working in teams with specific goals to accomplish. Churches seem almost reluctant to set measurable goals so we ask people to serve on committees whose primary task appears to be to endlessly discuss things. Since few of these committees work with specific, measurable goals no one on the committee can experience the joy and satisfaction of completing those goals. Many feel they have committed themselves to this committee or board for life, and in some churches they have.
Churches that fail to take these changes into account when they look at how their church is structured are likely to continue to decline in both their numbers and their ministry effectiveness. They will continue to find that fewer and fewer people are willing to serve on their boards and committees, and the numbers of empty slots on their Nominating Committee report will continue to grow. Many of these churches will blame the lack of commitment on the part of their newer members, but in reality the blame will really be on the church's unwillingness to take into account the realities mentioned above in its structure.
How does a church begin to change its structure? V-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. Trying to make wholesale changes immediately is almost sure to be a recipe for failure. Again, in many churches their structure is holy to many people. It will be critical that leaders address why the changes are needed before talking about the changes that are needed. Only after the majority of people recognize that changes do need to be made will it be safe to begin discussing what changes need to occur. One of our churches suggested that pastors need to address this in several messages while the church leaders who recognize the need for these changes talk it up with other leaders in the church. There needs to be prayerful discernment about what changes do need to occur and a consensus reached that God is leading the church to make such changes. This is not something that should be forced upon a congregation once a 51 percent majority agrees to it.
I am familiar with several larger churches that have made some major changes in their structure, and these changes did not happen overnight. In some cases there were lengthy discussions and much discernment before the decision was made to make the changes. Most of the time the changes were made on a two or three year trial basis after which the congregation would evaluate if the changes were positive or negative on the church. If they were deemed to be negative the church would revert back to its old structures. So far, none of the churches I am familiar with went back to their old structures. In every single case, the changes were seen as positive. This is a model that smaller churches could follow as well. It is much less threatening to make temporary changes that can later be reversed after a sufficient trial period.
Your structure is perfectly designed for the results you are getting. If you are not satisfied with those results it may be the result of a structure that is limiting your church's ability to effectively minister to your community. If so, a leadership team needs to begin exploring what changes might be needed to make that structure more conducive to ministry.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Your system is perfectly designed for the results you are getting.
This past weekend I met with leadership groups of two different churches. One has recently added new staff, doing innovative ministry, and growing very rapidly. The other church has struggled for the past few years and resembles many of our churches. One comment I made to both churches is that their system is perfectly designed for the results they are getting. The one church has systems in place that encourages growth while the other has systems that limit growth. This is true of all churches.
Because it's true I share it with those who attend my various workshops, and sometimes I get some push back from the pastors in attendance. They argue that they are in a church that wants to grow but they cite one reason or another why they cannot. I ask if there are churches in their area that are growing, and almost every time they admit there are. My response then is that this proves that the reasons they gave why their church can't grow isn't valid since there are growing churches in their communities, and I then repeat my statement that their systems are perfectly designed for the results they are getting. Our churches are what they are today because of decisions those churches made 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and even 20 years ago. Those decisions created certain systems in the church, that may have made sense at the time, but now they limit growth in that church. It is also true that your church will be 5 years from now, 10 years from now, and 20 years from now what they decide today they want to be. The systems we create in our churches will determine what our churches will look like and what they will be able to do for years to come. If we want to change the results we are getting we have to first change the systems that influence those results.
An example of this is the decision making process in a church. We live in a time of rapid change in our society, and the church needs to be able to respond to those changes just as rapidly as they happen. In many of our churches the decision making process that are followed make this impossible. Even the most basic decisions often must be assigned to a committee for study, then taken to various boards in the church, and finally presented at a business meeting for a vote by people who have never studied the issue and have only heard a two-minute explanation. The decision can be blocked by anyone anywhere in the process, and by the time it does come to a vote the need may no longer exist.
Decisions must be made quicker and by the people who are closest to the situation. That will often be the pastor, staff, or key lay leaders. My experience in judicatory ministry has shown me that staff-led churches often grow much faster than board-led churches. This may not be possible in churches with rapid pastoral turnover, but in churches with stable pastoral leadership it is time that church boards cease being managing boards and turn that over to the pastor and his or her staff. The old board-led structure limits the church's ability to respond rapidly to new needs and limits the church's ministry efforts. Despite that, it will not be easy for many of these boards to begin operating differently.
