Following is a portion on organizational design from the book For the Sake of the House: organizational and leadership requirements for the twenty-first century church.
Historically, there has been tension on organizations between providing top-down direction and pushing accountability and ownership into the ranks. During the 1980s and 1990s, Deming, Senge, and other theorists’ and practitioners’ work on quality control, self-directed work teams, and learning organizations began to have greater impact in North America. The emphasis on structure began to shift from the traditional, multi-tiered hierarchal model to a flatter model. The question of centralization versus decentralization surfaced. Globalization and the notion of a boundaryless organization emerged.
Organizations now belong to networks that extend far outside themselves. As Internet commerce and communication increase, the globalization of business transcends what most envisioned less than a decade ago. As a result, the structure for organizations of the twenty-first century includes models that are flat, employee-empowered, share services, and most importantly, are flexible.
Now the questions loom concerning churches and religious organizations. If redesign is so necessary in secular organizations, is it necessary for the church? Is the church facing the same organizational redesign challenges other organizations face? Are we welcomed into the twenty-first century, where time-honored titles are slowly disappearing, responsibilities are shifting, stand-alone jobs and responsibilities are melting into far broader roles, new career ladders are emerging, and outside influences and internal people with an operations and leadership background carry increasing influence? Will the church need to rethink its structure and design and move decisions close to the point where action is required? If it was true that by 2002, 90 percent of all North American organizations implemented some type of self-managed work team, is it necessary this be reflected in the church?
The church does face the same dilemma as other organizations. The question is, “How can it remain a viable organization without strategically redesigning and restructuring itself?” During an on-line interchange with a colleague, he argues, “Only religion is saving the role of the pastor as church head (hierarchal structure). It seems, from the statistics, that interest in church is in severe decline. The main factor seems to be people merely going through the motions of religion are now falling away … Those who remain faithful to the Lord also want to be faithful to His word and nowhere does the current headship role of pastor receive support from Scripture.
“Church boards must similarly go the way of the dinosaurs for the same reason as the demise of the current pastor. This should issue in structures, facilitating believers to function in their gifting for the mutual edification of the entire body. Servant elders will be in functional oversight, while the head (Jesus Christ) directs the agenda and flow by the Holy Spirit. Deacons will serve to see the ministry operations all run smoothly. Money newly freed up from former (formal) staff salaries will enhance genuine ministry to make disciples worldwide. Corporate prayer services will replace the current worship services as worship becomes a lifestyle all week long … Why is the pastor so elevated/prioritized from the Ephesians 4 (apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher [pastor and teacher being the same person]) list?”
My colleague continued to assert that the structure of the church should mirror that of the first-century apostolic church. He states, “The more directly and plainly revealed structure flowing from Scripture is simply meeting in houses, so that they are small and intimate family gatherings as the tangible body of Jesus on earth, directly under Jesus as the head. Mature brothers will oversee as elders and other saints will serve as deacons in the practical requirements of the gatherings. The flow of the meeting will always see prayer as the major function, for the nations. Breaking of bread and the sharing of Christ by testimony and the Word will round out the time together over a family meal. Communities will know who the saints really are and they will increasingly be just one united body.”
These statements may cause some readers to shudder, some to laugh, or some to even mock. However, there are a number of comments that must be addressed. Certainly we do not live in a first-century Mediterranean culture with the church in its infancy. The Christian church has been in existence for almost 2000 years and has evolved to what it is today—large, wealthy, organized, with varying structures and design elements. Sometimes I am not sure this evolution is always beneficial.
However, we fail to acknowledge the fact that there is a disaster occurring in the church today. There are shocking statistics that reveal how stressful church leadership is, especially for those who serve as pastors. Reports show that 23 percent of all current pastors in the United States have been fired or forced to resign in the past; 34 percent of pastors presently serve congregations that forced their previous pastor to resign; the average pastoral career lasts only fourteen years, less than half of what it was not long ago; 25 percent of the churches in one survey reported conflict in the previous five years that was serious enough to have a lasting impact on the life of the congregation; and 1,500 pastors leave their assignments every month in the United States because of conflict, burnout, or moral failure. Not only do these statistics indicate the devastation occurring to individuals (and their families), but they would also indicate there are thousands of churches weak and vulnerable to spiritual attack.
Reread my colleague’s comments. Considering the above statistics and how the quickening pace of technological innovations and people’s rising expectations have suddenly changed the basic strategies implemented for sharing the gospel and past expectations put on church leaders, it is evident the church must review its structure and design to engage the twenty-first century. We must be flexible so we can respond more quickly to constant change. Furthermore, at this point, we have not addressed the topic of strategic foresight, a topic of chapter six that could have tremendous impact on the local church’s structure and design.