Church Organization

[mike]

In another thread we are discussing the issue of accountability in the context of of charitable organizations. I'd like to discuss the same issue when it comes to organizing local churches.

What are the benefits of organizing numbers of local congregations into larger units such as conferences, fellowships, districts, or other formal associations? What are the negative effects?

What are the benefits of local congregations operating autonomously or independently? What are the negatives of independence?

Must such arrangements be formal? Can they exist organically without the need for formal agreements?

What if any biblical teaching or precedent exists for forming such organizations?

Feel free to ask any other questions or raise any other issues related to the topic.

[Ken]

The biggest advantage is economies of scale. A single independent congregation doesn’t have the resources to do things like run its own summer camps, publish its own hymnal, operate its own college or seminary, etc.

A second advantage is socialization and keeping your children within the church and faith. If your dating pool is one small congregation that isn’t much. But if you are a member of a larger denomination that has larger organizational structures where your children can find spouses within your specific faith that is a huge advantage. I honestly think that is one of the biggest reasons why so many denominations built so many small colleges across the country in the past century rather than just relying on public universities.

[mike]

Resources, efficiency, socialization. Good answers.

[barnhart]

Must such arrangements be formal? Can they exist organically without the need for formal agreements?

Mennonites in the south have been running Hartwell center cooperatively for 30 years or so.

[ohio jones]

A few more benefits:

Consistency. If I identify a church as BMA or Eastern, for example, I have a pretty good idea what their doctrine and practice is going to look like.

Accountability. If one congregation or leader goes off the deep end, others can provide discipline and (hopefully) restoration.

Recognition. When the government is trying to decide if you qualify for an exemption from taxes or military service (for example), being part of a larger movement is helpful.

Mutual Aid. Needs in one location can be met by others in the group.

[Szdfan]

Accountability. If one congregation or leader goes off the deep end, others can provide discipline and (hopefully) restoration.

Along with pastoral accountability, pastoral support. The fellowship I had with other pastors (Mennonite and otherwise) was incredibly important to me when I was a pastor.

[steve-in-kville]

I've belonged to both small independent groups as well as large conferences and both have pro's and con's. I've said this before and I'll repeat it: I am not a fan of the Mennonite system of "bishop for life" structure. Most Brethren circles across the conservative/progressive spectrum vote on a lead pastor or elder (whatever you want to call it) every four years. This, for the most part, allows for some accountability. Again, for the most part.

My opinion, of course.

[Josh]

Must such arrangements be formal? Can they exist organically without the need for formal agreements?

I think formal arrangements are necessary once accountability and oversight is needed, which starts to be necessary once things like money are involved.

[Josh]

I've belonged to both small independent groups as well as large conferences and both have pro's and con's. I've said this before and I'll repeat it: I am not a fan of the Mennonite system of "bishop for life" structure. Most Brethren circles across the conservative/progressive spectrum vote on a lead pastor or elder (whatever you want to call it) every four years. This, for the most part, allows for some accountability. Again, for the most part.

My opinion, of course.

Yes, I agree an episcopal structure is negative, although I do think ordinations for be for life - in my own church circles, a minister or deacon (we don’t have bishops anymore) can be removed upon the urging of a congregation with some outside involvement from ministers from other congregations.

Ultimately, our model is that as members we are ultimately overseen by all the ministers in our congregations everywhere, but simultaneously ministers are accountable to their own congregation’s laity plus all the other ministers.

Some committees or organisation leadership must be composed of ministers and deacons. Others may be composed of any church members. This makes such committees and organisations have implicit accountability and oversight.

Most committees rotate so that nobody is on them more than 2, 4, 6, or 8 years, which prevents power from becoming entrenched. As we don’t believe in a pope, no mini-popes and fiefdoms should start to form.

[Josh]

What are the benefits of organizing numbers of local congregations into larger units such as conferences, fellowships, districts, or other formal associations? What are the negative effects?

Numerous, but I think a fellowship model is the best (although I prefer my own church’s hybrid fellowship - conference model, but I don’t know of anyone else that does it).

What are the benefits of local congregations operating autonomously or independently? What are the negatives of independence?

I don’t know of any benefits. I’d like to hear of some.

I know a lot of people chafed under a conference model and may have reacted by becoming fully independent.

What if any biblical teaching or precedent exists for forming such organizations?

Feel free to ask any other questions or raise any other issues related to the topic.

Well, Paul and Peter seemed to have contact with numerous churches and exercised oversight and authority over them, explicitly. The church as described in the NT seemed to me to have both a fellowship and a conference model, including the Jerusalem Conference convening.