I can quickly think of three reasons why this is true. One would be the church that does suffer from rapid pastoral turnover. Churches that have new pastors arrive about every 2-3 years are going to be very reluctant to trust these new pastors who know little about the church to make major decisions without board oversight. This is understandable. In this case, it is the frequent pastoral turnover that is part of the church's structure that produces poor results, and the cause of this turnover needs to be investigated. The second reason is unfortunate but needs to be named. Many boards want to retain their decision making power to control the church. Being on the board in some churches gives persons a level of power they have nowhere else in their lives. Such persons see the church as existing to meet the needs of them and their families, and they will not relinquish their decision-making power in fear that they may lose the ability to control the church. The third reason is just as sad: the board does not trust the pastor and staff to make good decisions for the church. This be true even in churches with long-term pastors who have demonstrated good leadership skills as they've served the church. Such faithful service often does not matter in a low-trust church. In my opinion, this attitude will also have a negative impact on the church's effective ministry.
This is only one piece of the overall structure of a church. As you spend time looking at how your church is structured, what aspects of that structure promotes growth and ministry and what prevents or limits that ministry? What needs to be changed about those aspects? What can you do to effect such change? Your system is perfectly designed for the results you are getting. If you are not happy with the results you see in your church you will have to begin changing the aspects of that system that no longer produces the results you want to see.
Because it's true I share it with those who attend my various workshops, and sometimes I get some push back from the pastors in attendance. They argue that they are in a church that wants to grow but they cite one reason or another why they cannot. I ask if there are churches in their area that are growing, and almost every time they admit there are. My response then is that this proves that the reasons they gave why their church can't grow isn't valid since there are growing churches in their communities, and I then repeat my statement that their systems are perfectly designed for the results they are getting. Our churches are what they are today because of decisions those churches made 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and even 20 years ago. Those decisions created certain systems in the church, that may have made sense at the time, but now they limit growth in that church. It is also true that your church will be 5 years from now, 10 years from now, and 20 years from now what they decide today they want to be. The systems we create in our churches will determine what our churches will look like and what they will be able to do for years to come. If we want to change the results we are getting we have to first change the systems that influence those results.
An example of this is the decision making process in a church. We live in a time of rapid change in our society, and the church needs to be able to respond to those changes just as rapidly as they happen. In many of our churches the decision making process that are followed make this impossible. Even the most basic decisions often must be assigned to a committee for study, then taken to various boards in the church, and finally presented at a business meeting for a vote by people who have never studied the issue and have only heard a two-minute explanation. The decision can be blocked by anyone anywhere in the process, and by the time it does come to a vote the need may no longer exist.
Decisions must be made quicker and by the people who are closest to the situation. That will often be the pastor, staff, or key lay leaders. My experience in judicatory ministry has shown me that staff-led churches often grow much faster than board-led churches. This may not be possible in churches with rapid pastoral turnover, but in churches with stable pastoral leadership it is time that church boards cease being managing boards and turn that over to the pastor and his or her staff. The old board-led structure limits the church's ability to respond rapidly to new needs and limits the church's ministry efforts. Despite that, it will not be easy for many of these boards to begin operating differently.
I can quickly think of three reasons why this is true. One would be the church that does suffer from rapid pastoral turnover. Churches that have new pastors arrive about every 2-3 years are going to be very reluctant to trust these new pastors who know little about the church to make major decisions without board oversight. This is understandable. In this case, it is the frequent pastoral turnover that is part of the church's structure that produces poor results, and the cause of this turnover needs to be investigated. The second reason is unfortunate but needs to be named. Many boards want to retain their decision making power to control the church. Being on the board in some churches gives persons a level of power they have nowhere else in their lives. Such persons see the church as existing to meet the needs of them and their families, and they will not relinquish their decision-making power in fear that they may lose the ability to control the church. The third reason is just as sad: the board does not trust the pastor and staff to make good decisions for the church. This be true even in churches with long-term pastors who have demonstrated good leadership skills as they've served the church. Such faithful service often does not matter in a low-trust church. In my opinion, this attitude will also have a negative impact on the church's effective ministry.
This is only one piece of the overall structure of a church. As you spend time looking at how your church is structured, what aspects of that structure promotes growth and ministry and what prevents or limits that ministry? What needs to be changed about those aspects? What can you do to effect such change? Your system is perfectly designed for the results you are getting. If you are not happy with the results you see in your church you will have to begin changing the aspects of that system that no longer produces the results you want to see.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Responsibility without authority
In his excellent book Winning On Purpose: How To Organize Congregations to Succeed in Their Mission (Convergence Ebook Series)
John Kaiser writes, "When a congreation has a bureaucratic structure, either by design or default, it assigns responsibility to its pastor but divorces that responsibility from the authority needed to fulfill it. So the formula is responsibility minus authority, and the result is an organization that may appear safe but is certainly ineffective...The pastor of this congregation fuctions merely as an employee." There is nothing more frustrating that to be assigned responsibility but not given the authority to fulfill that responsibility. Unfortunately, that is exactly where many pastors live.
