How can a church make changes to structure while staying within the church order guidelines?

Managing changes to the church governance structure is challenging. I have been quite involved in these processes in my home church (which is Presbyterian, but I grew up in the CRC and am still closely linked with the denomination).

My recommendations to my own congregation are based on the three "P" principles: prayer; process and procedures; and participation. In general, when leadership follows the three Ps, leadership will arrive at answers that may not be pleasing to every single person, but are defensible, justified, and often satisfying to most congregation members. Let me briefly elaborate on each "P". Please note that all of my comments must be read with the understanding that the changes being pursued fall within the scope of church order guidelines.

Prayer: Any and all efforts to change a local church's governance structure must be bathed in lots of prayer and the prayer must seek to implement God's will for the congregation. In other words, ask God for direction in terms of both the process of the change and change itself. Don't come to God with a preconceived idea of what the change should be. Let God lead--and prepare to be led.

Process and procedure: Good process is central. Good process ensures that the process of deciding upon changes to the governance structure and the process of implementing those changes are done in a fair, transparent, and participatory manner. This area is often bungled by churches (and all sorts of other organizations). The process needs to be designed with the needs of the local congregation in mind, so there is no "one size fits all" approach. Still, I can tell you some of the traits of good process. Good process is open and transparent. Process and procedures are determined at the outset and clearly communicated to all stakeholders so that everyone knows how things will unfold. Decision-making mechanisms are adopted and their nature is also communicated to stakeholders. Good process involves participation (the last "P", described below). Studies on procedural fairness, for example, show that if people perceive that they have been fairly treated in a process they are more likely to accept the outcome of the process, even if the result does not favour them. To be fair, a process must allow people to be heard on the issues (see participation, below). The process must also be free from bias. Thus, if there is an individual who is known to have strong views on what the outcome of the process should be, that individual should not be the chair of the committee on implementing governance changes. You want a leadership team that is open to hearing a variety of voices and experiences and that is willing and able to think creatively about the changes to the governance structure and how to implement those changes. The final decision of the committee should generally be ratified by the congregation, though only after the committee has had an opportunity to present its findings and explain its recommendations.

In general, it is a good idea to ask other churches about their experiences with various governance structures. Gather as much information as possible to determine what type of governance structure would work in the context of your own congregation, given the needs of the congregation, its location, its demographics, and the vision that God has given to the congregation for its role in Kingdom service.

Participation: Participation is so very important. People must be able to participate in the process of change. The views of congregation members should be solicited. Town hall meetings, if run properly, can be very useful in this regard. Once the leadership committee has developed a proposal for change, the proposal should be presented to the congregation and the congregation should again be given the opportunity to comment on the proposal and to ask questions. Finally, as noted, major changes should be ratified by the congregation. It is also very important to determine what level of "yays" is necessary for the changes to be ratified: 51%, 67%, 80%? Decide at the very outset of the process and communicate this information to the congregation.

As a final word of advice, do not be afraid of dissent. You will never be able to please everyone. Furthermore, dissent early in the process, if managed well, can be fruitful since it can generate a wide range of ideas and options for consideration. As the process unfolds, you will want to move to more and more consensus building. If dissent persists, it may be a good time to reflect on what God is teaching the congregation at that moment: what is the source of this dissent? Does the congregation have a shared vision of what God is calling the congregation to be in its community?

At the end of the day, if a decision has been bathed in prayer and has been taken following a good, participatory process, the decision will be a strong one and justifiable even to the biggest cranks in the congregation. Of course, make sure the final decision complies with the church guidelines.

I hope that this lengthy reply has not bored you and that it has been at least somewhat helpful. I would be happy to provide further information about the above and to share tips about process, procedures and participation--and prayer, too.

Theresa Miedema, aka The Governance Geek

Hi, Ken, thanks for the reponse.

I want a good resource so that I, too, know what good minutes are supposed to look like and what are some good principles and tips for taking minutes, from some "governance geeks," as Theresa styles herself. Just because I know what not-so-great minutes look like doesn't mean I know how they should be done; I also want to educate myself. I also want something written down for successive clerks to be able to use as a resource. I have found some (rather limited) resources on the web, including Roberts Rules of Order, which is helpful. But the dragon stuff I don't think will help, because first of all I don't speak Dragonese (sorry, I was just reading How to Train Your Dragon with my kids for bedtime), and more seriously, because minutes are specifically not a blow-by-blow account of everything everyone said. As I found on the robertsrules.com website FAQ:

Question 15

Isn't it necessary to summarize matters discussed at a meeting in the minutes of that meeting in order for the minutes to be complete?

Answer:

Not only is it not necessary to summarize matters discussed at a meeting in the minutes of that meeting, it is improper to do so. Minutes are a record of what was done at a meeting, not a record of what was said. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 451, l. 25-28; see also p. 146 of RONR In Brief.] {RONR = Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised}

But that's probably not what you had in mind anyway. I'm probably better at typing than I am talking to a computer, so the Dragon software probably wouldn't be that helpful. I do have a writer friend who uses it. I'm going to keep looking and asking.

http://www.ehow.com/how_3815_minutes-business-meeting.html

I've always been curious as to why minutes should include the names of movers and seconders of motions.   Got any thoughts on that?  Is it about accountability?  Thanks.

John, that's a pretty good set of guidelines!  Thanks for it.   It reminds me of the old wisdom that a decision is not really made unless it is accompanied by a WHO and a WHEN.   Clerks and secretaries can often be helpful to the process by asking the mover (or the group)  to include those pieces in a decision so they can be on the record.    What do you think about that?

Karl, you asked two questions.  So first, about movers and seconders.   The guidelines I provided are general guidelines.  I think if you have a larger council or a congreg mtg, then they are good to follow.   If you have a small council, say five or less people, then you could assume consensus for many motions if you like, since it will almost always be the same people making and seconding the motions.  This is assuming that the meeting minutes identify who attended the meeting.   It is also important to identify if someone comes later to the meeting, and when they entered.   This will clarify if they were part of the discussion on a particular issue or not.   For some issues, particularly money issues or changing bylaws or annual meeting or other governance issues, the formal motion would be required, especially by the Societies Act.   It verifies that the motion was actually presented properly and voted on. 

Second, yes, adding a who and when is a good procedure, and documenting it in the minutes ensures/encourages that a decision will be acted upon.  The person responsible can be a part of the motion, or can be a consensus agreement after the motion.  We often call them action items.  This ensures accountability.   This is not solely the job of the secretary/clerk to make sure that someone is accountable, but the clerk needs to record it and should remind the meeting that someone should be responsible for an action item.   

For some items, detailing the "when" is essential, so that subsequent events and activities can take place when they need to.  This may involve some timeline planning.   For other items, the timeline planning will be left to the person/persons responsible for the action. 

Loretta, getting to your original question of changing governance, it would be helpful if you identified just what changes are needed and why they are needed.   There is lots of flexibility to adjust governance to allow churches to manage their affairs.   But it seems to me you will need a council and or consistory regardless.   The deaconate work can be delegated to the deacons, and a frame of reference can be developed for the deacons.  The context of their authority would be defined:  how and when can they raise funds, and how they can spend it. 

Then there are committees.  They can be established, given a terms of reference, and a budget, or they can be asked to come back to council with all decisions, or just larger decisions over a certain amount of money. 

There are lots of ways of doing things within the general and over-riding authority of the council, which is ultimately responsible, but can delegate some of that day-today responsibility to others.

Are you only concerned about the internal church matters, or also about the relationship of the church to classis? 

..John.