Missional Canadian

Church Governance: An Ongoing Journey …

This Saturday the Pastoral Staff and Governing Board of Redwood are going to meet for a full day to brainstorm about church governance. In these rapidly changing times from modernism to postmodernism, thinking on how major directional and financial decisions are made, how accountability is accomplished, how staff and board relate to each other, as well as how the church family as a whole speaks into the direction of the church, is undergoing significant re-evaluation.

I say re-evaluation because the issue of governance has been a hot topic for local churches for the last 20 years or so, especially among those who are older or more modernist in their perspective. Over the last 20 years, churches appear to have been moving in one of two predominate directions.

• Often midsized to larger churches including Redwood have moved in the direction of what can be best described as a “staff led/board affirmed,” governance model, where vision and direction are set by staff under the leadership of the Lead/Senior Pastor, and the board exists as an affirming presence, championing the direction of the ministry. In this model the Board also serves as guardrails, insuring that the Lead pastor and his team do not take the church off track.

• The second model that has emerged, that is more typical of small churches is the “elder led/staff-executed” model, where elders or board members discern vision and direction, and staff is responsible for executing the vision and direction.

• Both models employ some level of what is called “policy governance,” where ultimately the board is responsible, whether on it’s own or with primary input from the Lead Pastor/staff team, to establish what the mission is, what metrics for success are, and establishes policies within which staff operate in order to achieve these metrics. Over the last 20 years it’s become increasingly understood that church boards or elders boards do not meddle in the day-to-day affairs of the local church, nor do they play a direct supervisory role with any staff other than the lead pastor.

• In the Christian & Missionary Alliance, of which Redwood is a part, how this works out is a bit more complex. The CMA local church constitution has slanted things in favour of a staff lead church or even more so a Lead Pastor led church, by essentially granting the Lead Pastor the position of first among equals on the board. In the Christian & Missionary Alliance the chairmanship of the Board defaults to the Lead Pastor unless he chooses otherwise. Constitutionally the Lead Pastor is a direct report to the District Superintendent. Much of this is in reaction to congregational church governance, which historically the Alliance has seen as counter-productive to the visionary leadership needed for church growth. The Christian & Missionary Alliance is fairly unique in Canada in its approach to leadership in the local church.

As we look to the future, the two major trends as well as the unique Alliance approach to those trends is being questioned. Over the years as we at Redwood have tried to move towards a well defined staff led “policy governance” approach, neither staff nor board have ever been all that settled with how this could work. You would often hear the statement that the clear delineation between staff and board roles is not something you can find in the New Testament. The passion has always been to work more closely together, collaborate more and not be so worried about who has final authority. While the documents with well-delineated roles, responsibilities and policies made sense, the result didn’t sit well with the heart felt passion among our board and staff for what New Testament including John 17 style community looks like.

Add to that the passion of our key leaders and volunteer workers who are so avid about the mission of Redwood that they desire to get right in the middle of dialogue around Redwood’s future, and it’s clear that our current structures as well as the direction we have been moving in reflecting the values of the past 20 years, will not be satisfactory for the future.

It appears to me that the future looks a lot more collaborative and a lot less hierarchical than the past including our current Alliance constitutions. I don’t think it means abandoning everything that has made policy governance a giant step forward for so many churches. Nor do I think it means reverting to congregational government that so often solidifies the status quo and puts the brakes on change. I suspect it looks different than anything we have at present.

It’s not that there isn’t a role for the Lead Pastor as an initiating visionary leader, but that much more room needs to be made for others to contribute to the dialogue. The future involves a lot more dialogue between key leaders, staff and board, in a way that is not bureaucratic, cuts through red tape and is responsive to rapid change when rapid change is needed to move the mission forward.

Our staff and board are actually pumped to be able to spend a day thinking about this kind of stuff. They love being together. They truly want to find a way to work more effectively, more collaboratively together. Should be an interesting day that leads to further discussion involving more of the church family. Ultimately is should lead to a revamped governance structure that more effectively advances our mission while being more collaborative and less bureaucratic. Coming up with something like that is no small task! Your prayer about all this is appreciated!

September 20, 2010 Posted by Doug Doyle | Leadership, Local Church Thoughts, Redwood Park Church | 1 Comment