Many churches are adopting a unified board structure to minimize layers of committee work and free time for hands on ministry. Ann Michel of the Lewis Center staff outlines factors a church should consider in evaluating whether this approach fits their needs and circumstances.
Many church leaders are intrigued by the idea of streamlining congregational decision-making structures to get rid of layers of committees and free time and energy for hands on ministry, discipleship growth, and service. One popular approach is to replace the traditional set of standing administrative committees (finance, personnel, property, etc.) that typically serve under a church board or church council with one unified leadership group that takes on the work of these various administrative committees. This approach is sometimes referred to as a unified board structure, a single board structure, a one-board structure, or a simplified accountable board structure.
The idea has gained traction among some church consultants and judicatory leaders as a revitalization strategy. Many pastors love the idea of having fewer meetings on their own calendars. But is it right for every church?
Size matters
Church size is an important variable in answering that question. A single board structure can make all the sense in the world for a very small or declining church that can no longer populate a full slate of committee roles. There is also a logic to making all decisions around one table when a congregation’s ministry footprint is quite limited in scope. At the other end of the spectrum, a single board structure is often used successfully by very large churches where staff handle the day-to-day work of personnel, property, and financial administration. In megachurches, boards often function as they do in other types of nonprofit organizations—providing strategic direction and accountability but not routine administrative decision making.
The rub can come for mid-size churches that rely on working committees to do the day-to-day work of financial administration, property management, and personnel decision making. In a unified board model, one board member typically serves as the point person for each of these areas of responsibility. A church would be wise to take a hard look at the work being done by their administrative committees before deciding to eliminate them. And then ask, can a single board do the work that your finance, property, and personnel committees have done in the past? Can a single board member bring sufficient perspective on these issues and bear the responsibility of implementing what others have helped with in the past?
Bench depth and leadership development
Another potential problem with having only a single point person for finance, property, and personnel, is the question of who will succeed them. Committees working in these areas provide bench depth and a means of educating new leaders to critical areas of church life. A well-functioning set of committees provides a leadership pipeline in areas of responsibility that can require a fair level of knowledge and background.
Church culture
Another variable to consider is the culture of the congregation, particularly regarding lay leadership. In some churches, laity are burned out, exhausted, and resistant to taking on leadership responsibilities. But in other churches, laity might see vesting decision-making authority in the hands of fewer people as reducing their input and influence in critical decision making.
Changing the governance of a church can be tricky, controversial, and conflict laden. Dan Hotchkiss has written that “congregations are prone to see a governance proposal as cover for a power grab.” He counsels that congregations should embark on a process of governance change with their eyes wide open, and especially wary of the possibility that a change in the decision-making apparatus is being proposed as a solution to a problem it can’t solve, such as underlying conflict or rampant decline.
No one loves byzantine church structures or endless rounds of boring meetings. Fewer and fewer new people come to our churches eager to take on the job of maintaining the church’s institutional life. So, it behooves every church to consider whether its decision-making structures are effective, efficient, and fruitful. But it is equally true that moving to a one-board model isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution or a quick fix for the myriad problems faced by churches in decline. Church leaders should carefully consider the realities and dynamics of their own congregational life before jumping too quickly on the bandwagon.
Related Resources
- Does Your Church Really Need All Those Committees? by Andy Lunt and Ted Brown
- Working with Committees and Boards by Alan Rudnick
