Moving the ministry of your church forward requires a delicate dynamic of giving and receiving between the leaders and members. If not monitored closely, this dynamic morphs into a tug-of-war match, which always ends up with one side tumbling. If not both.
When the effort behind the ministry tugs toward the leaders, programmatic ministry results. This is when the church does things through events and campaigns run mainly by the pastors and elected church leaders. On the other hand, when the members mostly pull the ministry forward, organic ministry will characterize the church. That is to say, spontaneous, relational service and outreach will be deemed most valuable and authentic.
Both programmatic and organic ministry have strengths that all churches desire. We need pastoral ministry teams that can dream big and make big things happen. Furthermore, it is every pastor’s dream to have members so invested in kingdom work that they reach out to their fellow church members and cities without being prodded.
Despite the strengths that each model brings, if either programmatic ministry or organic ministry is allowed to run the church, the church’s ministry efforts will soon be hindered.
The short-lived results of programs
Say, for example, you wanted to put on a service week at your church. It’s good to do acts of service in your community as a way to open doors for the gospel, so your goal is to gather up everyone in the church to serve. The problem is that your church might feel forced into this. Programs – even good ones – have a way of coercing people into Christian behavior, rather than the action being from the overflow of their hearts.
Extrinsic participation like this doesn’t last long. When the service week is over, the acts of service end. Everyone goes back to life as usual because there was nothing intrinsic about why people served.
When the programs stop the results stop, therefore programs don’t provide sustainable change to churches.
In response to these weaknesses, churches have swung toward an organic ministry priority. Responding to needs in the community is emphasized over initiatives that are pushed by the leadership. Programs seem forced and contrived, but organic ministry – its advocates contend – is spontaneous and, therefore, more authentic.
But organic ministry, in responding to the here and now, can easily overlook the future. The hallmark of any good leader or leadership team is vision. Churches need to look three, five, and ten years down the road and discern how to minister the gospel then, not just now. A church that prioritizes organic ministry will fail to be ready for the future.
Therefore, grassroots ministry can become myopic. People lean toward opportunities that are natural to them, but never branch outside their comfort zones. They are rarely stretched to think outside their boxes.
Strike the Balance with Church Structures
What is needed, then, is a system that allows for leaders to lead the direction of the church, but also encourages members to take initiative and serve from the heart.
How do you do that? With structures.
A church structure is any system that has been put in place that equips and enables people to do ministry, without that thing being the ministry itself.
So church structures are distinct from programs. With programs, the program is the ministry. When the program stops, the ministry stops. But a structure can be put in place quickly and allow for meaningful ministry to happen indefinitely.
Structures also distinct from the ad hoc natures of organic ministry. Strategic church leaders will invest in structures that lead toward their ministry goals, thus equipping people for spontaneous, heartfelt ministry that is aligned with the mission of the church.