A Brief Bit of Pragmatism
As I sit here, finishing my lunch, I am struck by a recent comment from Nathan on another thread:
Every church is driven by some program, structure, or church plan.
Exactly.
I’m going to be a bit pragmatic here for a moment. Please don’t point this out - I already know it, and I only bring this up because it may demonstrate a truth apparent in many experiences that have been shared:
/PRAGMATISM [ON]
One of the key axioms of organizational theory teaches that organizations are typically built in such a way as to achieve the results for which they were designed. My initial response to this was “duh”, but having seen it applied as an organizational project manager, I see the truth in this demonstrated in likely and unlikely ways.
One manifestation of this axiom is that organizations built around a single individual lose operational effectiveness when they reach 100-125 people. When an organization is led by a small group (1-15 people) with tight control over the organization, its effectiveness reaches a maximum at 350-400 people. When control is turned over to a second tier of hierarchy, its organizational capability expands to an operational maximum of about 1,000-1250. The next tier goes to about 3,500-4,000; then 10,000 and so on… [please realize I'm simplifying the org structural changes between models for the sake of brevity].
When you examine ‘church growth’ literature, you will find that these same ‘plateaus’ are often recognized and cited. You will also find that many ’stagnating’ churches seem to be hovering around these marks, as well.
So - recognizing this, if you are in leadership in a ’stagnating’ church at one of these tiers, chances are you’ve hit the maximum operating efficiency for the way you have structured the workings of your church. Additionally, you are probably being pressured to ‘grow’ the church in numbers. [There may or may not be spiritual issues, as well, but for the sake of argument, we will assume that these issues are not extraordinary when compared to the norm experienced in most churches today.]
All too often, the ‘answer’ to the stagnation is to simply try to change the programming - either in a ‘home grown’ manner, or ‘off-the-shelf’ (PD, 9 Marks, G12, etc.). Unfortunately, this response only deals with one of the two (or more) underlying issues. Bringing more people into an organization that is already near its maximum operating capacity without addressing the operating capacity, itself, is a recipe for disaster. [Noting that if there are extraordinary spiritual issues going on, as well, leaving these readdressed is even more disasterous.]
To be blunt - if your church has organizational problems before you change its programs, changing the programs won’t fix anything.
Unfortunately, issues of large organizational structure aren’t directly addressed in Scripture. The primary model at the end of the Era of the Apostles was the house church which, while not without its own unique problems, requires little organizational thought beyond having 2-3 men in pastoral roles. Thus, most churches have never diagnosed the organizational problems as problems, and end up hurting a lot of people in the process of changing.
So, from a truly pragmatic standpoint, if the church needs to make changes in its programming, etc., to better meet the needs of the community and to grow, two options need to be considered:
1 - Plant a new church, allowing the new church to be a ‘change agent’, focusing primarily on reaching the unchurched or disconnected.
2 - Go ahead and make the programming adjustments, while making the necessary organizational changes that will support the shift from ‘tradition’.
Unfortunately, many pastors like being king of their domain and are quite loath to relinquish their current level of control (as codified in the org structure), as are many elder boards, as well. So, they forego #1 and attempt #2 without the other change that must occur. Since PD is one of the most popular means of ‘changing programming’, it (and Rick Warren) then become the whipping boys for why strife entered the local church, when the root cause is sitting on the doorstep of the local church:
1) What is the motivation for growth? Is it from God or from ego?
2) Is growth the answer to stagnation? Will simply ‘preaching the Word’ - or dealing with some specific sins and sinful attitudes - end it?
3) Are the leaders, who are looking for ‘change’ to ‘fix’ the problems, willing to radically change their ways of working, as well?
All too often, though, such spiritual and organizational questions are left unanswered - dooming the organization to fail, and ensuring that people will be hurt in the process.
/PRAGMATISM [OFF]
June 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Chris - the sigen blocks a lot of your post.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Awesome post.
Kind of off topic, but I’m one of the pastors at a church that is hovering at the 350-400 mark, and it simply can’t continue growing the way we operate. If we continue to do things exactly like we do now, we will probably never grow past 400. The control issue plays a big part in this, so it really hits home.
A lot of times people will demonize a certain structure, when in reality, it is just different. Different size churches churches require different organizational structures, or they fail–plain and simple.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Rick - I’ve messed a little with the formatting, but I’m seeing all the text in different browsers…
michael - welcome. I hear you loud and clear - I’ve been involved in churches at almost every size listed over the past 40 years and many moves, and each had its own issues. Sadly, what frequently happens (and some organizational scientists would say ‘needs to happen’) is that the change required to move through the different size plateaus requires so much flexibility that it takes a change in leadership (not just the senior minister) to make it happen. This is why it is often less disruptive to plant a new church rather than grow the old one.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Chris,
Just got a chance to read this. Man did you hit the bulls eye or what? This is so true. In a former life, I had a chance to travel around the country for PD, explaining the paradigm, and helping churches to embrace it. Our biggest strength was our biggest weakness. It was relatively easy to do a 40 Days of Purpose church wide campaign but at the end of that 40 days, unless there was a willingness and flexibility to pragmatically change the infra-structure and start to do “business” a different way, then NOTHING changed. I can’t even begin to tell you how many churches thought 40 Days of Purpose would “fix” the problem of not being able to connect with their local community, but it didn’t. In my mind, it didn’t for some of the organizational reasons you pointed out here.
I think there is something else here as well. Sometimes pastors fall into the trap of trying to be somebody else. They think if only I could be more like Rick Warren or John MacArthur or whoever, I could be more effective at what I do. That is simply false. Not to say that they cannot learn from these mega-church pastors, but at the end of the day, they have to figure out how to be authentically who God created them to be, comfortable in their own skin, etc. Probably true for all of us.
Anyhow, great comments. Any suggestions for Michael above and me on a good overview read to understand the pragmatic side of organizational theory?
Thanks.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I have seen some PD churches grow and do great and some that switchover die. It seem often that many forget that God raises up what He wills… even if it a Joel osteen, just as God will shut a church or ministry down… (remember Jim and Tammy Baker?)
I find it interesting that some of the same people that teach the Sovereignty of God, miss that this Sovereign God puts presidents in place and is still sovereign over His own Church… I mean it is the Body of Christ, so I would think Jesus might be the Head still and control the functions of His Body as He wills….
But then I guess that would take actually believing in the Sovereignty of God and not just mouthing some abstract belief.
iggy
June 15th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I think the first time I was acquainted with this type of org theory was in The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. At the company I work for, we have a department of folks I work with from time-to-time whose sole mission is organizational effectiveness. When I was first working with them, they gave me a handful of articles from HBR and a couple of other books (which I gave back - titles escaping me) that dealt with the subject in a pretty detailed manner.
I remember, though, that it was advice a lot of senior pastors in small (100-125) churches wouldn’t want to hear - delegate and do not micro-manage logistics as a leader; Mentor and be mentored - seeking accountability from within the structure of the organization; Functionalize (allow different people to specialize in different areas of need, allowing them the autonomy needed to manage them); Allow room for mistakes, and coach people on learning from them rather than re-taking control in response; etc.
Of course, some of things you have to do to break the 125 barrier are things you have to un-do at 350, because they’re no longer scalable.
Let me ask around a bit, if my Org Eff folks can help me out…
June 18th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I don’t know if you have access to it, but one key source on organizational structure (based on size, etc., but requiring additional evaluation in the light of biblical principal) is Corporate Executive Board, which compiles all sorts of benchmarking and case studies, etc.