Designing Church Organization
A church is a very special and unique
creation. It is a fellow-ship. It is an organism, a unit of life. It is not
primarily an organization. But it does have needs for organization. There are
people who resist the idea of a church being organized. Some think of
organization as something out of place in a church. Some even doubt the idea
that organization can be biblical. People who believe this are poor students of
God’s Word.
Examples of Organization
The Bible is plentiful in its examples or organization. God Himself is a God of order, not of chaos. Just one illustration from each of the Testaments will serve to show that organization is not antibiblical.
Moses
Probably the most fruitful passage in
all of literature on leadership and organization is found in Exodus 18:13-27.
One who reads this passage should find many ideas which even modern writers and
other specialists in management discuss. This is the account of Moses receiving
some significant management counsel from his father-in-law, Jethro. Someone,
with a keen sense of humor, developed an organization chart showing the plight
of Moses before and after Jethro helped him reorganize.
In the traditional-looking box chart
format Moses is shown as the person responsible in forty-nine boxes, plus the
leader’s box at the top of the chart. His responsibilities listed on the boxes
range through the alphabet, from agriculture, banking, baptism, and bartering
to transportation, travel, water, and welfare.
Some student
usually mentions that Moses’ wife was named Zipporah. But our conclusion is
that a man who was as busy as Moses doesn’t have time for his wife! This
painful conclusion points up the sad plight of many who lead in churches
without adequate help through good organization.
There follows some very sound
instruction for Moses regarding his role, the roles of qualified persons who
should be placed in positions of responsibility to help bear the load, and this
important promise: “If you do this, and God so commands you, then you will be
able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace” (v.
23, RSV). Their needs would be met! Moses did what Jethro advised. And he
didn’t let Jethro leave until he had installed the plan!
The Twelve Apostles
Instances of organization abound in the
New Testament. The great scholar A. T. Robertson, in ‘A Harmony of the Gospels
for Students of the Life of Christ’, showed an interesting fact about the
twelve apostles. He presented the four lists of the apostles in vertical
columns side by side. The lists come from Mark 3:16-19; Matthew 10:2-4; Luke
:14-16; and Acts 1:13. In these lists one can readily observe that Simon Peter
is always listed first. Some take that to mean that Peter was the head of the
apostles.
One can discount that, in light of the
fact that Jesus was their Head! It is true that Peter was always listed first.
On closer observation, one can see that the next three after Peter are the same
in each list, but not always in the same order: James, John, and Andrew; then
Andrew, James, and John, and so on. The fifth person in all the lists is
Philip. The next three are the same, but again in varied order: Bartholomew,
Matthew, and Thomas; then Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew; then Thomas,
Bartholomew, and Matthew. Philip is the only one who is consistently in the
same position. So it is with the last four. James, the son of Alpheus, is in
the number nine position, followed by Thaddeus, Simon, and Judas Iscariot, who
was omitted from the list in Acts.
Here is what Robertson said about this,
adding that the scholars Bengel, Broadus, and Clark agreed:
Observe the three groups of four,
headed by Simon Peter, Philip, and James the son of Alpheus, respectively. The
great variety in the arrangement of the other names makes this uniformity
significant. It seems clear that there are three recognized groups among the
apostles.[1]
The agreement of even these great
scholars doesn’t necessarily make it true that the apostles were organized. But
it certainly gives cause to think that they were. We have other indications
that the apostles were interested in position since two of them had their
mother speak to Jesus about their positions (Matt. 20:20 ff). The organization
of the apostles probably did not come as a result of the work of a nominating
committee!
They might have been put in these groups
by the Lord. Possibly they could have emerged quite naturally to their
positions. The thing to notice here is that in the Bible there seems to have
been organization. And it was this group to whom Jesus gave the responsibility
to carry on His work. As a result, millions have received the gospel. That’s
good organization! It really isn’t good organization that people resist.
It usually is either poor organization
or too many organizations. Most people have had enough of organizations without
clear pur-poses and objectives and programs. It is possible to have too many
organizations calling for your participation and support. Churches need to
study seriously their organization and try to avoid these indicators of poor
organization.
Definition of Organization
Let us turn our attention to consider
what might be good organization for a church. That is what we want to advocate.
There are many possible definitions or organization. This one is very simple
and task oriented: Organization is the arrangement of persons to get a job
done.
The common elements in organization,
that is good organization, include some pattern of structure, some design—an arrangement.
To bring life and meaning to this arrangement, one must bring people. As in
team sports, one can mark the playing area and indicate where the players are
to position themselves to begin the action.
But the real organization ap-pears when
the players come onto the playing area and the game begins. They have a job to
do, and they begin to do it. This is their purpose in being organized. Again,
the elements are an arrangement, people, and a job to do.
Benefits of Good Organization
Good organization in a church offers
some worthwhile benefits. Let us look at a few of these benefits of good
organization.
First, good organization distributes the work load. As
Jethro told Moses about his assignment, “The thing is too heavy for you; you
are not able to perform it alone” (v. 18, RSV). That certainly is true of
ministry and the work of a church. No one person is big enough or good enough
to do it all alone. There must be others to share the work load, and there
needs to be good distribution of the load.
