Change in Leadership Town Hall Handout

Untangle Your Committees. Unlock Your United Methodist Church.

What do you call a horse designed by committee? A camel, of course.
What do you call a church run by committees? Well, you call it United Methodist.

One Size Fits All?

The United Methodist Church is structured to be lay-driven, and this is a very good thing. Unfortunately, in our zeal to include as man people as possible in church leadership and decision-making, we often hold the church back. Not only this, but the system we use for   ordering our churches has, at times, actually prevented the laity from participating in our mission to be and make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

What if I told you that there is another way, and it is actually already written into the Book of Discipline? There is. But let me first set the scene as to why exploring alternative governance is so important.

As clergy know, there's this interesting wrinkle in our polity as United Methodists that there are administrative committees, mandated by the Book of Discipline, with overlapping function. We try to make up for this fact by including certain people on multiple committees, but frequently, rather than facilitating conversation, this structural principle means a certain number of people spend more nights than they should in the church parlor, sitting around a table, instead of caring for their families or making Disciples.

Let me share an example from another church. This church needed to undertake a major renovation project on their elevator. Basically, all the guts had to be replaced. Three groups in the church had oversight:

The trustees, because this was a facility issue.

· The finance committee, because there was significant cost associated with the project.

The church council, as the governing body of the church.

The money they planned to use to renovate the elevator was sitting in a bank account, ready to be spent, and yet because of the logistical nightmare of working through three groups with overlapping authority, they spend six months talking about a project that everyone agreed they needed to do and for which they had already set aside the money! This isn't to say that their lay leaders were doing anything wrong; it's to say that (as Andy Stanley says) our system was set up to produce exactly the results we were getting, which in this case were absolutely nothing.

It also isn't to say that the United Methodist committee system is irrevocably broken. I supposed it works for some churches. But I've never heard anybody praise our committee structure. I've also never seen a disciple made in a committee meeting.

The issue is this: not only is our structure built upon a premise of abundant meetings and overlapping responsibilities (a recipe for triangulation if there ever was one), but the structure simply was not built for a society that moves more quickly than ever. With instant communication, evolving demographics, and a rapidly changing culture, there comes a need to be able to make decisions quickly. As Jeff Brody says, "slow decision making means missed opportunities." We don't have to wait to gather to learn the results of a study or a bid. We can send it by email and everyone can instantly have all the data. The old way, while it does work for some churches, doesn't work for all of them. So why should we all have to be structured the exact same way?

The good news is that we don't.

A New Governance Model

The United Methodist Book of Discipline includes the following statement:

¶247.2: The charge conference, the district superintendent, and the pastor shall organize and administer the pastoral charge and churches according to the policies and plans herein set forth. When the membership size, program scope, mission resources, or other circumstances so require, the charge conference may, in consultation with and upon the approval of the district superintendent, modify the organizational plans, provided that the provisions of ¶ 243 are observed.

You will notice the broad scope of this paragraph. In consultation with and upon the approval of the district superintendent, a church can engage an alternative administrative structure for just about any reason, provided the provisions of ¶ 243 (which lays out the primary tasks of the church) are observed.

Paragraph 243, it should be noted, says nothing about how those tasks are to be carried out structurally. The matter of governing structure is a matter between the local church, the pastor, and the district superintendent. There is wide latitude to convene a structure that:

· has clear lines of authority, so that everyone knows who is in charge of what

· privileges decision-making above simple reporting, so that God's people can move forward in ministry

· empowers laity to do the work of making disciples rather than sitting in incessant meetings, and

empowers the pastor to attend to the work of Word, Order, Sacrament, and Service.

There are, of course, a number of ways that this alternative structure could function. Let me share how I have seen this work.

The Church Council would consist of 7 members, including the lay chair. The members serve three-year, staggered terms. Disciplinary positions such as treasurer, lay leader, and annual conference member are filled by members of the Council. 

This group would meet once a quarter (or every other month) to discuss major decisions and set over all vision. The group will continue to check-in and work together through e-mail, text, and phone in between meetings.