The Governance of Washington Church

On a regular basis I am asked the question, "How are decisions made at Washington Church?"  This question rarely comes up unless there is a difficulty or a difference in opinion or a disagreement regarding some decision that's made.  As long as everything is running smoothly and everyone's happy, no one bothers to ask the question.  It is important, however, for every church to have a well worked out system as to how decisions are made; not simply so crisis situations can be handled with minimal damage, but most importantly so that continuous progress can be made in various ministry areas.

Our system is a rather unique one that has evolved over a period of many years.  The one element above all others that makes is work is trust.  We trust that God will guide us into the future.  We trust that God is in the selection process as we seek to set aside certain individuals to lead.  And we trust that God is working in and through those leaders in their respective ministry positions, even though we may disagree with decisions that are made.  Without trust it doesn't matter what we have written down on paper.  As you read what follows, keep in mind that trust is the necessary ingredient that connects every item on the following flow chart.

We believe that absolute authority and power begins and ends with God Himself.  In His infinite wisdom He has delegated responsibility and the corresponding authority to carry out that responsibility to His church, which in our case is comprised of all our members.  Our constitution says, "The government of this church is vested in its members who exercise the right of control in all its affairs."  In other words, God delegates the responsibility and authority for advancing the Kingdom directly into the hands of His children - all His children.  (This, by the way, is a distinctly congregational - and we believe biblical - understanding of biblical authority.  The Congregationalists broke off from the Anglican Church back in the 1600's because they did not believe that a King or a Pope or a Bishop should stand between the local church and God Himself.)

If our church, like most of the New Testament churches, was very small in size, say 15 or 20 people, the question of who is in charge would not be an issue.  However, as the church grew it became obvious that a pure democracy (everyone gets one vote on every issue), was not practical.  (Think of what it would be like for everyone aboard the Queen Mary to be given an oar and told to paddle in whatever direction they felt was best.)  As a result God set up a way that Spiritual authority could be delegated from the people into the hands of responsible mature and wise men and women.  Thus, in the New Testament we read about the office of both Elder and Deacon.  We believe these individuals were called both by God and His people to represent both God and His people in the building up His Church and in the advancing of His Kingdom.  And so we have a delegation of authority from all the believers to a handful of servant leaders.  Our By Laws say, "the Board of Elders, operating as servant leaders is responsible for the complete oversight of the church.  They are to be vigilant in looking after the spiritual development of our congregation giving constant attention to envisioning for our future."

As we continue to read in the New Testament we discover that as the early churches continued to grow in size it was necessary that an individual be called both by God and the local congregation to devote full time to the leadership of the church.  This person's job was not to do all the ministry himself, rather to empower God's people for work of the ministry - the building up of the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12).  Hence we have the establishment of the office of pastor.  Authority over them is delegated from God to the people to the Elders  and then to the pastor.  Our By-laws state, "The Senior Pastor shall have responsibility to lead and enable the church in all areas of its Christian ministry."

Many Churches stop right here.  Many of my friends who are pastors are crushed by the weight of ministry they feel on their shoulders alone.  In contrast to this, we at Washington Church feel that authority is not so much a linear progression as much as it is a cyclical progression.  (see above diagram)  In our fellowship we have more than a dozen ministry  teams (such as MOPS, 20/30 Ministry team, Missions Ministry team, Youth Ministry team, Worship Ministry team, Human Resources Ministry team, etc.  These ministry teams are staffed by lay people.  The responsibility and authority to make decisions in these respective ministry areas is placed back on the shoulders of the lay people.  Each ministry team seeks God's guidance and direction and makes decisions in light of the overall vision that God has revealed to the church as well as the specific details that He reveals to them.

Now, the question needs to be asked, "What if there is a conflict between what a ministry team wants to do and what the Elders want to do? What if the Pastor disagrees with a ministry team decision?"   Here is where the system, as well as our trust in one another plays an important role.  When the people delegate authority to the Elders it is not some token gesture.  The intent is that the people will submit to the decisions made by the Elders.  Likewise, when the Elders delegate authority to the Pastor, it is understood that they will submit to his authority.  Likewise, when the Pastor delegates authority to the Ministry Teams it is understood that he will submit to their authority.  Each preceding group may have the power to veto any decision made by a group they delegate  power to, but if they exercise that right on an ongoing basis, they fail to demonstrate trust in the people they have empowered to do ministry.

For example, I have been on a number of mission trips overseas.  Each time a new opportunity arises I submit the request to the Missions Team.  The Missions Team discusses the opportunity and makes a decision whether or not I can go on a particular mission trip based on whether this trip will facilitate the mission mindedness of Washington Church at large.  If the Missions Team felt that my trip would not contribute to the well-being of Washington Church's mission-mindedness, then I would not go on the trip.  In other words, the transferring authority to make decisions from one group to another is not simply a nice gesture that looks good on paper, it is one that we as the family of God's people must be willing to submit to, myself included.  (There are rare exception when a group earlier in the "chain" must supercede the authority that they have delegated to a group further on in the chain.  These are usually problematic and extremely "sticky" situations where confidential information exchange does more damage than good and once again trust in one another needs to be demonstrated.)

I am very much aware of the fact that this system is not perfect.  In fact, it is extremely vulnerable to any individual or small group of individuals who lack trust in God and His people, to do significant damage.  I know of no better way, however, to combine the best of both:

• A)  Maximum involvement of God's people

• B)  The necessity for strong leadership

I am committed to both of these principles; a strong leadership and a strong laity.  It is a delicate and tenuous balance, yet the alternatives on either side are significantly less than what we desire as a church.

It has taken many strenuous years to get to the place where we are today.  We have all grown together.  I am privileged to have been able to work these issues out with so many of you.  God has in store for us the most magnificent future that anyone of us could imagine.  May we continue to grow in our trust of both God and one another.

Pastor Don Fothergill

Copyright © 2005 Washington Church.