As I meet with pastor search committees to help them find their next pastor one of the desires I nearly always hear from this committee is the church wants a pastor who will grow their church. Six months later I see these same people standing on the brakes doing everything within their control to stop the changes that will be needed to reach new people with the Gospel. Folks, it doesn't get any more dysfunctional than that. Not only is it dysfunctional, it is also the definition of hypocritical. The church says the right words but their actions are the exact opposite, and that is hypocrisy.
This does not mean that I am advocating that the pastor be given ultimate power to do whatever he or she chooses. I am advocating that the church leadership and the pastor work together to identify the direction God wants to lead the church (See yesterday's blog post.) and move in that direction. I also believe that the pastor must be given great authority to lead this movement of the church while remaining accountable to the leadership. The role of the lay leaders here is to provide the parameters beyond which the pastor may not cross. These parameters will include the core values and bedrock beliefs of the church. With the parameters in place and a clear sense of where God is leading the church, the pastor must be free to lead and the congregation must be willing to follow.
This will often cause great discomfort for some because they have never travelled this way before nor have they submitted to any pastor's leadership. Some may refuse to make the journey, and that is OK. We worry too much about people who threaten to leave the church if things don't go back to how they used to be. You want everyone to take this journey with you, but some may choose not to go. Let them leave. They are a hindrance to your church fulfilling the vision God has for your congregation. God's vision always leads to life; the vision of the naysayers leads to death. As long as the pastor is leading the church in the fulfillment of the vision the church agreed has come from God and remains within the parameters of the core values and bedrock beliefs of the church he or she must have the authority to lead.
Periodically, the church leaders will want to evaluate the pastor's leadership in this journey. Here is where a pastor evaluation becomes helpful. Most pastor evaluations I have seen are extremely subjective and are not based upon vision and the purpose of the church but upon the unwritten expections each person has for the pastor. In my opinion, such evaluations are worthless and do nothing to advance the ministry of the church. The only helpful evaluation of the pastor's ministry will be based on previously agreed upon objectives and goals that the pastor and leadership have determined are critical for him or her to achieve if the church is to be successful. Each of these outcomes must be measureable to ensure helpful evaluation.
It is also important that the leadership have the pastor's back during this time of transition in the church. Critics will rise up to accuse the pastor of neglecting his or her duties. The lay leadership must remind such critics of the primary tasks they have asked the pastor to assume. Others in the church must step up and assume some of the maintenance tasks that too many pastors have been required to do in the past. Changing people's expectations of the pastor meeting all their needs will not be easy but is the responsibility of the lay leadership if the pastor is to lead the church towards a fresh vision.
The churches Kaiser describes in the above quote will make up many of the 80 percent of the church in North America that are plateaued or declining. Frankly, there is little hope of most of these churches turning this around unless they are willing to give their pastors the authority to lead them to the new place God has for them. I encourage you to read Kaiser's book. It really does provide an organization model to help your church succeed in its mission.
John Kaiser writes, "When a congreation has a bureaucratic structure, either by design or default, it assigns responsibility to its pastor but divorces that responsibility from the authority needed to fulfill it. So the formula is responsibility minus authority, and the result is an organization that may appear safe but is certainly ineffective...The pastor of this congregation fuctions merely as an employee." There is nothing more frustrating that to be assigned responsibility but not given the authority to fulfill that responsibility. Unfortunately, that is exactly where many pastors live.As I meet with pastor search committees to help them find their next pastor one of the desires I nearly always hear from this committee is the church wants a pastor who will grow their church. Six months later I see these same people standing on the brakes doing everything within their control to stop the changes that will be needed to reach new people with the Gospel. Folks, it doesn't get any more dysfunctional than that. Not only is it dysfunctional, it is also the definition of hypocritical. The church says the right words but their actions are the exact opposite, and that is hypocrisy.
