The idea of tinkering with church structure gets a bad rap: and it’s not entirely undeserved. I’ve watched denominations burn eye-watering sums of money paying consultant to advise on rearranging the organizational furniture. The dust settles with a whole load of new roles and organisational charts, and a nagging sense that the organisation is still doing the same stuff, making the same mistakes and facing the same challenges. You can’t fix cultural problems with structural solutions.
I’ve heard cynical consultants say, “If you can’t figure out a decent strategy, announce a restructure – it will buy you at least two years of having the appearance of knowing what you’re doing.
Yet structure matters – a lot. In my last article I spoke about growth barriers – size-points where churches seem to get stuck. More often than not it’s a case of the church having reached the elastic limit of its leadership structure, which is indissolubly linked to the leadership style of the senior minister.
Issues like delegation of authority and responsibility, supervision and accountability all depend on well-functioning structures to work effectively – and those structures need to be tailored to the size and life-stage of the church. Mismatch these and you may get paralysis, chaos, demagoguery or death-by-bureaucracy.
When talking over structure with church leaders, I employ a some generalized principles about structure relative to congregational size. The simplest is the ratio of full-time equivalent pastoral staff to average weekend congregational attendance. In general, this is around 1:80 to maintain stability, and a little ‘richer’ to enable growth. Another is the number of staff strata needed to sustain churches in Rothauge’s four size brackets: Family-sized churches need only one, pastoral-sized require two, as does a smaller program-sized church. Breaking the barrier between program and corporation-sized generally requires the addition of a third staff layer. Each new tier of leadership profoundly changes the senior minister’s role.
Other factors such as model of ministry, mission focus and socio-economics play into the challenge of arriving at an optimal structure for any particular church. Sometimes simple practicalities limit church growth in ways structure cannot resolve.
A few years ago I consulted to a largish Anglican church, where the average Sunday morning service attendance had been surprisingly stable over seven years – staying within the narrow band of 188 – 195. Changes to staff, programs and service times seemed to make no difference one way or another. The building could seat about 300. The answer lay in the car park: 65 spaces, with no parking available on the nearby streets. Local council planners work on a ratio of 3 people per car when planning car parks for public buildings. Do the maths.
Organisational structures and physical resources like buildings and car parks don’t in and of themselves produce church growth. But they will either facilitate or inhibit growth depending on their functionality and suitability. It’s not rocket science, but the importance and influence of appropriate structure, system and physical resources for church health and effectiveness is not widely understood.
You can build your understanding by attending the online workshop, Church Size and Lifecycle on Tuesday June 16th. Click here for more info.
Another good option is to get yourself a coach to help you think these issues through. Click here to begin your journey. Your first session is free.