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]

Check out this really good post from Team Pyro (yes, you read that right). They have been writing a series on faith and politics. Anyone who thinks that we are a “Christian Nation” because biblical moral are made into laws has something else coming. Anyhow, check it out.