There are few things as controversial, in many circles, as church organization. It’s because many denominations associate how they’re organized with religious or spiritual principles. And they associate modifying the polity (form of organization) as spiritual heresy.
I was glad John Kaiser took the challenge, though, in this book, “Winning on Purpose: How to Organize Congregations to Succeed in Their Mission.”
Allow me to give you the executive summary of the book.
The problem with many churches and organizations is that they’re organized based upon control rather than trust. For example, in many churches, there is a church board that is comprised of ministry leaders. The pastor usually chairs this board that sometimes meets once a month. If a particular ministry leader wants to do something for his ministry, he brings it to the board, who then votes up or down on it. If a pastor thinks that something needs to be done, he usually brings it to this same board for “approval.” If the board accepts it, it moves forward. If not, the idea dies.
Do you notice the inherent issue with this form of church organization? In this model ministry is tied to administration. We ask people, who are perhaps very gifted in their area of passion in ministry, to also make administrative decisions that affect everyone else. And we’re asking people to make decisions based upon issues that they might not be familiar with. Of course, the purpose of this model is supposed to be accountability.
John Kaiser presents a different model, which interestingly enough, he calls the “Accountable Leadership Strategy.” He uses the metaphor of a soccer field to explain this model.
In soccer, the rules are clearly delineated. There is a field that constitutes the “in play” area. Outside of that the ball is “out of bounds.” On either end of the field there are goal posts as well. You also can only use your feet/legs to kick the ball. You can’t use your hands, etc. These rules are agreed upon before hand by the soccer governing boards.
So what strategy does a coach use in order to help his team win? Any strategy he wants. As long as he’s following the rules, he can work with his team to develop the strategy that he deems best.
Are you seeing any parallels to church organizational life?
Let me cut to the chase a little more quickly. In this book he presents that there should be three levels of leadership:
A church board, whose role is governance.
A pastor, whose role is leadership.
And a staff, whose role is management.
He says:
“The position played by the board is governance. Accountable to the board is the pastor, who plays the position of leadership. Accountable to the pastor is the staff, which plays the position of management. Staff in this book refers to the managers of ministries in the congregation without regard to employment or compensation status. Accountable to the staff are the various ministry teams, through which the members of the congregation lay the position of ministry” (p. 47).
For the purpose of governance, the role of the church board is to help set up broad agreed-upon policies that help to provide direction and accountability for the pastor.
He continues:
“Tom Bandy calls it proscriptive thinking…’Proscriptive thinking requires the board to think negatively in order to empower mission positively.’ John Carver refers to it as proactive constraint in his book, Boards that Make a Difference. ‘The board has neither the time not the expertise to state everything that should be done. It does have the sense of values necessary to recognize what should not be done. The principle is simple and, perhaps more than any other principle, enables excellence in governing…A few simple, well-placed boundaries in the congregation can provide the pastor and staff with an abundance of freedom and resources to fulfill Christ’s purpose for his people” (p. 63).
In essence, this is the system as presented in the book.
Personally, I think it’s a genius model. There is accountability at each level of leadership and there is also ample room for freedom. The board hires the pastor. The pastor hires and selects his staff. And the staff lead the ministry teams. The board can’t tell the pastor what to do or how to deal with his staff. If the pastor isn’t doing a good job, the pastor is accountable to this board.
Listen to what John Kaiser says, “If an activity is not illegal, unethical, imprudent, or unbiblical, the board has no legitimate interest in forbidding it to the staff and the people working with them in ministry” (p. 68).
I think a model like this could revolutionize many churches. And by the way, growing churches have already been organized like this for a good while.
So what do you think? How could something like this change an organization for the better? What are the possible dangers of a system like this? Push back some.
[image by ewiemann]
very interesting, thanks for the great summary! i’m gonna get this book! thanks rodlie!
Get it Dave…it’s really good….don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
Rodlie sounds like a good book, thinking of reading it myself, thanks for the review…obviously though it’s something as you mentioned that has and is being done…i guess within our organizational structure how would that work? Many of the churches that have this model keep their tithe and offerings locally…and what does Kaiser say the role of a Business meeting is? For example as you know, technically in order to have a church budget approved it needs to go to the whole church, would this fall under the local board then? just an example…i guess i should read the book:-)…anyhow let me know what you say…
Javier, the reason why I liked this book so much, is that I felt it’s a totally transplantable model. Not necessarily easily, of course. But possible. And it doesn’t have anything to do with how tithes and offerings are used at all. Tithes would still be used in the same way. I can’t remember what he says about business meetings, to be honest. But I would think that, even under this kind of model, there would still be appropriate times for business meetings and to come before the whole church. I don’t think that would have to change. And ever large churches like Saddleback have Business meetings once a year where their budgets are voted in.
