Should Every Church have Bylaws?
By Executive Editor John Yoder
This blog is part of the series Cultural Differences that Drive Pastors CRAZY
The Board of the American church was waiting for a decision from its partnering immigrant church. But one of the elders of that church had taken a new job, and was unable to attend its meetings. Because their native culture makes decisions by consensus, no decision could be made. The deadline for a decision from the American church Board passed. Both sides were disappointed with each other.
What are the Bible’s requirements for church decision-making structures? Must a church have a constitution and bylaws? How relatively structured or fluid should decision-making processes be? How much of this is cultural?
God has richly blessed the Western church. The vast majority of Western churches have blessings that are not required by the New Testament. These include buildings, salaried staff, and formalized theological training. You can’t have these things without also having budgets and formalized decision-making processes. These blessings are so ubiquitous among Western churches, that Christians commonly believe that a church without a building, paid staff, and constitution isn’t a “real” church.
Ask yourself: Did the church at Jerusalem own a building? Did Jesus and Paul grant their disciples Master’s degrees? Did the church at Philippi have a constitution and bylaws?
Across the world, the places where the Kingdom is growing most rapidly is composed of mostly house churches. Some of this is because of persecution. It is also because believers live scattered in remote mountain or island villages. Countless times in Asia, I met marvelous pastors who had no church salary, formalized theological training, or building. Yet God is using them in ways he uses few Western pastors. Would their ministries be enhanced if we helped them write bylaws?
There are two common ways organic churches make decisions. One is by following the lead of the pastor. The other is by consensus—people in the church keep talking until they figure out what they want to do. Both of these paradigms work very well, but aren’t compatible with Western decision-making methodologies.
Immigration changes this paradigm. Christians who emigrate to the US as refugees are accustomed to highly fluid methods of decision making. But now they live in a country with an IRS, and expectations of proper financial management.
Some American churches assume that it is a kindness to help any immigrant church develop systems and structures. This is wise in many cases, but I’m not sure it’s universally true.
In my observation, many immigrant churches in the US spontaneously combust, morph, and dissolve. It’s all quite organic. Frequently it looks like this: 20 Swahili speakers in a community get to know each other. They decide start weekly worship. It might be in a home, or in a church building. The pastor has a job. They may never take an offering. If they do, people may simply give someone cash to buy treats.
If the pastor or key elder moves across town, the whole church may follow. If that key leader moves out of state, the church may simply dissolve. There is no formalized process. It’s all organic.
Many American denominations would not regard such a gathering as a church, but as a small group. However, the gathering meets all the New Testament criteria for church. It is inappropriate for us to regard it as anything less.
Should an immigrant congregation seek to develop formalized decision-making processes? It depends on its long-term vision. Some may be very content to continue using the house church model. Others may have a clear path to continued growth and development, and need to pursue greater structure. Still others want the blessings of greater structure, but in reality want to keep functioning as a house church. Providing them with systems would be like putting a Buick chassis on top of a bicycle.
Let me flip the question. Instead of asking whether American churches should help immigrant churches develop more structured processes, let’s consider whether immigrant churches might help American churches develop more fluid decision-making processes.
Many American denominations and mission agencies are highly bureaucratic. They are also in numerical decline. The fewer the people, the less structure is necessary. It’s much easier to evolve from fluid to formalized systems than to devolve in the other direction. But it may be necessary. Innovation rarely flourishes in bureaucracies.
It will be nearly impossible to dismantle the longstanding processes of older organizations. But if an organization truly values innovation and flexibility, it will create semi-autonomous subdivisions that can make limited decisions without multiple layers of approval. The smaller American churches, denominations, and nonprofits of the future must lead with flexibility. The more highly structured the organization, the closer it may be to the end of its natural life cycle.
There are pros and cons to both structured and fluid decision-making processes. Each church must rely on God’s guidance to choose appropriate structures for each stage of its unique journey.