Church Structures

John Alexander says, “If you are a leader who believes in structure, brace yourself to receive criticism as a carnal stifler of freedom, creativity and the Holy Spirit” (p. 11). Any conversation about structure in Christian settings, especially church structure, must contend with the attitude suggested in this quotation—as prevalent today as it was twenty years ago. At the very least, there is a warning here about the care needed in approaching structure in the church. How can structure enhance rather than inhibit freedom? How can structures advance the cause of the church?

The term church structures in this article refers not to “hard” architecture, that is, church buildings, but rather to the “soft” architecture that is reflected in how a church is organized—though no doubt there ought to be a link between the two types of architecture (for structure as an overarching way of dealing with reality, see Structure; System). The focus will be on how a local congregation is organized, as opposed to a house church on one end of the ecclesiastical spectrum and a denomination on the other. In one sense the house church is a structure all by itself, whereas denominations have a number of local congregations, and sometimes regional associations, as building blocks (see Church in the Home; Denominations). By focusing on the traditional local church, this article deals with the level of organization that has the greatest impact on most believers. Rather than examine the internal workings of a local church in detail, the article will overview the variety of structures and how they relate to one another (see Church Leadership; Committees; Small Groups; Sunday School).

The Purpose of Structure and Structures

Structure is a rather modern, abstract way of talking about the intentional, purposeful subdivisions of a local church and the linkages between them. There is the ushering team, home groups, Sunday-school classes, the church board and congregations that gather for worship. Structures are one of the three major components that make up the system of a local church. The other two are resources—all of which are limited in some way (for example, member gifts, staff, building, time together, money and communication “platforms,” such as pulpit and publications)—and culture (the traditions and unspoken assumptions about the life and mission of the congregation). This systems theory approach to understanding the biblical idea of the body has been creatively explored by R. Paul Stevens and Phil Collins in The Equipping Pastor.

To what purposes should resources be applied under the influence of the culture of the church and through the structures in the church? The obvious answer is New Testament purposes. As we will see, however, this simple approach provides a powerful basis for evaluating the organization of a church. Although the New Testament is key, it is true that there are some clues about structures found in the Old Testament. A classic example is Exodus 18, where Moses, overburdened by caring for the Israelites in the desert, delegates responsibility for judging in minor matters to officials set over very specific subunits, right down to groups of ten. Another oft-cited example is the construction and security teams set up by Nehemiah that allowed the wall of Jerusalem to be rebuilt in fifty-two days (Neh. 6:15).

In spite of these stories, the central Old Testament system components were left behind under the new covenant; in particular these were the three central elements of the Mosaic covenant—sacrifice, priesthood and tabernacle. As Howard Snyder reminds us, “The amazing teaching of the New Testament, especially in the book of Hebrews, is that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of sacrifice, priesthood and tabernacle” (p. 57). This is why we should not speak of “going to church” on Sunday (for Jesus is accessible all the time through his once-for-all sacrifice) or of attending Pastor So-and-So’s church (for every believer is a member of the priesthood under the Great High Priest) or of “meeting at the church” (for Jesus is present everywhere and especially where two or three are gathered—regardless of the building in which they sit). According to Snyder, “The great temptation of the organized church has been to . . . turn community into an institution. Returning to the spirit of the Old Testament, she has set up a professional priesthood, turned the Eucharist into a new sacrificial system and built great cathedrals” (p. 58). Note how the soft and hard architectures often become intertwined, one reflecting the other and both reflecting a theology. Thus, from a structures point of view, the New Testament requires abandonment of the long-standing clergy and laity subdivisions in the church. It also may mean that building development committees are out of a job!

Structural thinking, however, must include more than knowing what to avoid. What are the positive New Testament purposes that should shape and evaluate structures (and all other aspects of local churches)? The most succinct description of these purposes, although anticipated by Jesus’ life beforehand and interpreted by Paul later, is found in reference to the earliest days of the church in Acts 2-3. There we find the perfect fulfillment of the so-called Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20: Go out and enroll (baptize) disciples or learners and then teach them to obey everything I have commanded (“the apostles’ teaching”; Acts 2:42). The key “obedience points” according to Acts 2:42 are loving one another (service and fellowship) and communion, offering praise, thanksgiving, worship and prayer. The conclusion, then, is that all structures in a local church should serve one or more of these five purposes: going/enrolling and discipling, which lead to “one-anothering,” worshiping and praying. Furthermore, none of these purposes should be neglected or out of balance.

Variety of Structures

What structures are appropriate to fulfill these purposes? Traditional subdivisions in a congregation have included the clergy-laity one criticized above, as well as age-and-stage groups, in either graded Sunday-school classes or midweek communities like “college and careers.” However, the latter groupings can be evaluated (and found somewhat wanting) in light of the benefit of intergenerational approaches to learning and relating. Are there any other useful structures? Indeed, two dividing lines have arisen with strong modern expression but also a good pedigree: group size and group purpose.

