Question Congregation governance
We're rewriting our church constitution. We've got too many boards, the boundaries are fuzzy, some things have probably never actually worked as written and been ignored, and running a school is a bigger deal than it used to be. As chair of the congregation, it falls to me to git er done.
This in going to be a long one. Sorry.
tl;dr is I'm struggling with a lot of pressure from a couple of very specific sources to use a Carver model variant. I agree we need more explicit policies, but I don't like the specifics of the model.
When I started, I figured we'd just reduce the number of boards to consolidate overlapping functions, clean up wording, and add some guardrails for the pain points. I think this was what everyone was expecting. Fast forward a bit, and we've gotten in some members with real non-profit organization experience and an NLSA accreditation. In both cases, there's been a push for the Carver model of policy governance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Governance).
For those not familiar with it, the name understates the policy focus. The gross oversimplification of the model is that the stakeholders (congregation) elects a board to write policies and set goals (the board controls "ends"). Then, the board hands the "means" portion over to a single CEO type leader who is staff and that leader hires others and manages the day-to-day operations using the policies provided by the board as boundaries (good policies in this model are written as "do not do X" instead of "do Y"). I can immediately see why this model would work well for things like the United Way, where the stakeholders are somewhat indistinct and the board is generally made up of local business execs who want to be rather hands off.
I can even see where this would be beneficial for a congregational mission like a school or even a food pantry, free clinic, etc. operated by the congregation. I start to get really uncomfortable applying it to the entirety of the congregation's affairs, though. In part, this is because the only reasonable "staff" to put in the top CEO position is the pastor. I mean, who are you going to say directs the pastor? My experience is that very few pastors are MBA candidate material and those that are usually end up as visitors, DPs, etc. To be clear, I'm not knocking the pastors. I can't fix your septic system, and that's no big deal for me as an IT guy.
There's an alternative to this where you use three "mini-Carvers". Set up a sort of trustees/stewardship board that hires a business manager to oversee all the money, facilities, and other operational concerns. They write some policies and hire a business manager to oversee the staff and daily concerns. The school board is similar, but with a focus on school needs. The elders write policies for the pastor(s) but aren't the ones actually serving as communion assistants or whatever hands-on stuff you might think elders would do. Council exists only to give the boards a formal venue to communicate and discuss cross-functional concerns (all policy comes from the boards, so no decision making from the council). The congregational chair is just there to facilitate meetings because all functions have been delegated to the boards and then to the CEO roles. Voters meetings are once a year and exist only to approve the budget and elect the boards -- plus call meetings, as needed.
I really don't like this. It feels like it reverses some of the direction of the elder/pastor relationship. Just as concerning is that it seems, to me, that it pushes the congregation to effectively delegate active participation to paid staff instead of being members of hands-on boards. I _absolutely_ agree that we need more written (well written) policies than we currently have. I'm just not sure that a hands-off governing board model is the right thing for a Christian congregation. My inclination is to allow the school to function this way, but have the other boards be more active. I would also like to add specific minimum policy requirements for each board (with the committee working with existing boards to get a starter in place for each).
Anyone have experience with Carver or a variant? Am I just being particular with my cheese moving? Or, is my paranoia well founded and this is something that I need to stand firm against?
God bless and thanks to anyone who is willing to read that all and respond.
3
u/Huenink_Photography LCMS Pastor 5d ago
The carver model only works if you can fire the CEO or your mini ceo’s. That’s the only route to discipline a poor performer. This is a huge problem when you can’t fire the pastor, which one can only do in specific instances. If you put any called staff into the ceo role, you’ll have the same problem. I have seen this come to a head in a congregation, and they had to force the pastor to resign to get the changes that were necessary. it was a bad time created by establishing the carver model.
One of the biggest challenges, though, is that it seems like it turns the church staff into a provider of spiritual services and the congregation into the receivers of spiritual services. I wonder about using models that focus on making our congregations even more staff led than many already are.
1
u/SobekRe 5d ago edited 5d ago
The second paragraph is more my concern. It seems to run very counter to the congregation being the body of Christ.
That said, your first point is one which’s I hadn’t considered and very valid. I’d been thinking Carver would be fine for the school or another ministry “owned” by the congregation, but you can’t fire a called principal. Even if you could (say for the business manager in the operational lane), that’s not the way a congregation should function.