Second, good organization places responsibility where it be-longs.
God has given a variety of gifts. Each recipient is responsible for the best
use of his or her gifts in relation to the whole body, the church. With each
person fulfilling his or her responsibility, the whole body can progress
toward its goals.
Third, good organization reduces confusion. The work load is
well distributed. The responsibility is placed where it be-longs. Confusion is
minimized.
Fourth, good organization helps avoid unnecessary duplication
of effort. Duplication of effort is at best a waste, and at worst
counterproductive. Some of the most glaring instances of poor organization at
this point occur not in small churches but in large ones.
For instance, in a very large church of
several thousand members two secretaries were maintaining duplicate files of
the master church member records, each apparently not knowing that the other
was doing this. This had gone on for quite some time before the duplication was
discovered. That was poor and costly duplication of effort. Good organization
helps avoid this kind of happening.
Determining the Need for Organization
There are times when the best response
to the impulse to add organizations is to test the need in the light of certain
questions. It is possible that the need is not for more organizations. Ask
questions like these: Is there really a job to do? If the answer is
affirmative, proceed with other questions. If not, stop the action to
organize!
Does the need fall in the
responsibility area of an existing Officer, committee, or organization?
There are numerous instances in
churches in which positions, committees, or additional organizations were
created unnecessarily because the responsibilities of existing officers,
committees, or organizations were not clearly known. If the responsibility is
already placed, deal with the need in terms of getting the job done with the
existing organization. Don’t add organization in such a case. If, for example,
there is a committee which should be taking care of certain needs but is not,
work to get that committee to function. Find what the problem is and work to overcome
it. One creates more possible difficulties by failing to do so.
Can one person do the job
effectively?
If so, there are only a few exceptions
which would call for you to have a group of persons organized to do a
one-person job. For example, al-though one person could probably do an
effective job of counting the church offerings, there are good reasons why the
counting should be done by several persons. But in most in-stances, if the job
can be done effectively and acceptably by one person, avoid creating a
committee or other organization involving several persons.
Can a special group do the job as a
temporary project?
Perhaps an ad hoc committee would be
more appropriate than a permanent or standing committee. For example, if your church
celebrates the anniversaries of its founding in five-year or ten-year
intervals, you might question whether you should have a permanent committee to
plan church anniversary celebrations. And who would want a permanent pastor
selection committee?
The whole point of these and other such
questions is to plan to get the needs met effectively with as lean an
organization design as possible. There is no virtue, and there might be some vice,
in having more organizations than are needed. Try to avoid this problem.
Principles of Good Church
Organization
There are certain marks of good church
organization that distinguish it from poor organization. Some are even principles,
axiomatic truths which are universally valid.
Let us look briefly at some of these
marks. Good church organization will do these things:
1. Reflect the church’s theology
2. Lead toward clearly defined goals
3. Be almost as simple as possible
4. Be flexible
5. Group similar jobs together
6. Match responsibility with authority
7. Establish clear guidelines
8. Keep congregational authority clear
Organization Reflects the Church’s
Theology
Let us look at each of these and try to
clarify what we mean by them. Would you agree that good administration should
grow out of good theology? That is what we mean when we say that a church’s
organization should reflect its theology. It should be compatible with what we
say we believe, not only about God but also about the dignity and worth of
individuals.
Further, there should be no organization
design for a congregationally governed church which violates the tenets of
congregational democracy. For example, a church whose deacons, committees,
councils, staff, pastor, or any other group or individual function as a final
filter through which matters must be screened in order to get to the church
body is in danger of not being a fully congregational body.
There is a significant difference in
having required approval by certain groups or individuals in a church and in
having optional consultation from those same groups or individuals. There is
often wisdom in the counsel of many. But in a Baptist church this consultation
needs to be distinguished from having to have approval. Any individual or group
of a church, any committee whose parent is the church, should have right of
access to the church body. A church should clarify in its procedures how this
access is assured. A church committee might wisely seek the counsel of deacons
on matters of importance to the church; but to require a committee of the
church to have its work approved by the deacons is questionable in light of
Baptist theology. It is possible to have our cake and eat it too! We can have
the counsel of any others in a church without having to have their approval.
Then let the church make its own decisions.
Organization Leads Toward Clearly
Defined Goals
Good church organization should be goal
oriented. It should not exist without purpose or direction. It should be
designed to enable a church to accomplish its goals. If the goals are
temporary, perhaps the organization should be temporary. If the goals are
continuing, the organization for reaching the goals should be continuing. In a
study of one church’s committee structure, the study group (a special,
temporary committee) came upon a commit-tee called the Planning Committee. They
asked the chairman to recall the origin of this committee. Several years
earlier it had begun as a Building Planning Committee, to lead in the addition
of another needed building. The building was completed, but the committee
continued to have things referred to it by the church. Over the years its name
was shortened informally, not by church action. The chairman told of the most
recent matter the church had referred to the committee: How should the church
divide the revival love offering be-tween the guest evangelist and the guest
musician? The chair-man happily accepted the recommendation that the Planning Committee
be thanked and dissolved and that future decisions about the church’s finances
be considered by the church Stewardship Committee.