First, many students of ecclesiology are claiming that it is wise to have both large and small structures in a local church, typified by congregational meetings, such as worship services, and home meetings, such as Bible studies. This claim arises because it seems logically impossible to fulfill the fivefold purpose of the church without both kinds of experience. On one hand, how much practical and consistent loving of one another can happen in large meetings? On the other hand, how can the worship life of eight believers compare with the praise of one hundred or one thousand? Interestingly, though “the Bible is relatively silent regarding organizational and administrative patterns” (Getz, p. 185), it does seem to support the rhythm between large and small structures, as the meeting in the temple courts and in homes suggests (Acts 2:46). Based on the Bible and church history, Snyder is convinced that this rhythm is normative: “Whatever other structures may be found useful, large-group and small-group structures should be fundamental” (p. 164).

One modern finesse of this principle that has arisen out of the church growth movement is the addition of a medium group (sometimes—confusingly—referred to as “congregations” and numbering anywhere from fifty to two hundred people). These may form on an ad hoc basis (special equipping or evangelistic events) or be permanent (several small groups joining together for worship and teaching). In practice, though they may be of benefit in some settings, such medium groups represent the size of the average church—which returns to Snyder’s essential large-small rhythm.

The other distinction that leads to structures is that of group purpose or the wisdom of banding together to fulfill certain functions in a focused way. Thus, there is a place for the evangelism group and the fellowship group and the discipling group and the prayer group. These groups may be large or small; for example, evangelism took place in both settings (Acts 5:42). The point is that these groups focus gifting and other resources on certain purposes and peoples. Is this focus permitted? Or does every small group and large gathering have to cover all the purposes of the church all the time, with inward and outward emphases perfectly balanced?

Some argue strongly for this latter view. The Bible, however, seems to suggest otherwise. One of the most famous examples is the occasion in Acts 6 when the apostles preserve their own sense of purpose around prayer and teaching by appointing seven leaders to focus on practical fellowship needs in the body. This illustration also shows that the two favorite structures of local churches, namely, committees and leadership boards (elders, deacons, councils, staff teams), can function as purposeful small groups (sometimes called mission groups) if they are rightly designed and have been careful to gather the appropriate leadership gifts together to fulfill their mandate.

Losing and Choosing Structures

The ideas just promoted—design and care—suggest an element of freedom in the way a church is structured. This is the “scandal” of the local church: each one is free to choose its own way when it comes to how it is organized. Such diversity can be unsettling, but if it is true that the New Testament paints only broad strokes concerning church structure, then a diversity of organization seems inevitable. The first choice of church organizers may be to eliminate some structures; the second choice may be to add some new wineskins. Before any such plans for change are made, seven final provisos are in order.

1. All structures must be tested against the only critical measure: Are they advancing the cause of New Testament purposes in the unique life and mission setting of a particular church?

2. Structural thinking must extend beyond polity, that is, issues of church government or order and debates between congregational, episcopal and presbyterian forms. The whole body, not just decision-makers at the top, is to be equipped and mobilized through appropriate structures.

3. Any structure in place, including the specific large- and small-group models being tried, must be seen to be humanly created and temporary and therefore held on to with humility and an openness to change. A church not willing to change or even eliminate any structure is risking paralysis.

4. The substance always must come before the structure: “The church’s essential characteristic is life. . . . Its life is an organized life, to be sure; but this organization is secondary and derivative. It is the result of life. The church is, first of all, a spiritual organism, which may, secondarily, have some organizational expression” (Snyder, p. 157). The hard question that must be asked is, How much effort is being put into forming structures and how much into making sure those structures express New Testament life?

5. This is not to say that church structures are in the end somehow optional, even in churches that stress the charismatic over the institutional. Snyder refers to “phantom churches” that pride themselves on having little structure and impromptu gatherings. These may have highly individualistic members and yet be vulnerable to the first strong personality that comes along (Snyder, p. 77).

6. In this day of accelerated social change and increasingly flat hierarchies (with lots of lateral rather than vertical communication) in organizations outside the church, it is more important than ever for churches to have simple, flexible structures. If people walk into a church having experienced the organizational revolutions in the workplace and social institutions of today, they should not feel like they have stepped back three decades into the past.

7. However, one should be sure that any changes are truly necessary. Change should not be dictated by the latest fashion in church management or by some ideology about grassroots versus top-down initiatives or by an artificial struggle between people and programs. The adage “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” applies. One must heed the warning attributed to Petronius Arbiter (c. a.d. 66), who was project manager to Emperor Nero for the Roman games:

We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life we tend to meet any situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.

» See also: Church

» See also: Equipping

» See also: Organization

» See also: Organizational Culture and Change

» See also: Structures

References and Resources

J. W. Alexander, Managing Our Work (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1975); J. D. Anderson and E. E. Jones, The Management of Ministry (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978); G. Getz, Sharpening the Focus of the Church (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1984); R. Neighbour Jr., Where Do We Go from Here? (Houston: Touch Publications, 1990); H. A. Snyder, The Problem of Wineskins: Church Structure in a Technological Age (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1975); R. P. Stevens and P. Collins, The Equipping Pastor: A Systems Approach to Congregational Leadership (Washington, D.C.: Alban Institute, 1993).

—Dan Williams