This does not mean that I am advocating that the pastor be given ultimate power to do whatever he or she chooses. I am advocating that the church leadership and the pastor work together to identify the direction God wants to lead the church (See yesterday's blog post.) and move in that direction. I also believe that the pastor must be given great authority to lead this movement of the church while remaining accountable to the leadership. The role of the lay leaders here is to provide the parameters beyond which the pastor may not cross. These parameters will include the core values and bedrock beliefs of the church. With the parameters in place and a clear sense of where God is leading the church, the pastor must be free to lead and the congregation must be willing to follow.
This will often cause great discomfort for some because they have never travelled this way before nor have they submitted to any pastor's leadership. Some may refuse to make the journey, and that is OK. We worry too much about people who threaten to leave the church if things don't go back to how they used to be. You want everyone to take this journey with you, but some may choose not to go. Let them leave. They are a hindrance to your church fulfilling the vision God has for your congregation. God's vision always leads to life; the vision of the naysayers leads to death. As long as the pastor is leading the church in the fulfillment of the vision the church agreed has come from God and remains within the parameters of the core values and bedrock beliefs of the church he or she must have the authority to lead.
Periodically, the church leaders will want to evaluate the pastor's leadership in this journey. Here is where a pastor evaluation becomes helpful. Most pastor evaluations I have seen are extremely subjective and are not based upon vision and the purpose of the church but upon the unwritten expections each person has for the pastor. In my opinion, such evaluations are worthless and do nothing to advance the ministry of the church. The only helpful evaluation of the pastor's ministry will be based on previously agreed upon objectives and goals that the pastor and leadership have determined are critical for him or her to achieve if the church is to be successful. Each of these outcomes must be measureable to ensure helpful evaluation.
It is also important that the leadership have the pastor's back during this time of transition in the church. Critics will rise up to accuse the pastor of neglecting his or her duties. The lay leadership must remind such critics of the primary tasks they have asked the pastor to assume. Others in the church must step up and assume some of the maintenance tasks that too many pastors have been required to do in the past. Changing people's expectations of the pastor meeting all their needs will not be easy but is the responsibility of the lay leadership if the pastor is to lead the church towards a fresh vision.
The churches Kaiser describes in the above quote will make up many of the 80 percent of the church in North America that are plateaued or declining. Frankly, there is little hope of most of these churches turning this around unless they are willing to give their pastors the authority to lead them to the new place God has for them. I encourage you to read Kaiser's book. It really does provide an organization model to help your church succeed in its mission.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Where are you taking the people you lead?
I recently spoke to a member of a church who was frustrated with things that were happening in her church. Part of her frustration was that she saw the church repeating the same mistakes over and over again. She didn't know what to do and called hoping I could solve her problems. I'm afraid I made them worse.
A major part of her concern was over some in the congregation who were becoming very critical of their pastor. She said she would hear complaints about aspects of the pastor's ministry from one person and before the day was out she would hear from someone else how helpful they found that particular part of his ministry was to them. I tried to explain that although the church had a formal job description for the pastor, in reality there were 150 job descriptions he was expected to meet. That's how many people attend that church, and each of them have different expectations for the pastor. Those who are happy with his ministry are happy because he is meeting their expectations while those whose expectations are not being met are going to be unhappy. I then explained this is due to a failure of leadership. I asked her if the church leaders had ever worked with the pastor to develop a set of goals for the coming year. When she said they had not I asked how could anyone be expected to properly evaluate the pastor if he has had no goals to achieve?
After giving her a quick overview of SMART goals and how important it was for the church leaders and pastor to agree on 3-4 primary goals for him to give priority to, I shared that before they could do that the church needed to have a clear God-given vision for ministry that he would be expected to lead. Only with such a vision could the leadership develop and agree upon goals for the pastor that would enable him to lead the church towards that vision.
I told you I made things worse for the caller. She was hoping for a quick fix to resolve the problem and I began explaining that their problems are due to a number of structure problems in the church that can not be resolved easily. As a result of those problems the church has been wandering around for years with no sense of direction or purpose. They merely open their doors each week hoping something good happens before the day is over, but they are doing nothing intentionally to help something good to happen.
At this point I took my caller back to Moses and reminded her of him leading the Israelites round and round the wilderness for 40 years. Why? Because the Israelites earlier had refused to live into the vision God had for them. That refusal sent them back into the wilderness until the rebellious generation was gone, and when that generation was gone God called Moses to take them back to the edge of the Promised Land where they would enter it. One translation has God saying to Moses, "You've circled this mountain long enough," it is time to go back to the land I have given you. I told the caller that her church has wandered around in the wilderness for years because the church refuses to live into the vision God has for them. They need their pastor to lead them to the place God has for them, but he cannot do that until the church has a clear understanding of where that is. I explained to her that there was nothing wrong with her church that a unifying vision, a pastor who clearly understands what the church expects of his leadership, and a congregation willing to follow that leadership would not resolve.