I highly recommend the book. And I think this is the right direction to go. In the Florida Conference, they’re supportive of this model, but actually changing the structure would be the last step in a process of church transformation.
Thanks Rodlie. Some Q’s about this model:
1. Is it possible or desirable to have part of the governance be from outside the church membership?
2. Does pastor have the sole authority to call staff members and replace them?
3. What process is recommended for the duration and replacement of staff?
4. Do you know of any churches using this model with volunteer rather than paid staff? Seems it work have more teeth with paid staff.
Let me answer these in order:
1. The book doesn’t address having outside governing boards. It assumed that they were part of the church. I have heard some mega churches that have outside governing boards, but I think it’s better for the board to be from members in the church that have a personal stake in what happens. That seemed to be the opinion of the book’s author, anyway. Because part of the purpose of this board is also to care for the pastor and make sure he’s doing well spiritually and in every other way.
2. Yes. The pastor has the full authority in selecting staff in this model. The staff is accountable to the pastor and the pastor is accountable to the board.
3. There is no time limit or specific protocol for replacing staff. The staff, whether volunteer or paid are treated like employees. As long as they’re doing their job well they can stay. Kaiser (the author) doesn’t get into how to replace staff, but Nelson Searcy, in a seminar I went to from him talked about a process for replacing staff. It involved getting them to write a letter for why they were resigning or being fired. This letter would then be read to the rest of the staff, but not the church. If they had been there for awhile he would offer them a month severance and continue covering their insurance for three months. If they hadn’t been there a while he would just dismiss them. There’s a motto that many of them use: hire slowly and fire quickly.
4. Nelson Searcy uses this model with volunteer staff and it seems to work really well. They have very few paid staff. They eventually try to get high performing staff on a small “stipend” to cove their gas, and the encourage accountability. I’ve also personally interviewed a pastor of a burgeoning mega church in the area who does the same thing. Bil Cornelious, author of Go Big, talks about the same principle in his book. They treat paid vs volunteer staff in the same way with the same level of expectation, actually. They set the expectation up front. Seems that it works well.
Thanks for the positive review, Rodlie. You did a great job answering the questions people submitted in line with Accountable Leadership.
To add a short word about outside board members–you’re quite right that the normal pattern is for these to highly committed members of the local congregation. There are, however, some cases where an outside board member or even a completely outside board can be the way to go. The most obvious of these would be a church plant in which the pastor leads under the authority of a denomination, agency, or one or more parenting churches.
Baby churches need every leadership person they can get inside the congregation to head up ministry teams rather than sit on a governing board. They also need to protect the tender plant from controllers with personal agendas. Even if the new start is independent, I would recommend that the church planter recruit an outside board of people the planter trusts.
A small existing congregation that wants to reinvent itself and grow, can also use an outside board to free up its limited leadership for (typically unpaid) staff roles. Accountable Leadership is not just for large churches.
In May my new book comes out, Fish or Cut Bait: How Winning Churches Make Decisions. (a little shameless self-promotion)
Blessings to you and your readers!
Thanks for the comment Pr. Kaiser! And it’s funny, I’ve never even thought about the concept of using an outside board. Quite interesting. It would certainly make sense. Cause I think for many churches that’s one of the issues that they face (I know I do): I don’t want to tire people out in administrative meetings. I’d rather have them leading ministry teams. I’d certainly love to learn more about the concept. Look forward to checking out your new book when it comes out. Blessings and thanks!
I had a question.
Who is the church board accountable to?
Hi Joshua. It depends in which kind of model you’re referring to. In this book, the author is suggesting having two kinds of boards: a governing board which sets overall policy and which the pastor is accountable to vs a “working” type board which the pastor leads and in which the staff are accountable to him. In most churches in which there is a church board model, the church board is accountable to the church as a whole. Most churches gather every so often (about once a quarter) and there’s certain issues which will be brought to the whole church for a vote.