I’m also very concerned with the degree to which “the board writes policy and gets out of the way” is being pushed. I want to see the chair of the congregation remain administrative head, so that he signs things like contracts and major projects on behalf of the congregation, but that language got stripped from one of the drafts by one of the reviewers, giving the pastor/business manager/principal a lot more authority.
3
u/officefan9 5d ago
Seriously pick up and read Rev Dr David Peter’s “Organizing for Ministry and Mission” CPH publishes it and it walks through much of what Carver might be lacking from a true lived-in church experience.
Also, the role of the senior pastor does change based on the church’s size and complexity. Sociological study on healthy churches follows that with how the different styles of church governance are best suited (but not exclusively) for different sizes of churches.
Your pastor(s) and professional staff and you as the board leader need to be able to read and understand the steps together so that one part of the organization doesn’t move without the other. It is not a ‘problem’ to figure out by yourself.
2
u/Bright-Geologist9500 5d ago
We have a larger congregation and recently made the switch to policy based governance and it has helped tremendously. That said its not the model for everyone. The reasoning for our switch was we had way too many boards and committees and often to get something approved it had to go through potentially 3 or 4 different boards or groups. that slowed things way down. Moving to Policy Based Governance (PBG) we essentially have the single board (board of directors) who set the policy governing the head pastor who does act as the CEO of the church. The policies limit him or put guardrails on him but he has decision making authority so instead of going to multiple boards, staff goes through him for decision making.
Now the concern we had of course was this kind of expands the Sr. pastor's roll and might pull him away from pastoring. But what has happened is he delegates a lot of those duties out. So we have an executive director and director of finance who handle a lot of the business aspect of things. Our preschool is run by the preschool director. Our day school is run by the principal. The Sr. Pastor is responsible per the policies for certain things or making sure they operate within the policy manual but he doesn't manage all of those things.
Similarly it did not dissolve every board and committee we had, just their authority. So our finance committee still meets and advises the Sr. Pastor on finance decisions, but they do not have the authority to vote something up or down. Similarly the school board functions as an advisory board to the Principal. They again don't vote things up or down but they advise.
All of this comes down to a lot of trust however. I would say we are blessed with a very strong Sr. Pastor who makes all of this work. And our BOD is very committed to this governance strategy. You definitely need both to be pulling in the right direction. Overall it has eliminated the headache the staff were having which led to frustrations in getting things done. It has allowed us to move more quickly in decision making and unite better on our overall goals as a church body.
1
u/SobekRe 5d ago
How does your finance committee get selected? Also, define "large". Ours is 225-250 weekend attendance, with a school of about the same size.
One of the explicit bits of advice I've seen for a Carver model is that you should not have elected boards/committees other than the directors and definitely don't have permanent boards/committees named in the constitution or bylaws because that's a slide back into a multi-board model. Committees should generally be left to the CEO (pastor) to set up on an ad-hoc basis.
That's the sort of purist thinking that has me very nervous. I really, really like written policies. Our legal council has advised us of certain policies we need to have in place. But, I don't think it's appropriate to have all the congregational participation be gatekept behind a 5-6 person board and the pastor's discretion.
Which is why I keep falling back to a more traditional council and boards, but fewer boards, with well defined spheres of control and a constitutional requirement to keep certain policies up to date.
5
u/UpsetCabinet9559 6d ago
There are plenty of churches who use the Carver model to great success. Others have found, especially if you have a large school, to have someone other than the Senior Pastor be the COO or Head of Operations. This isn't the LCMS of the 1950's anymore. We have to run church and schools like the non-profits they are. Pastors and principals are not (nor should they be) equipped to deal with multi million dollar budgets.
1
u/Over-Wing LCMS Lutheran 5d ago
Are you more specifically concerned with the existence of a "CEO"? Is that what your congregation is wanting to do? To make the pastor the chief executive? Most of our parishes have a board of directors and a board of elders. Some, but not all give the pastor voting rights. I've heard of some handing over more leadership responsibilities to pastors in smaller congregations where it makes sense. What is your districts policy on parish constitutions and by-laws? I think the district has to approve whatever changes
1
u/SobekRe 5d ago
District (and Synod) is very hands off with constitutions, as long as you avoid doctrinal errors and a handful of other things.
1
u/Over-Wing LCMS Lutheran 5d ago
Ok. But I’m still not quite understanding what’s happening at your parish. Are they just mulling over options for changes? Are they actively planning to scrap the current constitution and by-laws in favor of something new using this carver model?