Leaders, where are you leading your people? Lay leaders, what exactly is God's vision for your church? Is your leadership team on board with that vision? Have you given your pastor the authority to lead you towards the achievement of that vision? If so, are you protecting him or her from the complaints of those who believe the church (and pastor) exists to tend to their personal agendas? Are you gladly following his or her leadership and challenging others to join you on that journey?
Pastors, where are you leading your people? Are you leading them towards the destination that God has determined for them, or are you just circling the mountain, wandering in the wilderness, hoping something positive will eventually come? Has the church given you the responsibility to lead them but withholds the authority to do so? If so, who have you spoken to about this?
Both lay leaders and pastors need to understand something: while we play little church games people are dying and going to an eternal hell. Families are falling apart. Our young people are leaving the church and the faith in droves. Our nation is moving further and further away from God. False religions are growing rapidly as people look to other belief systems to feed their spiritual hunger as they become convinced that Christianity has nothing to offer them. It is time that leaders begin to lead their churches to the place where God wants them or step aside and allow real leaders the opportunity to do so.
A major part of her concern was over some in the congregation who were becoming very critical of their pastor. She said she would hear complaints about aspects of the pastor's ministry from one person and before the day was out she would hear from someone else how helpful they found that particular part of his ministry was to them. I tried to explain that although the church had a formal job description for the pastor, in reality there were 150 job descriptions he was expected to meet. That's how many people attend that church, and each of them have different expectations for the pastor. Those who are happy with his ministry are happy because he is meeting their expectations while those whose expectations are not being met are going to be unhappy. I then explained this is due to a failure of leadership. I asked her if the church leaders had ever worked with the pastor to develop a set of goals for the coming year. When she said they had not I asked how could anyone be expected to properly evaluate the pastor if he has had no goals to achieve?
After giving her a quick overview of SMART goals and how important it was for the church leaders and pastor to agree on 3-4 primary goals for him to give priority to, I shared that before they could do that the church needed to have a clear God-given vision for ministry that he would be expected to lead. Only with such a vision could the leadership develop and agree upon goals for the pastor that would enable him to lead the church towards that vision.
I told you I made things worse for the caller. She was hoping for a quick fix to resolve the problem and I began explaining that their problems are due to a number of structure problems in the church that can not be resolved easily. As a result of those problems the church has been wandering around for years with no sense of direction or purpose. They merely open their doors each week hoping something good happens before the day is over, but they are doing nothing intentionally to help something good to happen.
At this point I took my caller back to Moses and reminded her of him leading the Israelites round and round the wilderness for 40 years. Why? Because the Israelites earlier had refused to live into the vision God had for them. That refusal sent them back into the wilderness until the rebellious generation was gone, and when that generation was gone God called Moses to take them back to the edge of the Promised Land where they would enter it. One translation has God saying to Moses, "You've circled this mountain long enough," it is time to go back to the land I have given you. I told the caller that her church has wandered around in the wilderness for years because the church refuses to live into the vision God has for them. They need their pastor to lead them to the place God has for them, but he cannot do that until the church has a clear understanding of where that is. I explained to her that there was nothing wrong with her church that a unifying vision, a pastor who clearly understands what the church expects of his leadership, and a congregation willing to follow that leadership would not resolve.
Leaders, where are you leading your people? Lay leaders, what exactly is God's vision for your church? Is your leadership team on board with that vision? Have you given your pastor the authority to lead you towards the achievement of that vision? If so, are you protecting him or her from the complaints of those who believe the church (and pastor) exists to tend to their personal agendas? Are you gladly following his or her leadership and challenging others to join you on that journey?
Pastors, where are you leading your people? Are you leading them towards the destination that God has determined for them, or are you just circling the mountain, wandering in the wilderness, hoping something positive will eventually come? Has the church given you the responsibility to lead them but withholds the authority to do so? If so, who have you spoken to about this?