Organization Should Be Almost as
Simple as Possible
Good church organization should be kept
almost as simple | as possible. The simplest possible organization is one which
is run by one person. The possibilities in such an extremely simple
organization range from dismal failure and ineffectiveness to a rigid
dictatorship. Neither of these is right nor desirable. As a healthy body should
be just big enough for maximum effectiveness, so should an organization. Too
little organization allows for poor distribution of the work load. Too few are
probably called upon to do too much, and many miss the blessings of meaningful
work in the church. Too much or too many organizations tend to be cumbersome
and ineffective.
Church size and program plans, along
with other factors, should help you to find the right organization design for
your church. Churches have come to have organization along a wide variety of
lines. Historically, Baptist churches have organized their total membership in
several ways. In addition to pastors and deacons, Baptist churches have had
officer positions of the whole congregation.
There are the moderator, trustees,
clerk, and treasurer. The moderator is often the pas-tor, though not in every
case. The person in this position pre-sides over meetings of the church members
for transacting business for the church. The trustees serve as representatives
of the congregation and under the congregation’s instructions to do such things
as are necessary in the signing of legal and business documents and other
similar matters. The clerk maintains church membership records and handles
essential correspondence and recording related to the membership and to its decisions
in session. The treasurer is the official financial officer of the church and
operates, as do the others, under the instructions of the church.
Without such a plan, most congregations
have no minis-try to those who do not attend the education ministry
organizations or the church services or worship.
There are other ways churches are
organized to accomplish their purpose. There you will see suggested church
organization for five sizes of churches. There are suggestions for staff, deacons,
church officers, church committees, service programs, special ministries,
coordination, Bible teaching, church training, mission organizations, and music
ministry for each size church.[2]
Organization Should Be Flexible
Good church organization should be
flexible. It should expand as the needs justify expansion. In the instance of
organization in which growth is desired, such as in Bible teaching classes or
departments like the Sunday School, new units should be formed as worker-member
ratios and additional known prospects for enrollment suggest. New units grow
faster than older, established units. And they reach more people for Christ.
These are verifiable facts in the history and in the present experience of
Sunday Schools that are growing.
Planned expansion or addition of
organizational units is a key factor in growing a church. There are known
worker-member ratios, maximum membership sizes, and other factors which church
leaders should consider in expanding or adding organizations. In some instances
the organizational flexibility concept calls for reducing or contracting the
organization. Circumstances change, and sometimes the need or organizational
units diminishes. One can use the same good ratios and other factors that were
used to expand or to add to the organization to deter-mine when organization
should flex downward.
Again, in a Sunday School situation,
there are years when the number of persons in a given group in an age-graded
organization might be considerably smaller than in other years. In other years
the flexibility concept would say, “Reduce the number of units to fit the
need.” Obviously, most of us enjoy enlarging and expanding instead of reducing
the organizations, because more. organization should be associated with
reaching and ministering to more people. We are right when we are concerned about
reaching and ministering to more people.
Organization Groups Similar Jobs
Together
Good organization groups similar jobs
together. The flower committee doesn’t usually plan the church budget! There
are many tasks in a church. Those tasks which are similar should be grouped
together and assigned to persons with gifts and other qualifications for
performing particular tasks. If needs continue to arise which do not seem to
fit any of the present organizational responsibilities, that might suggest the
need for some reorganization or for some additional organization. First, see if
the newly discovered need can be met adequately and appropriately by existing
organization. If not, then make the needed changes. In any case, try to put
related or similar tasks together for assignment.
Organization Matches Responsibility
with Authority
Good church organization matches
responsibility with authority. Some people don’t like the use of the word
authority. They prefer to call it “freedom to act.’”’ Whatever one calls it, a
person in a place of responsibility in an organization needs to be authorized
or free to do what is right and necessary to get the assignment done. Of
course, there should be known limits to that authority or freedom. But
authority or freedom must be exercised within those limits.
Seward Hiltner wrote, ‘If even God
felt it wise and right and essential to risk his purposes and his love through
fallible human instruments, who is a minister to be unwilling to acknowledge
that his ministry must be risked through fallible human beings who are, in
actual fact, no more fallible than he?[3]
Organization Establishes Clear
Guidelines
Good church organization establishes
clear guidelines. It sees that groups and individuals are informed regarding
du-ties, responsibilities, and limits. For example, if there is a staff member
or a committee who has responsibility for money expenditures, the procedures
and limits of spending are better made known before rather than after the fact
of some violation. Good organization works toward preventing as
well as solving problems.
Organization Keeps Congregational
Authority
Clear Good church organization keeps
congregational authority clear. Certain decisions should be reserved for the
church body to make. Matters like calling ministers, changing the name or
location of the church, altering the constitution or bylaws, and qualifications
for membership who will serve in church positions are some of the decisions no
individual or group should make for the church. Obviously there are many other
items a church should decide for itself.
[1] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospel for Students
of the Life of Christ(New York: Harper and Bros., 1950), pp. 271-272.
[2] Bruce P. Powers, editor/compiler, Christian Education Handbook (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1981), pp. 130-131.
.jpg)
