Our church is facing a threefold crisis related to structure. First, a crisis in organization. The reorganization of 1901 was appropriate for that time and has served us well. But as we approach the twenty-first century, is our structure bloated?
Second, a crisis in mission. We have forgotten that pastoring and evangelism are our primary business. Too much of our resources are used simply to maintain an outdated and inefficient form of organization. The ratio of pastors and evangelists to mid- and upper-level administrators is way out of proportion not enough "Indians" and too many "chiefs." And church growth in North America re mains stunted.
Third, a crisis in budget priorities. When budget crunches come, all too often pastoral bloodletting occurs. The very people who help the local churches grow somehow can no longer be afforded. There was a time when pastors were relieved of their duties only because of immorality or financial irresponsibility, but recently we have seen a trend: pastoral careers ending for other disturbing factors such as a tithe shortage. (See "I used to be a pastor," Ministry, May 1992.)
What can we do to reverse the process? I believe if we follow the three R's we can change this trend: we must redefine, reorganize, and restructure. My comments pertain primarily to the North American Division, but the principles can be applied to the world church, as well.
My thesis is this: There is absolutely no need for duplication of services in the current system. With the savings achieved, we can revive our emphasis on pastoring and evangelism and spur church growth.
How do we do it?
First, streamline the church organization. I see three possibilities: (1) Eliminate all the local conferences and have the churches report directly to the current unions, which in turn would report to the division; (2) Eliminate all the unions and have churches report directly to the local conferences, which in turn would report to the division; (3) Eliminate all the local conferences and unions and reorganize regionally, which regions would re port directly to the division.
After tossing and turning over the merits and demerits of each option, I see great advantages and savings in eliminating the current local conferences. Eliminating the unions would not really save us a whole lot, since there are so few of them. Establishing new regions would be slow and cumbersome. The solution perhaps lies in how the local churches and pastors are organized.
How churches should be organized
Currently churches are organized into districts, with some districts having four or five churches. I have pastored districts with as many as four, and I know of pastors who have had as many as six! What is the ideal number? Members would all love to have their very own pastor. That's virtually impossible except for large congregations. Most can accept sharing a pastor with another one or two churches, but when districts become too large, membership rebels. Administrators have responded by as signing on an average one pastor to two or three churches. The result? Pastors have so many people to please and so many duties to balance that church growth suffers. We pastors endure this, hoping and waiting for a "better" situation. However, for most of us, we move from one lateral position to the next. Indeed, not everyone can move "up the ladder," whatever that means.
I look back in our history, and also look overseas, to see the church grow by leaps and bounds. Pastors outside North America sometimes can have 20 or more churches in their districts, with the laity largely responsible for the results. What would happen if we organized districts like that in North America? "Rebellion in the ranks!" you might say, but let's not be so hasty. If you examine the period in North America when the church was growing at its fastest rate, you would find something very similar to the situation overseas. Only when we have gotten "lazy" and accommodated our members' wishes for pastoral cover age have we seen a decline.
I propose organizing church districts into areas, and assign pastors (note the plural!) to each area, taking into account their personalities, spiritual gifts, and talents. Churches would be organized within state territories by phone area codes or another reasonable method. Pastors within these areas would share the preaching and overall care for their area. One of the pastors, with gifts and abilities in ad ministration and leadership, would serve as the "senior pastor," with the other pastors serving on the "staff." The senior pastor would be directly responsible to the ministerial director of the larger denominational entity. Each staff would have pastors who would specialize in pastoral care, evangelism, visitation, missing member ministry, youth ministry, etc. This would have the direct benefit of minimizing deficiency and maximizing ability. Setting up pastoral teams within areas can optimize individual talents, skills, and gifts.
Furthermore, each area would have a central office location with a church secretary to care for necessary church duties. Using computerized church management software, all the churches in the area could maintain current mailing lists and streamlined treasury functions. With fax machines, cellular telephones, and pagers, the senior pastor could keep in regular touch with the staff and deal with emergencies as they arose.
New pastoral approaches
Laypersons can be trained for additional church responsibilities. Over flow seminary and college graduates could staff volunteer pastoral pro grams, thus freeing experienced pas tors for evangelism in areas with the most potential for growth. Such re structuring of personnel resources and use of laypersons and volunteers would maximize evangelism and pastoral care, while at the same time conserving funds.
Pastoral remuneration needs close examination too. Does our wage structure reflect the importance of pastoral ministry? Does it provide incentives for excellence in pastoral work? Does our remuneration take into account years of service, quality, difficulty of service, and total responsibilities involved in pastoral work? Should there be room for rewarding excellence?
Pastors and evangelists should be the last people laid off, not the first, and done only in extreme circumstances. When the church recognizes a pastor's calling and vocation and when the pastor accepts that call, they do so to serve the church for the rest of their lives. The church has an obligation to maintain them. At the same time, the church should not hesitate to replace ineffective and unproductive pastors.
In summary ...
Implementation of any new idea is not easy. The restructuring proposed here would take time, but given a bold and willing leadership and an appropriate climate, the church could do it in five years. Resistance, of course, could be formidable. It would most likely come from those whose position and influence would be jeopardized. However, we as a church must be willing to fulfill the law of self-sacrifice for the overall good of the church. To do nothing condemns us and future generations to pain and pressure.