Both lay leaders and pastors need to understand something: while we play little church games people are dying and going to an eternal hell. Families are falling apart. Our young people are leaving the church and the faith in droves. Our nation is moving further and further away from God. False religions are growing rapidly as people look to other belief systems to feed their spiritual hunger as they become convinced that Christianity has nothing to offer them. It is time that leaders begin to lead their churches to the place where God wants them or step aside and allow real leaders the opportunity to do so.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Simplifying church structure
As I coach churches one of the things I typically find is that they are often over-structured. Members of the congregation complain that they are asked to serve in too many places within the church, and yet when I question them about their structure many of these same people want to defend it. What I have learned is that quite often the structure that is being followed was put in place many years earlier when the church was much larger. It made sense to have all the committees back then, but it makes much less sense now, especially if the same people are being asked to serve on several of these committees. One church leader confessed that their average attendance, including children, is ten less than the slate of officers and committee people their constitution requires.
At the same time, during most of my workshops someone will ask how they can get their congregations involved in ministry. The first thing I do is ask them to take a long, honest look at their structure and see what can be eliminated. In most churches, a large percentage of the boards and committees could be eliminated, and the church would not suffer. Eliminating these formal positions would free people for ministry. The way many of our churches are structured right now really works against having people involved in any type of ministry to persons outside the church. You cannot ask someone who sits on 3-4 church committees, teaches a SS class, and sings in the choir to engage in a ministry to unchurched people. They have a life and a family outside the church. If we simplify our structures, eliminate those committees and boards that are not necessary, and trust our leadership to make the decisions that have been made by these committees and boards we will have people with the time to serve those outside the church. Those are the ministries that will grow our churches and, more importantly, the Kingdom of God.
The question that follows this discussion in my workshops is how does a church do that when their constitution calls for all these committees, boards, and positions? Here's a thought...rewrite your church constitution to reflect what your church is going to do in the future and not what it has done in the past. Your church constitution should be a fluid document that provides order to your church but not strangle it as you move forward. It should be reviewed at least every five years to make sure it is serving you and not hindering you. When I was pastoring we spent a year revising our church constitution and removed a number of positions that were no longer needed. Every board, committee, and position in your church was created because they were needed at the time, and they made sense. But today is a different time. If it no longer makes sense to keep them, revise your constitution to eliminate them.
One caution before you do that. Several of my churches began by voting to suspend their constitutions for a period of 2-3 years. They did not necessarily suspend the entire constitution but only the part that addressed church structure. They did this so they could experiment with a new structure that was less detailed and gave more authority to make decisions to leadership. At the end of the suspension they would vote on making that permanent or they could go back to the old committee/board structure. So far, none of the churches I served that have done this have voted to return to the old system. They found the new, leaner structure was much improved and led to more people involved in ministries outside the church.
You can read more about this in my book Intentional Ministry in a Not-So-Mega Church.
At the same time, during most of my workshops someone will ask how they can get their congregations involved in ministry. The first thing I do is ask them to take a long, honest look at their structure and see what can be eliminated. In most churches, a large percentage of the boards and committees could be eliminated, and the church would not suffer. Eliminating these formal positions would free people for ministry. The way many of our churches are structured right now really works against having people involved in any type of ministry to persons outside the church. You cannot ask someone who sits on 3-4 church committees, teaches a SS class, and sings in the choir to engage in a ministry to unchurched people. They have a life and a family outside the church. If we simplify our structures, eliminate those committees and boards that are not necessary, and trust our leadership to make the decisions that have been made by these committees and boards we will have people with the time to serve those outside the church. Those are the ministries that will grow our churches and, more importantly, the Kingdom of God.
The question that follows this discussion in my workshops is how does a church do that when their constitution calls for all these committees, boards, and positions? Here's a thought...rewrite your church constitution to reflect what your church is going to do in the future and not what it has done in the past. Your church constitution should be a fluid document that provides order to your church but not strangle it as you move forward. It should be reviewed at least every five years to make sure it is serving you and not hindering you. When I was pastoring we spent a year revising our church constitution and removed a number of positions that were no longer needed. Every board, committee, and position in your church was created because they were needed at the time, and they made sense. But today is a different time. If it no longer makes sense to keep them, revise your constitution to eliminate them.
One caution before you do that. Several of my churches began by voting to suspend their constitutions for a period of 2-3 years. They did not necessarily suspend the entire constitution but only the part that addressed church structure. They did this so they could experiment with a new structure that was less detailed and gave more authority to make decisions to leadership. At the end of the suspension they would vote on making that permanent or they could go back to the old committee/board structure. So far, none of the churches I served that have done this have voted to return to the old system. They found the new, leaner structure was much improved and led to more people involved in ministries outside the church.
You can read more about this in my book Intentional Ministry in a Not-So-Mega Church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)