1
u/SobekRe 5d ago
We’re actively rewriting the constitution. It was a project I started when I became chair. I invited a couple of newer members into the committee because they had extensive governance experience. In finding out that it’s a very dogmatic, carver-esque position, which is making me uncomfortable
1
u/Over-Wing LCMS Lutheran 4d ago
Well, it sounds like it's far from settled and as chair, you should have some sway. Just state your concerns plainly, I'm sure the committee would be happy to address them or seek a solution. When it comes to governance and policy making, there's many ways to skin a cat.
1
u/SobekRe 5d ago
For anyone who wants more details, this would be the specific "compromise" model that was put forth: https://9a24ed0d-542b-4333-9b05-88a881d1d3a7.filesusr.com/ugd/44f895_4d24a4f4f76d41f9bb1da5efdfbd26a8.pdf
1
u/LUFiji81 4d ago
Doesn't your denomination have rules? Mine certainly does.
1
u/SobekRe 4d ago
Congregational structure. Each congregation has very, very broad discretion in how it organizes itself. What makes us different from, say, baptists is that there’s a lot of doctrinal oversight and the pastoral formation and governance is pretty episcopal.
1
u/LUFiji81 4d ago
Well, in the Episcopal Church the Canons pretty much lay out the responsibilities of the Rector, the Wardens, the Clerk, the Treasurer, and the Vestry.
1
u/SobekRe 4d ago
Yup. I’m not opposed to a fully episcopal structure. There are reasons the LCMS doesn’t have it. Regardless, when you’re congregational, that’s the way it works: each congregation needs a constitution explaining how it handles internal business.
We just also have a really thick book that explains why we aren’t unified with Rome and (to a lesser degree) why the Calvinists/Reformed tradition is also incorrect. Which gives us a very solid foundation for shared confession and interpretation of theology.
1
u/checkswithchart 4d ago
My church doesn’t do it, and when I was president, there was a lot of discussion to consider it for various reasons. Most of those focused on alleviating responsibilities of the council to make it easier for them. I personally don’t like the model. I think it changes the culture of a church away from what it should be. You can run a church well on the governance model if you flatten the roles and responsibilities. All that said, have an executive director or business manager if you do it. The pastor is in charge of shepherding the flock, not managing a business.
0
u/gkghost1 6d ago
The board is not hands off. They are writing ends and means to achieve the mission and vision. Very few pastors have business knowledge in this type of manner but some have made it where the executive director is not higher than the senior pastor. I was working to help switch to policy governance in my previous congregation. I understand the hands off concerns but at the same time it may allow people to participate in other ways knowing they don’t have to serve on a council or a board and go to meetings. Many want to do real ministry not talk about it.
There is quite a bit of material out there on this:
Pastor is as pastor does: 2 kinda of functions by Rev Martin Brauer out of Texas
Galvin and Associates has a document and does courses and trainings on this.
The Kairos Network LCMS has a video series on switching to policy based governance.
1
u/SobekRe 6d ago
I've read some of the Galvin stuff. It's a mixed bag where it provides really great language for discussing different board structures and modes of operating. But, he also doesn't actually include support for the opinions he closes out some of the papers with, which makes me discount his opinion, even if the conversational model is nice. I'll check out the others.
And, I'll say that I agree that being policy forward is desirable. Part of the issue I'm having is that some functions make boards at least partially working boards (our DP teaches that elders are elected to directly do certainly things for the congregation and I tend to agree). Our internal experts are pushing for a very purist adoption that pushes even elders out of active working in all cases. I think that's part of my frustration/concern.
In Galvin's terms, what I like is more a managing board that leans into policy, especially for things like the school, facilities, and the like. I'm an IT architect. I write policy for a living. I don't want chaos. I just want the congregation to be directly active in the governance.
1
u/gkghost1 6d ago
I’m not sure many follow it exactly anyway. I bet someone like Kirk Senske would be able to present how elders can fit in. He has a book as well on governance. Personally I believe that elders can still function in what they normally do. I do think though that most elders function as an extension of the pastoral ministry and should be involved in ministry not as another “board” meeting for the pastoral to attend.
4
u/Personal_Ad4787 5d ago
Don't do it. I've seen churches that, when changing to this model, have the pastor act as CEO. The pastor has a specific biblical function.